Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
The Herald and David Fisher fairly reported a legitimate story – one Dotcom himself had been talking up for months
I agree that it is a legitimate story but it begins and ends with Dot Com’s failure to produce more evidence at this time. That’s what happened. I’m skeptical as anyone about the veracity of the email, but what are you gonna do, pick a fight? Lead with the mood you evoked in your interviewee?
the tycoon turned angry and told the media[…]Internet Party leader Laila Harre tried to close down questions,[…]But it didn’t stop questions,[…]Finally, he appeared to lose his cool and angrily lectured the media
There’s an element of manufactured sensationalism.
When Dot Com presented the email Mr Key was politely asked a few breezy questions about the issue and then allowed to go about his business.
..I do not believe that to be correct, I have no recollection of the conversation that’s alluded to in that email, there are no records there and the meetings I had were with other people around me so. Look in the end we’ll dig down, get to the bottom of it but we don’t have any record of it.
In terms of the interest of refugees, immigrants and indeed citizens – and feel free to call me an idealist – but I really believe that the degree of courtesy and intensity accorded to our Prime Minister in this instance could also be afforded to any immigrant, even one who has been illegally spied on, had their home raided and been arrested by armed officers – for nonviolent crime – using illegal warrants, only to then be immediately denied bail and denied (subsequently overturned) the right to sue the GCSB (for spying on him)by our attorney-general.
In this context, given the stress and psychological impact that these experiences would have on any individual, and given the massive power disparity – despite wealth – between Key and Dot Com, It’s my belief and that the questioning and framing of the issue could occur without recourse to unnecessary provocation and subsequent dismissive emotive framing as has occurred in not one but the two articles linked to above.
This affected caricature of the “angry tycoon” eclipses the journalism and it in no way enhances a sense that immigration status is not contingent on blatant political interference, if anything it contributes to an impression that those faced with their own immigration/ legal struggles must also contend with a hostile media that will conveniently and almost immediately dismiss allegations of corruption based on the good word of the right white man without any substantial investigation at all, holding the victim to account for lack of further investigation, big on questions but short on independently acquired answers. John Key said other people were in the room, who were they? What did they hear? At least as a starting point.
Obviously whatever your bias is. But as has been seen in the case recently with our PM, there is always a likelihood that the interviewee’s (taking a leaf from Cunliffe’s rather presumptuous portrayal) state of mind is “not settled”. This is something that can be manipulated to measure with a degree of skill.
If the narrative that the Herald wants to present is that Kim Dot Com is the angry or unstable tycoon then they’ve succeeded in both articles. If they want to dismiss the email solely on the word of a few very powerful gentlemen then the individual with the most to gain from such a characterization is Mr Key. Whether that enhances our democracy is debatable. But neglecting to mention that this pointy finger guy is angry too in no way adds to any sense of impartiality.
Just in – 1xangry tycoon and 1xresponded angrily – 3rd paste.
"I have no doubt that Kim is absolutely truthful about that email.
“There needs to be a proper process now to investigate that.”
Asked why Dotcom declined to comment on the email last night, Ms Harre said he’d received legal advice not to do so
Laila Harre
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I think the intemperate smack was unfair and out of order
You’re right about this too Craig. I should just zip it. Everyone deserves a second chance and David owning up to his involvement with Slater was one of the better things to come out of Dirty Politics. So sincerely, good on you for coming clean there David, and sorry for being so disparaging, I recognise that these issues may very well be beyond your control. I just have an incredibly low tolerance for copy/paste articles. This week more than ever. Perhaps the vitriol is contagious:
bit of adolescents.
When in Rome.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
In fairness to Kim DotCom, Stuff posted a clip in the video here
He speaks for himself quite adequately and I think you can judge for yourself the omissions in the Herald articles. Having danced around here with you for a moment Craig I totally respect your opinion on this topic and share your concerns on the wider implications to refugees and immigrants. However Dotcom’s case is an exceptional one.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And a lot of people don’t need to read recycled content in two articles from the same morning Newspaper both released overnight. With limited space and time, that’s arguably a luxury our democracy can ill afford.
I’m sorry if it’s politically inconvenient for you that Fisher reported
it’s really not. Adam Bennett (9:00 PM Monday), David Fisher (5:52 AM). Surely there are a lot more pressing issues for New Zealand this week.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
So, it’s not longer a matter of genuine public interest that Dotcom has been claiming for months he had irrefutable evidence that the Prime Minister not only lied but was donkey deep in a conspiracy to engage in political interference in immigration matters at the behest of a foreign corporation and the White House? Yeah, right…
That fell like a lead balloon yesterday, risible it was. they banked that story.
When asked by reporters afterwards why he didn't talk about his claim that Mr Key knew of him before the raid on his mansion, Mr Dotcom said: ''I think the evidence is pretty clear today in the Herald''.
''It's going through the official process in Parliament, we're going to give the Prime Minister the due process that he denied me.''
Dotcom said he believed the email was ''100 per cent true''.
In a somewhat heated press conference, Dotcom responded to question about the email by saying the evening was about the issue of mass surveillance.
Dotcom became angry at reporters' questions saying the media should have better held the Government to account.
Same shit different article.
Well, is our own Keith Ng a character assassin too, because he was… somewhat underwhelmed…
I’d class that as 4th vs 5th estate comparison Craig, my expectations of the 4th are rightly/wrongly higher.
In terms of political theatre, I’ve got to say The Moment of Truth was a gig where the support acts blew the headliner out of the water.
I couldn’t agree more ;)
-
David Fisher launches into his own spot of character assassination Dotcom turns up empty-handed to ’Moment of Truth’
"But it didn’t stop questions, leaving Dotcom trying to point the media to the issue of mass surveillance.
[The public] don’t care about my case tonight. They care about being subjected to this evil mass surveillance."
And he’s entirely correct, why would we? It's marginal. 4 days out from an election and you’ve got 550 words to waste on someone who’s not even standing for Parliament. We read that news yesterday, find something of genuine public interest to do with your time you Slaterised hack.
And yes sir, we read that, you reformed, and yet you’re still an embarrassment to any genuine journalistic aspirations you may have once flushed down the toilet.
-
Good work Keith, but so little to digest, Russell called it. Tracy Watkins has this:
Declassified documents released by Key last night appear to back that up.
But Greenwald and Snowden produced documentation that appeared to directly contradict that. Their case against Key will take longer to unpick
Forcing Key to play that CORTEX card beforehand rather than dumping all in one go has had its moments. If only a whistle blower from within the GCSB would stand up. .
-
On the balance of probabilities alone, i.e. we have a credible internationally recognised exiled whistle-blower facing 30 years jail in an allied jurisdiction for the theft of evidence (the authenticity of which has never been officially refuted) that in part directly disputes the PM’s narrative.
Only when prompted has this PM gone on record stating that a department under his watch even considered – or contemplated – let alone discussed or quite possibly conspired to commit the GCSB to the mass surveillance/ protection of the New Zealand public.
A PM who has determined to wait for these allegations, to disrupt an election week, and only then, exploited this opportunity to both malign or castigate foreign nationals and a resident – in the international arena – for their part in causing this sideshow ‘five days before an election’. Carrying this out despite having had ample opportunity to preemptively minimise much of the fallout from this weekend in a timely and manageable manner.
This is a PM who – in an enterprise of dubious national value – then declassified and released Government documents, of ambiguous relevance, in a well publicised and concerted effort to contest incomplete allegations – allegations limited to media speculation – assumedly in the interests of nothing more than minimising harm to his personal reputation, and his employment prospects.
Playing out in a partisan MSM environment which is comprehensively bucking a significant trend established by the world’s leading media outlets and the European Parliament in deeming both Snowden’s testimony and the NSA’s highly damning evidence as effectively accurate and of indisputabe public interest. Instead we see our MSM stigmatising this content that Snowden has – at severe personal cost – lifted from an Agency of the United States Government, by way of crudely and glibly requesting Snowden to:
On principle alone, despite various protestation and deflection, and in spite of a compromised media, this should be sufficient – at the very least – for individuals to be seriously considering calling for John Key’s, resignation.
This need not necessarily be a call based on the conjecture, testimony, evidence, revisions, refutations, denials, assumptions or even the very high likelihood that John Key lacks the faculties to fulfill the function of office with outright and unimpeachable integrity or in a judicious or prudent manner. My argument is very simply that on the 15th September 2014 and the weeks/ months/ years leading up to it, John Key, through aspersion, discourtesy, invective, contempt, contrivance and a sustained and deliberate campaign of character assassination has irredeemably failed to behave in a manner befitting the reasonable expectations one might have of a Prime Minister of New Zealand, or a Prime Minister of any western democracy for that matter. He has tarnished not only his individual reputation, but that of the post, and in turn, by behaving accordingly on the world stage, as a representative, he has tainted the reputation of our nation, and us.
But, we’re a tolerant bunch. 100% Pure tolerance.
"Dotcom set out to demolish the Prime Minister’s credibility. He has spectacularly failed."
Which is nothing if not a perversely creative application of the term ‘credibility’, As aspirations go, our whanau, our cousins, our nieces and nephews and most importantly our children could perhaps be better served with a role model, a representative, a Member of Parliament and a Prime Minister not so predisposed to antagonism and pernicious invective.
Very few taxpayers would keep their job after assailing a client, a customer, a coworker or their boss in any remotely comparable manner. It’s textbook professional suicide. But if you – dear writer of that risible quote directly above – genuinely believe that this self-aggrandising bully, – smeared by his own propensity for issuing all manner of filth to denigrate members of your profession for essentially doing your jobs, resolutely immune to the more delicate subtleties of being – if you absolutely feel that what we have seen is an appropriate example for our children with his ‘henchman’ and his ‘butt’ and his ‘loser’ and that this man embodies any credibility whatsoever, then I can only doubt yours.
John Key is an abuser. I pity his wife, family and colleagues. For many New Zealanders including yourself, this behaviour may be acceptable; this harassment and intimidation is clearly up to your expectations, and admissible. We’ll assume he is fit for office barring proof that he lied about some or other speculative detail at some point somewhen. But IMHO, as someone with perhaps higher expectations of humanity and the humanity of our leaders in a representative democracy, I am proposing, without hesitation, that John Key resign, effective immediately.
Mainly, I just don’t want to have to live in fear, amongst everything else, of being ridiculed and called a loser, at least not by the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Australia? no worries. I never paid his salary.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Derek Cheng did an amazing job of transcribing the meat at the Herald and the video’s now processed.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Rob Stowell,
if there was any whiff of authenticity, there’d be masses of context and backup.
Litigation pending, they may be better suited to a court of law than that of public opinion. If they’re authentic, John Key has been given his chance to respond and done so quite unreservedly. As simon g said on the previous page in response to Andrea Vance’s article:
Only Kim Dotcom’s ego can fuck this up. Could he please STFU for a few days and let the rest of us hold the Prime Minister to account?