Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Hope and Wire, in reply to Sacha,
worth watching part 3 if missed part 2?
I hope you will, because I don't think I can afford to put my foot through the TV. I feel perfectly OK about writing this down as a "well-intentioned and basically honorable fail."
-
Hard News: A wretched editorial, in reply to Samuel Buckman,
Why do people talk about political affiliations the same way we would talk about financial conflicts of interest?
Broadly speaking, they should be – and for much the same reasons. If Helen Kelly wrote an op-ed about how John Key eats babies and anyone who isn’t a total monster should vote Labour, then I think it would it would perfectly relevant to note that many (but not all) of the CTU’s members are formally affiliated to Labour. It’s up to the readers to decide how much weight to give that when assessing the credibility of said op-ed. I also hope, for National Radio’s sake, neither Matthew Hooten nor Mike Williams are moonlighting as campaign consultants without full and frank on-air disclosure.
All that said, I’m not really sure that’s the point the SST was trying to make about Tania Billingsley. I not sure any point worth making was made at all.
-
The facts of the case itself were not traversed in the 3rd Degree programme that featured her interview. There have been any number of high-profile news stories that have run far closer to the line of sub judice.
And just to throw some crazy reality-based supposition into the pot, wouldn't it be a fair assumption that Three had lawyers running the proverbial fine-tooth nit-pick over every second of that interview before it aired? Just as, as Russell points out, I'm (reasonably) sure the Sunday Star Times would have under the same circumstances.
-
Well, lord forbid any mere slip of a girl should criticise the goverment and its ministers over their handling of a matter of direct importance to her. The nerve!
You can argue that it’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask (though I’d come down on the “yeah, but… nah” side), but more than a little rich of the Sunday Star-Times to complain about another media outlet not doing its legwork for it.
The editorial moves on to bitch about 3rd Degree’s “sympathetic portrayal” of Billingsley – apparently, it is only proper to be unsympathetic to sexual assault victims.
Let's all cash the reality check. When the trial begins, I’m sure the defense will take ever opportunity to assassinate Tania Billingsley’s character, with the press bench faithfully transcribing every ghastly word as it gets turned into fuel for the entirely predictable orgy of multi-media slut-shaming and victim-blaming that happens every damn time. Why the rush, SST?
-
Russell:
I'd prefer you close it now, but I'm going to leave the call entirely in your hands so nobody comes back and says I'm trying to prevent or "disappear" criticism. I'm also thinking very seriously about deleting the entire post, but that's going to have to wait a while.
-
This would also be a great time to assure folks who've e-mailed me about aspects of this post, especially those who've shared their own experience of abuse, that they will not be published here - or quoted - without your SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT consent.
Kind of shit that even needs saying, but there you go and here we are.
-
Ian:
If you have any problems with my conduct anywhere on Public Address, please direct them to Russell.
-
Steven:
I'm with Russell on this, but truly thanks for engaging and I do respect where you're coming from because hell... been there. But this is also one of those times where, you know, everyone's right. Womens Refuge isn't the problem here. This is one area where one size really doesn't fit all -- and there are people out there who are just as focused on meeting the very specific needs of male survivors of abuse. And just like WR, they really do deserve a hell of lot more support (and not just from government) than they get.
Fighting a pervasive and so often invisible culture of abuse shouldn't be a zero sum game, even though it so often seems that way.
-
Jane:
I'm flattered, but also somewhat bemused, you think my superpower is bending any discussion among the habitually bloody-minded Public Address community to my will. But that's not the case, no matter how often I'd like it to be so.
Beyond that, I've precisely zero interest in playing dueling dictionaries, but I'll leave this from the online OED I've got open in the next door tab.
Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.
I'm not terribly impressed with Anderson, The Press or Stuff right now. But I will do them the basic courtesy of assuming they're literate and have some feeling for common usage.
-
Hard News: Hope and Wire, in reply to Lilith __,
Jolisa was talking the other night of novels about soldiers in wartime. Can non-soldiers understand enough to write about the experience of fighting? Should they?
So should Gaylene Preston have ever made any films that didn’t draw from her direct experience – because with one wave of the hand you’ve wiped out her entire career as a director and producer. Including, by the way, the straight documentaries she made about the Napier Earthquake, the experiences of women (including her mother) during the Second World War and survivors of breast cancer.
I guess a key point here is that Hope and Wire isn’t quite fiction. It’s a fictionalised reconstruction. Would it be much without the stock footage?
Well, that's a fascinating question. Did you watch The Widower on One last night? Will be very interested to see the ratings, and how many people had absolutely no problem seeing a reconstruction of Malcom Webster's murder of his first wife and attempted murder of his second (who co-operated with the production) -- crimes he's IRL currently serving a life sentence for.