Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to CJM,
after having a couple of swipes at Key, I ended up way down the list – and heard unofficially that the govt media team didn’t like the cut of my jib
In fact it goes beyond political bias - if it's true, it's this govt doing exactly what Craig hopes
an incoming government wouldn’t be so stupid as to engage in
That is-
blatant political [interference that] compromises the basic editorial independence of public broadcasters
Wrong in so many ways. And until I'd read Dirty Politics, I probably wouldn't have believed it. But now it feels like 'the govt media team' are in fact our government. :(
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Thanks Gerard for this post, and Russell for continuing great work.
but is there a way that a u-tube channel or something similar could fill the gap so obviously left by the loss of our state broadcasters.
As Ian observed, it's mostly about funding. Platforms and technology are pretty cheap; people aren't.
And people can't do this work as well in a vacuum. A culture of visual story-telling and a community around it takes time to develop.
Frank Film is a powerhouse in this regard, but it's not enough. -
And now-ish ... Maybe it's in Samoa :)
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Tom Semmens,
I don’t regard it as “utu” to expect high standards of transparency and disclosure from our public broadcaster.
Totally. Disclosure of people's interest in a matter is basic journalism. A key tactic for getting a message out is to invent organisations that sound impartial, and then start spewing out press releases. The Maxim Institute for example, called itself 'a social policy thinktank'. This was uncritically echoed by our media when they reported on the press releases and interviewed Maxim people.
In truth it was a christianist organisation espousing old testament religious values combined with neoliberal economics. It was bad faith for them to pretend otherwise (and they got what they deserved.)
The Taxpayers 'Union' is the same. It's a far-right National/Act propaganda unit/ginger group. More bad faith, from a bunch whose bad faith has been amply demonstrated. -
Speaker: A Slight Diversion from…, in reply to ,
Who knows about the black ferro boat on fairy road Christchurch? It was really ugly, and I wonder if it survived the earth quakes.
I seem to remember it from my childhood - it's been there many decades, an icon, a concrete symbol of someone's unrealised dream.
Lately I'm not sure, I have a feeling it's gone. But I did hear a rumour that after the quakes someone lived in it for months. Could be complete ballocks, but it stuck in my brain. -
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Pharmachick,
Neither Hager nor Slater nor Cunliffe nor Key nor Winston (of course) nor Dotcom are blameless.
We can be fairly sure two of this list conspired to bring down their political opponents with orchestrated campaigns of blatant lies and personal attacks, utilising, where possible, the machinery of government.
It goes beyond 'not being blameless'. If you or anyone else has information- hacked, stolen, traduced, whatever- showing any of the others have been this nasty or manipulative, please, please bring it into the light.
If you don't, you really really need to stop saying 'everyone does it'. That's a nasty smear itself. -
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to SteveH,
If National’s internal polling matches this (and Collins’ falling on her sword suggests it does) Key might have to widen the scope of the inquiry to be seen to be doing something.
You don’t think the sudden talk of $10, no $20 or no- maybe $30 a week! tax cut! and for the plebs! is a coincidence?
A few months back, English said tax cuts were unlikely, and if they did happen, would be small.
Now there’s a billion or several being dangled. Show us the money, Mr Key!
If the Roy Morgan is anywhere near close, no seats for the conservatives looks very costly for National. -
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to tussock,
A little 2007 history, as the post-87 stock market controls basically worked, the crooks all fled to the private finance industry.
Classic.
-
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to nzlemming,
Labour (26%) also loses support
I'm bloody close to (returning to) voting Labour. The one thing that sticks in my craw? Labour's pledge to get rid of the 'coat-tailing' provision.
I know it's unpopular. I'd prefer a much lower (2% or less) threshold - swap 'coat-tailing' for that, any day. I know it's unlikely to get passed by a Labour-led coalition.
But it's still a promise to (try to) give us a less democratic government, made for shallow populism. I can't vote for that. -
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Pharmachick,
I am, however; sincerely unsure that Mr Hager has the moral high ground in receiving hacked/stolen e-mails etc. I just don’t like the idea of criminal acts precipitating debate
I feel the public good argument is clear enough. But it tends not to work on people who say 'I won't listen to this, because it comes from hacked emails' - and thus can't make an informed judgement.
I haven't heard it seriously contended that not reporting the emails would have been the best course of action. Is that the argument you're making? Ironically, it would mean no one knowing about a range of other hacking and stealing (and possibly illegally leaking) information for narrow political purposes. Eyes wide shut.
So while you're condemning Hager, you might spare a few words on how you regard the methods and motives of Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, and John Key. Just for the record.
I also disagree about Hager's motives and the timing of this book. He's worked as an investigative journalist for decades, and written quite a few books. More often than not, they get more-or-less ignored. I guess if you're inclined to think badly of people's motives, you will. It's character-judgement, and some of it comes from the gut. But it should involve looking at evidence too.
Completely agree on the 'pub-talk' nature of much of the bragging. I felt this even more strongly with the (leaked) transcripts of the 'Urewera 17'. People talk all sorts of sh*t in private.
I don't think we can take much Slater wrote at face value. That's where Hager's judgement comes in. He's pretty careful to look for corroboration, and not to make claims that exceed the evidence he has. (Also- at leaving out details that invade personal privacy to make a political point. Which alone makes his work diametrically opposed to that of Slater et al. Nasty personal attacks were a speciality.)
Interested in your response, and not laughing at all. Feeling pretty bleak.
