Posts by dc_red
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Please, RB, be my guest. And now for my quotable views on the other important issues of the day... :-)
-
I'm with Robyn here. In context, what people are saying on the internet is news, in the same way that vox pops, polls and protests are news.
But if you're vox-popped or polled, or participate in a protest, you know you have a reasonable chance of being news. Writing any old cr*p in an blog comments thread hasn't (until now?) had the same status.
-
Isn't it almost like quoting callers from talk back radio in a news report and attributing the quotes to the host or the radiostation.
Indeed it is, but the larger point (to my mind anyway) is that quoting talkback callers, or blog commentators, is incredibly lazy journalism. Both talkback and its digital equivalent generally favour bullshit assertions and controversial declarations over considered analysis. Quoting such "sources" smacks of laziness, and perhaps justifying extensive reading of blogs during the work day.
I'm tempted to conclude it's completely and utterly useless journalism. I guess they needed a non-NZ First rentaquote for the occasion.
Having said all this I enjoy making bullshit assertions as much as the next quasi-anonymous blog commentator. The point is that even when I make a more considered contribution to a blog comments thread, I don't intend for it to be on the evening news!
-
The notion that "people died under our flag" has been given some consideration in the Australian context.
Most Australians to have fought under/died under a flag did so under either the Union flag or the old Australian red ensign.
The relevant Wikipedia entry has this to say:
Claims that Australians have "fought and died under the flag" are spurious, given that during most of the wars Australians have been involved in, they have usually "fought under" various British flags or the Australian Red Ensign, as well as the current Blue Ensign design. In any case, flags are not literally carried into battle in modern warfare. It remains unclear how changing a flag's design in any way affects the actions or status of Australia's war veterans.
Haven't been able to find much on the NZ situation, although it appears NZ soldiers in the Boer War wore the Silver Fern (the current NZ flag not being officially adopted until 1902).
-
Their apparent reliance on google and whatever foreign intelligence services choose to tell them deepened my suspicions that the SIS is basically an incompetent organisation in lockstep with people who I don't really like alot, and they use secrecy mainly as a screen for their incompetence.
I am tempted to agree wholeheartedly, but I assume this forum could be googled in the future!
-
While it's always tempting to dismiss the DPF comments section as an echo-chamber for the disaffected, I fear the Herald's comment section is little better.
One idea being given some play in both fora is that it is all part of a plot to get Helen Clark into the UN Secretary-General's chair. Y'know, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with the decision. Other popular ideas include that we are now at imminent risk of terrorist attack, that OBL will be moving here forthwith (I assume that's metaphorical), and that Zaoui "should have been put straight back on the plane when he landed."
One thing that bothers me about the Herald commentators more generally is their inability to distinguish between the Parliament, the Government, and the Labour Party. They're all one amorphous mass out to swindle the taxpayer, make us a soft touch to terrorists, expose us to terrorist bombs, undermine "our Christian heritage", usurp parents' rights, and generally defy commonsense.
-
Thanks for the observations about the media's angle on this.
The reporting yesterday, in both print and TV media, was frankly pathetic.
I was given the distinct impression they were looking for another stick to beat Labour over the head with (or at least to retrieve a couple of old sticks: that Labour is anti-American and hostile to Australia too just for good measure). But they couldn't even muster the energy to assert that either the US or Australia really gave a damn about New Zealand's views on energy policy either way.
What was completely lost from view was the basic (but very important) idea that sovereign states can have differences of opinion on something without that constituting a major falling out or an "adversarial stance".
It's interesting that disagreements with the US are always framed in terms of New Zealand's departure from/criticism of some US policy, rather than vice-versa.
I'm yet to be convinced that the "closer relationship with our traditional allies" promoted in some quarters is nothing more than "agree with our traditional allies without a second thought."
-
Did Audrey Young really write this? If so, does she believe it?
Moore may not have sway in the caucus any longer but he is still a popular and credible figure in New Zealand.
In terms of his popularity, my hunch would be that (at least until last week), more than 50% of New Zealanders wouldn't even remember who he was. I bet he is seldom stopped on the street by well-wishers.
As for credibility ... well, it can't be helped by illiterate rants.
A little something for apostrophe pedants - billboards throughout Waitakere City advertising well-known right wing duo:
"Its time to vote Neeson"
Not until they're literate it ain't.
-
Basking must pay well then, because Moore is quoted in the NZH as claiming: " It's an honour each week to pay more tax than a minister earns. I've discovered capitalism late in life."
Making head or tail of that first sentence isn't especially easy either.
-
On the topic of Harry's lineage (I assume this is a reference to his absolutely remarkable similarity to that complete twat James Hewitt), Wikipedia reports "It has been suggested that Hewitt could be the natural father of the Prince, but this is not possible given that Diana did not even meet Hewitt until 1986, when Harry was already two years old."
However the source for that information is just a SMH story from 2003.