Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Good thread, people (*school chaplain's voice*).
Here's my take ...
When somebody writes an opinion piece that starts a row, then we on PA or anywhere else on the net can just link to the source, and discuss the evidence that is in front of our eyes. We may have different views, but we can all see what we're talking about. It's an informed debate.
But when it comes to commercial talkback radio, often we don't know what we're talking about. Because - and please correct me if I'm wrong - most of us, most of the time, aren't listening. And so it remains, unheard, unlinked, and unknown.
Discussions about this medium - and its consequences - are long on principles and short on evidence. It's amazing how many people have defended Jackson & Tamihere on this, and then admitted they never bothered with Exhibit A. Or their years of previous offending (you think this sorry story came out of nowhere?).
Blessed with insomnia and masochistic tendencies, I have witnessed such levels of misogyny, bigotry and general idiocy on talkback most days or nights of the week. You could call it freedom, or you could call it slow-acting poison, the kind of toxin that makes Allan Titford a hero for decades before the truth comes out (and incidentally, comes out not thanks to our "free" commercial media, but our independent courts, happily unsponsored).
So here's my suggestion. Those who invoke "freedom" before returning to Kim Hill and their downloaded documenaries and other civilised privileges, should take some time to discover what they are talking about.
Prescription: 12 hours of talkback daily, for a year. Discover your real tolerance for what you call "freedom". How many days till you phone up in anger? How long before you realize that doesn't work? And then? Action? Like Giovanni Tiso's? Or something else? Why not?
Because you have the off switch, that's why. Because you value your freedom to put your hands over your ears, to turn a blind eye. I respect that freedom. But please don't pretend it leaves you better informed about the issues at stake.
1 a.m, people. Turn on, tune in, give up. Or - respond. Which is better?
-
I just want to add my support for Giovanni and co. (I should be "retweeting" or whatever it is you digital folks do, but I'm about as familiar with this new-fangled social media as yer average Herald columnist).
Anyway, it's a sad fact that even a moderate, principled and well-reasoned response (which Mr Tiso's was) will provoke a nasty backlash, and there's been some of that in other places online. The abuse is absurd and even funny if it's not directed at you, but if you're the recipient it may not be so easy to roll your eyes and ignore. Sticking your head above the parapet is a courageous thing to do, and many of us (i.e me) are not keen to do it, because of the toll it can take.
So good on ya Giovanni, you have made a difference - and you are not alone.
-
Hard News: How a thing happens, in reply to Russell Brown,
Sure, but the issue for me was not so much his politics (he's actually more reasonable than many talkback hosts) but that the message was not getting through the walls of the building.
I understand company loyalty, and I understand natural defensiveness - I've done both in my time. But Radio Live really need a period of reflection, because it's not just about one bad interview. The slow, painful reaction to it - the station not "getting it" - is what damns them.
-
Her predecessor Mitch Harris might have fared better – not because he’s male, but because he was unmistakably an editorial figure.
Perhaps. But on Monday night he was doing talkback on Radio Live, and describing these events as like a "witch hunt" and "McCarthyite" (if anyone wants confirmation, audio may be on their website, approx 11.45 pm Mon).
So there's still a long way to go (and a lot of History 101 to be studied) at that station.
-
So I was wrong.
As a PR exercise by the police, this doesn't seem very well thought through. I'll leave it there.
-
Only guessing here, but …
- if this was a prank/crank, they wouldn’t phone back.
- if it was real, then somebody (police PR person) would phone back – to explain. Because if’s it's real they’ll be explaining (or having to lie) to the media soon enough.
So my money’s on prank, FWIW. Though that’s hardly a comfort, I know.
-
To Michele A’Court – thank you very much. You are a treasure.
To Josie Pagani – Please read Michele’s words. She shows you how it can be done, while you’re just digging in deeper.
Thanks.
ETA links …
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/9383919/A-tough-week-to-be-a-woman
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/we-need-to-talk-about-rape-culture
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Henry Barnard,
The kindest thing I can say about the editorial is that the writer(s) "over-condensed" the language, and ended up not saying what was meant.
But you'd think they'd have read it through before showing the rest of us.
-
There's swearing, and then there's things that make you swear. Like the opening paragraph of today's Herald editorial:
"Absolutely nobody emerges well from the Roast Busters under-age sex scandal. Not, most importantly of all, the four traumatised 13 to 15-year-old girls who have been identified as victims. Not the reviled young predators who bragged about getting girls drunk and having sex with them. Not the police who now face uncomfortable questions about their attitude to crimes of this nature, as well as their operational efficiency. And not the grandstanding politicians who clambered over each other to refer the handling of the case to the Independent Police Conduct Authority."
I don't think I need to point out the spectacular stupidity of that list. Throw hands in the air and say "gosh, we just don't know, raping and grandstanding, it's all horrid!".
It would be mildly irritating if it were a talkback caller or twitter-ranter. But it's only the Herald.
-
This was over three decades ago ...
I was a teenager in England at the time and I remember the rape episode and its aftermath. Worth seeing again, for comparison (the more things change etc.). The comment today that a female police officer should take such complaints was "new" ... 30 years ago.