Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to ,
That certainly makes more sense. But you wouldn't have got that impression from reading this.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Chur. So much interesting stuff I'm having trouble remembering who said what.
Funny that Stuff could pick up on Snowden's NSA presence in Auckland comment but end the article with Briscoe's denial without raising Snowden's response as you said.
-
Who was it that smacked down Briscoe's claim that Southern Cross could not have been tapped?
-
Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election, in reply to Alfie,
The papers are merely a smokescreen from an increasingly desperate government.
Yeah, that was my reaction too. What exactly does this disprove?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to BenWilson,
Is there any difference?
That goes to the question of intent, m'lud
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Indeed. Much more detail is required if the journalist was actually going to make a good fist of analysing the poll result. Who is changing their voting preferences? Is it National supporters? Is it undecideds? Who?
While many will be entrenched in their voting intention (for good or bad), the fact that 15% are changing is really quite significant.
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to Russell Brown,
Otoh, I don’t have a problem with clearly-signalled sponsored posts from organisations looking for a conversation, as we’ve done for the Law Commission and NZTA. It’s not all one thing.
And my impression is that these are conversations that are of public interest rather than the private purchase of goods and services.
-
Could the Herald’s spin to downplay Dirty Politics get more blatant?
The article starts by saying
Eighty per cent of voters say Nicky Hager’s best-selling book Dirty Politics won’t make any difference to their vote.
To its credit, the Herald does later pick up on the important bit:
Hager said the fact 14.6 per cent of those surveyed said they would change the way they voted on the basis of his book was “remarkable”.
[ETA: Then again, it’s Hager who says this, so they downplay it as opinion. Sheesh.]
But the Herald’s implication is clear: If it doesn’t change a massive proportion of voters’ intentions, it’s to be dismissed. No mention of how the undecided and swing voters can tip the balance of power, then?
-
Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election, in reply to nzlemming,
My impression of Kiwiblog is that for a while the more rabid posters were kept in check but then the moderation seemed to disappear and any semblance of debate faded away.
But I have to say that it is useful to visit it once in a while just to put things into perspective (i.e. that the civil discourse that takes place on Public Address is really appreciated. Thanks Russell!)
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to izogi,
“The style of journalism may be criticised and can be dramatic and abusive, but the expression is vigorous and coherent, and there is no evidence provided to this Court of consistent inaccuracy or deceit (although there is evidence of consistent hyperbole).”
I really couldn't quite believe that when I read it. I did have occasion in the past to go to his blog and from what I have seen there, facts and honesty were not highly visible. It just seemed like a lot of over-opinionated and hate-filled rhetoric.