Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.
Just this.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Festival Furores, in reply to bob daktari,
It would be a really tough call for camp Lorde
All fair points, well made Bob. But I'm in Team Russell -- she looks like she's got her head on straight, and is surrounded by good people, so I'm sure however it shakes out it will be done amicably and sans diva-tude. :)
-
In theory she could do both, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t duties for nominees – let alone artists who perform at the awards, which isn’t unlikely in her case – in the days before. Officially, she’s still playing the show, but officially she’s not yet a nominee. I would certainly expect an amicable resolution if she can’t do Laneway.
Sure, because I'm pretty sure Lorde (and her management) are sensible enough to know being a diva -- and you know, blowing contracted gigs -- isn't really how her brand works. At least, I hope it doesn't. :)
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to A O,
I guess I’m one of the few people that actually listened to the show, albeit it was too cringe-worthy to listen in its entirety Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that they condone rape or rapists – just a lot of coloured interpretation.
Oh, fuck off. I listened to the audio of Amy’s call, and more than once – not least because I couldn’t believe they’d asked her when she lost her virginity. That’s not “coloured interpretation” but a simple matter of fact. They also asked her “how free and easy are you kids [i.e. young women who were assaulted while functionally unconscious] these days”. Again, fact not opinion. Whether you believe me or not, I really wanted to give those two the benefit of the doubt and I don’t throw around a phrase like “rape apologist” casually.
While I don’t have a tone police badge or moderating privileges anywhere hereabout except (to a limited extent) on my own posts, its really not smart to accuse others of speaking in bad faith. You're being massively condescending towards people who have considered what was said in great detail over several weeks, now. And speaking on my own account, to an extent that's been astonishingly unpleasant.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Russell Brown,
But the reason that statement eventually came was external pressure. The earnest entreaties Graeme imagines would not have got far, if only because the station seemed incapable of dealing with them.
And let’s cash the reality check here: Even if management had read Willie Jackson the riot act six days a week and twice on Sunday, wasn’t someone who gave Clint Rickards an unchallenged platform to call Louise Nicholas a mentally unstable stalker and serial perjurer a extremely high risk for landing Radio Live in exactly this kind of shit soup? Graeme, can you think it possible that you're extremely naive if you think “earnest entreaties” – as opposed to real and lasting practical consequences – were going to convince Jackson to ixnay the slut-shaming of rape victims?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to annamarama,
I’m also an editor, so I ask people to think about curtailing their speech every day. It’s not that big a deal to me. Sometimes I even curtail it for them.
Um, yes... I'm a semi-regular book reviewer for The Listener and arts/books editor Guy Somerset cut a joke from a recent piece because..he thought it was in rather bad taste and detracted from an otherwise solid piece. (On reflection, there was something else fatally wrong with it -- it just wasn't that funny.) I mildly disagreed with him, but didn't put up a good enough argument to change his mind.
Yeah, I guess my "free speech" was "repressed" (scare/sneer quotes intended), but I find that remarkably easy to live with.
-
Capture: Travels Without a Map, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
All of the cakes, a bakery cafe window, St Kilda, Melbourne, 2011.
Is there still a row of them? Recall almost lapsing into a sugar shocked coma just walking past pastry row... :)
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Let’s imagine we did as Graeme suggested: we rang RadioLive endlessly, to tell them how offensive what they did to Amy was, how wrong and offensive their views on rape were.
I've got a simple observation on that. Who has their fingers on the dump switch in this scenario? If you've answered that question correctly, let's stop fucking pretending that Jackson and Tamihere ever operated on a level playing field.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Does anyone here think that speech like that of Willie and JT should actually be banned? In the you-commit-a-criminal-offence-if-you-say-it sense?
Well, I'm not sure I really want to get into another round of semantic split ends with you but I'm pretty sure Professor Geddis would most definitely be unleashing the dogs of law if I went on the radio and made grossly defamatory allegations he faked research data, plagiarised other academics and coerced his students into fucking him for good grades. I'd also note Cameron Slater's "free speech" became a matter of law when he committed contempt of court by breeching name suppression.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I would think that most people would be aghast at the idea of advertisers having editorial control over content of an “opinion” show, well I’d like to think that…
And I’m still struggling to see where anyone is saying otherwise, or where any passive-aggressive corporate censorship has actually happened anywhere. But what about the right to freedom of association? If I owned a small business, I wouldn’t actually want to be associated with casual bigotry. And if Josie Pagani is advising the Labour Party to do so with their election advertising budget next year, well… good luck with that. Hope the ad buys in Investigate and Challenge Weekly work for you.
Those that pander to public opinion for commercial reasons should not be regarded as a moral compass
Well, I hope Rosa Parks is feeling thoroughly put in her place wherever she is.