Posts by Hebe
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to Russell Brown,
3 News reporters have to stop using the Prime Minister to articulate their story angles
++++1 That's it.
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to Tinakori,
Patrick Gower looks to me like he's on HST. Certainly a centre-stage ego and a whatever-it-takes man, but that's not by itself a failing. Much of the blame lies with the channel news execs and their "culture". Maybe 3 see a rampaging Gower as the "balance" antidote to John Campbell's star.
The need remains for a clear distinction between reportage, campaigning journalism and commentary. The MSM media seems unable to draw that line, or even figure out that they differ, and that goes for print and television.
-
Hard News: Republished: The CTV collapse…, in reply to Sacha,
"chaos and adrenaline that come into play in a real event"
...which can be mitigated by system design and constantly staying in touch with who your collaborators are likely to be.
No system could have been designed to cope with the conditions people were working under that day. The threat to rescuers' lives was unrelenting and unpredictable; communications and the usual avenues of recourse were totally disrupted and often not working.
The rescue chain of command, like all of us, would have constantly been assaulted by the huge aftershocks --by my count 51 quakes of a mag 4 or more in the first 24 hours -- meaning the adrenaline response kept piling on and on. Time to think through process was not possible for anyone on the ground.
-
Hard News: Polls: news you can own, in reply to BenWilson,
The ones we know about can at least be ringfenced as known unknowns. But this is moving into the territory of unknown unknowns.
And these are the unknowns that we really need to know more about.
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to llew40,
All of that.
-
Last night got me to the point of "why watch any TV news?" Patrick Gower's variable relationship with journalism and its ethics and increasing undeclared partisanship, added to Paul Henry on Nightline (no rational reason; I just cannot stand the man's delivery). I will stick with John Campbell and some Maori TV and leave the rest. It doesn't do what I want: ie report all the known facts, ask searching questions, and leave me to decide what I think.
-
Hard News: Polls: news you can own, in reply to BenWilson,
I wouldn't like to speculate: there are too many unknowns.
-
Hard News: Polls: news you can own, in reply to Pete George,
'Don't know' in the Colmar poll were not 18%, they were 13% (up 3). There was also 'Refused' at 5% (up 2). Both add up to 18 but they are not the same thing.
You're right thanks -- I went searching and found the breakdown. It's still by far the largest increase of Don't Knows in a month: overall DK has gone from a stable 8%
in May, July, Sept and 9% in Oct, 10% in Feb to 13% in March.
(Refuseds are pretty much 3 to 5% of the total constantly.)An interesting trend.
-
Hard News: Polls: news you can own, in reply to Russell Brown,
At the least, the increase in undecided voters -- some of whom may be turning away from labour and Cunliffe, remember -- seems worthy of comment.
Did you riff off Bomber for this post? I inadvertently set him on to this today.
Beloved and I clocked it last night as the only interesting trend line in the polls: don't knows being up 5 per cent to 18 per cent in a month. That's a humungous leap. Admittedly I'm slightly obsessed with Don't knows/won't vote since the methodology surrounding them was changed a few years ago. Now most political journos don't seem to recognise them as at all interesting. In MMP, those voters are crucial.
And don't knows are quite different creatures to won'ts. Yet they are no longer differentiated by pollsters. Major fail. I bet the parties try to figure that.
Don't knows can only be good for NZ First.
-
Capture: Getting closer, in reply to Nora Leggs,
Wow.