Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Che Tibby,
i think Cullen might have been all over it. he was the last elected official to address aging.
Which is why after Labour's time in office we all felt nine years younger.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Emma Hart,
Working for Investigate magazine doesn't actually make you an investigative journalist.
Clare writes for Uncensored. Investigate is like the The New Yorker in comparison.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Clare Swinney,
Was a techtonic weapon used?
Thank you for that. It's about time somebody started to ask the truly stupid questions.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Bart Janssen,
The problem is that Labour doesn't seem to represent that latter philosophy, one starts to wonder what Labour does represent.
Bingo.
Seriously, I think that basically they stand for bingo.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Keith Ng,
Because the solution that we disagree with is better than no solution at all.
So, we've completely given up asking for a capital gains tax, a Tobin tax, the reintroduction of progressive taxation, because the middle class won't stand for it and so screw the poor?
How about we make what's left of our welfare state a line in the sand, instead of the protection of the propertied classes?
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Giovanni's point that people who have lots of money to spend have a lot more actual power over the advertisers in the SST isn't invalidated by the Montgomery bus boycott.
Yes. Although I can see how a campaign aimed at tarnishing the image of those advertisers might have a wee bit of purchase, as it were. For instance one could run a blog advertising who's buying ad space on the page of the SST where Laws' column appears, as well as keeping a tally of his ghastliest opinions (ie all of them). But I'd still much rather use Laws' intemperances to argue that broadcasting and press standards need to be strenghtened, so they protect everyone and not just consumers.
-
I think I know which newsagent you mean, I'll try. Thanks.
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Sacha,
but their business model suggests peeling off a major advertiser is going to get their attention more than losing one subscriber or audience member will.
I'm aware of that. I just don't like it as a way of bringing about results. It gives a bigger voice to people who are wealthier - and who enjoy more rights already. I prefer to vigorously pursue the view that Laws shouldn't be allowed to do what he does on account of press standards. If he gets sacked because his brand is tarnished to the advertisers I'm not sure it counts as a victory at all.
-
I don't like boycotts. Democracy for people with the biggest wallets doesn't impress me much. And I'd much rather boycott the actual product than the advertisers. Let them know I don't buy their paper and why.
Out of interest: is there anywhere in Wellington where one can get the Christchurch Press or the Otago Daily Times?
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Russell Brown,
Neither option reflects particularly well.
But he was hands on - and standing behind it - in the Braunias case. Apparently what Steve did was sackworthy and he was representing the paper whilst doing it in spite of being a contractor. Whereas Laws can accuse a reader of having caused her son's Asperger's because... why?