Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
With One News falling in the ratings, I wonder whether they've decided to listen to Simon Dallow ... with the two big stories of the last week and a bit - Don Brash' resignation, and the Fiji 'crisis', Dallow has been dispatched to the scene to lead the coverage.
And once he got there, the coverage was comprehensive. And good (the Fiji coverage last night finally looked beyond the coup=bad sensibilities, for example). Hard News has always been a preference of Dallow's; One News haven't listened to his concerns and thought 'hey, maybe we'll let this guy be a journalist', have they?
Am I just being a little too optimistic? Or is this a sign of good things to come for NZ news journalism?
-
Speaking of mistakes in The Hollow Men, I finally got my copy today and yet to even get to the first chapter come across this (sorry if someone else has already mentioned it):
Acknowledgments
...Steven Price for legal advice, Anna Rogers as editor, Anna Rogers as Editor, Peter Dorn...Kinda funny - is the rest of it this error-ridden =)
-
What exactly do you mean by that Graeme?
While some refer to the Orewa speech as the most divisive thing to happen to NZ race relations in some time, I'd suggest that that would actually be the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
If anything, Orewa created a bi-partisan ('though not non-partisan or multi-partisan) consensus on race in NZ - that Government should be funding 'need not race'.
People were asking for an inlcusive society - I was suggesting that one in which the PM refers to Maori opposed to the Foreshore and Seabed Act as 'Haters and Wreckers', and prefers to talk to sheep, probably isn't that inclusive.
-
rodgerd: Key's voting record suggests he and I have very different visions of an inclusive society.
Well, he did vote against the Foreshore and Seabed Act ... is that a start?
-
I've been trying to buy this for days now, but no-one seems to have any left at the time I'm around ... but onto other issues ... the current evidence we have that the emails were "stolen" is that (presumably) Hager's legal advisors have told him he was caught by the injunction.
They're probably in a better position to know than just about anyone else - if they think they're covered it means they think they're stolen - who am I to disagree?
-
Asserting that someone forged something is certainly defamatory (NZ abolished the libel/slander distinction a number of years ago). Unless Basset can prove it true, however (perhaps he has a sent items folder that keeps everything and what Hager claims he sent, he doesn't have a copy of).
-
With the comments here, I was expecting something much cheesier ... it's kinda nice to know.
-
Brash aide Bryan Sinclair writes of the postcard to National racing spokesperson Lindsay Tisch:
We [Parliamentary office] could produce our own flyer outlining our racing policy, seeing as HQ won't fund the postcard. As long was we don't put 'vote, donate or support' on it, and we don't use Party Vote logos, it's a valid constituency communication.
A "valid constituency communication"? God, the 'pay it back' campaign was even more audaciously hypocritical than I thought...
Not quite the same as Labour - who thought it was acceptable with the party logo too.
-
With thanks to C4 and its one-hit wonders ... still a great beat!
-
And Dr Brash will give copies of his emails to Nicky Hager, thereby removing him from the application of the injunction (which only applies to those with the emails without consent).
The books gets out and Hager doesn't have to go to court - the networks might still want to, however.