Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Russell Brown,
Neither of those claims is a direct quote, so maybe he said something slightly different, but … wow.
Apart from the bit in quotes:
“Well, its role in life is not to hold the government to account. It’s to entertain its viewers and basically follow news stories, but a great many of those don’t involve the government. Some do.”It was updated at 1:15pm, so they may have added that after you looked at it.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Kim Hill, Morning Report, now = I feel less Barbarians at the gate-ish
I know!
just hearing her there today made me feel years younger and more optimistic – some weird deja voodoo going on there…I keep picturing Guyon Espiner barricading himself in his studio in Auckland: "Make the scary lady go away!"
Such a refreshing change from Susie "how did that make you feel" Ferguson. But I suppose she's only on holiday...
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Last year Prime Minister John Key and Mark Weldon had a phone conversation in regards to John Campbell. Mr Key was overheard saying “I want that left wing bastard gone”
Pravda, much?
I'd also like to see his source for that before I wave that flag. Especially when you read Joe Trinder's comment:
Mana News doesn't have to substantiate our reveal it's sources we don’t write balanced articles. We expose the national governments corruption the onus is on the media to do its job and
prove us wrong.SRSLY???
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Peter Darlington,
Sky will always hold on to a non-tech and rural base here in NZ but Lightbox has feck all leverage and you wonder if Spark has really even understood the business it is getting into?
When has Telecom/Spark/Cat'sBum ever understood the business it's in, let alone the ones it has tried to get into. Remember Xtraville?
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
You want to *clarify* it? So if the result is a clear “global mode is legal” then you won’t be appealing, or pushing for regulatory change because you’ll have that clarity, and that’s all you want?
Well put, young Edge.
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Russell Brown,
If by obsolete, you mean “the one that currently works”.
Except that it obiously is not working, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
[edit] Snap, Sacha
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Sacha,
Revealing interview with CEO Mark Weldon about his plans for Mediaworks.
The Bachelor is going "through the roof" with on-demand viewers, he says.
"You actually make more money for an equivalent ad roll on video play than you do on a ratings point on TV, where all the costs ostensibly sit, " he says.
Shame we can't OIA for the similar numbers around CL
-
Hard News: Media Take: The Easter Show, in reply to David Hood,
Those inscrutable Romans, eh.
#inevitable
-
Hard News: Media Take: The Easter Show, in reply to mark taslov,
We swear oaths to God in our courts (?)
No, you can make a non-religious affirmation, as you can when entering Parliament. You can even (I think) swear on the Qu’ran, if you’re Muslim (I stand to be corrected on that last, but I think I remember something about it last time I was on jury duty).
I think your “At the end of the day who are we? ” para goes totally off the rails in equating individual words with beliefs (Lorde? Really??).
It’s not so much that I can’t see just how dyed in the wool Christian this culture was, it’s that I can’t see how this is not still the case and therefore it’s that I can’t quite understand how being of a Christian ideology should in any way absolve the Government of culpability for atrocities it commits.
It doesn’t, and I don’t think anyone’s been running this line in this discussion. It’s perfectly reasonable to discuss colonisation as an historical event, even though the repercussions seep down through the decades, and it’s equally reasonable to discuss the factors that drove colonisation, such as the christian proselytism of the heathens. It wasn’t the only one, but it certainly was a factor in justifying the bloody deeds done in the name of empire.
This neither excuses nor exacerbates what subsequent governments have done. It’s a nice argument as to when colonisation is deemed to be over (or is it yet?) and I tend to use the milestone of Savage’s government myself, but that’s completely arbitrary on my part and it could equally be deemed to have ended when we became a dominion in 1907 or when the “10 pound pom” programme (otherwise known as “assisted passage”) ended in 1972, or when we stopped calling England “home”. I think we can say we’re in the post-colonial phase at the moment, however, and current atrocities are directed at social strata rather than heathens.
Hesitantly I’d suggest that blaming the religion shows scant consideration for the victims of the atrocities, and is a perpetuation of the tenet that I, we, our Government are merely sheep performing God’s work.
I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the current government even vaguely claims to be christian, though individual members might claim to be christians, some I know are of other religions and some firmly of none at all. Certainly, we are currently spared the tea party insanity that grips America where to be labeled as a non-christian makes you unelectable in large parts.
If your post is a pure rebuttal to what you’ve read in this thread, I’d suggest your comprehension needs some work, because I haven’t read anybody say what you think they’ve been saying.
-
Hard News: Media Take: The Easter Show, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
This makes for interesting reading too:.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/history-myths-in-new-zealand/page-1</q>This is the better link http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/history-myths-in-new-zealand