Just a quick note (because I'm not on Twitter) re- Hosking's column today.
When it was pointed out (by Russell, Chloe Swarbrick, and anyone else who has been awake, ever) that Hosking's rant about clean needles was factually incorrect, the piece got changed.
No apology from Hosking. As always. And of course, there's no way to change what is either in print or has been broadcast on radio.
No consequences = no change. That's the NZME model now.
Yes, it was a disappointing follow-up to last week's very good opener.
It's important to cover the health risks, especially for young people, but you can't do that without highlighting that they are all still there while we continue doing nothing.
If a viewer had no background info at all before seeing that final part, then s/he would be understandably tempted to say "oh dear, best leave well alone". But it isn't well, at all. The status quo is not tenable, and Gower's doco did little to address the debate we must have, on what type of changes are safest and most effective.
The AM Show, Project etc are not going to give us anything beyond sound bites. On Weed was a rare opportunity to go deeper - and it was missed.
In the aftermath of the mosque massacre, Stuff reviewed its comments policy, and made some changes, mostly positive in my view. The trolling went down, the moderating got stronger, and it became much less of a platform for unchallenged bigotry.
It appears that was only temporary. The sewer of Stuff comments is back ...
I don't know if this is a deliberate policy decision, or just dropping the ball, but it's a sad sight. Especially as the website overall still delivers some of NZ's best daily journalism.
It's clear now that National's indifference to truth is a strategy, not simply an occasional lapse. Everything from whitebait to unemployment is subject to deliberate misinformation, with the all too familiar consequences we see daily in the USA (time wasted on rebuttal, false equivalence, we all know the drill).
If I were a National MP with thoughts beyond the next headline then I'd take 2 minutes to check out who is now supporting "us" on social media. Simon Bridges pushes the "part time PM" line, so then it's a trending hashtag and some very nasty people are gleefully promoting it. I'm sure Bridges doesn't think Ardern is a "lying commie bitch" (to give just one example of their insightful wit), but he seems entirely untroubled that his supporters are saying so.
Whale Oil is gone, but the spirit lives on. At the very top.
That nice Mr Molyneux is showing his true colours again.
It's worth noting that the fraudulent "Free Speech Coalition" still have their website up, reminding us that Molyneux was the victim that really mattered to them. (They haven't said anything at all since May, so I guess there haven't been any free speech issues to worry about any more).
Of course, the FSC can exercise their free speech to attack or defend whoever they want. Or to be silent, and stare at their shoes. It just so happens that there have been far more attacks by their supporters on Golriz Ghahraman than on Stefan Molyneux. Priorities and preferences ... all freely chosen. And saying so much.
Terrible editorial judgement on TV1 news tonight. They gave a platform to a far-right guy, the sole source of the story. He cast himself as a victim, and the reporter (Thomas Mead) played along. There was no independent reporting, they simply relayed his phone footage. He then got to make his claims, was not challenged in an interview, with no evidence of any wrongdoing by police, nothing to merit this even being a story, let alone a lead.
What were they thinking?
Newshub (AM Show) are at it again.
Previously a complaint was upheld against Newshub for their fake poll. They admitted it was rigged - they got spammed.
Response: "As a result of this complaint the MediaWorks digital team is auditing the polling application."
So today there's another "poll" and guess what? 87% (as of now) negative on the Budget. It rose rapidly in no time. It seems nothing has changed at MediaWorks.
To be clear, I'm not shouting "Bias!". It's not even that. It's complete indifference to truth, and journalism. And it does matter (saying "I don't watch" is beside the point). The numbers are then used in wider news coverage. It's called a poll. It isn't a poll. It's a lie. And it's not good enough.
It's just a shame (though inevitable) how many commentators did the headless chicken on the whole story. It's the ultimate insider game, and pronouncing who "Wins", without regard to the actual voters, can only reinforce the negative public perception of politics.
To take just one example, I bet if you asked people on the street, they'd be far more interested in today's announcement on school donations, than in the Bridges/Treasury row. Something real and measurable, that makes a difference. But ... it will get 1% of the media coverage.
She was responding to the New Conservatives' deputy leader. Her description is hardly inaccurate.
Take some time to read their online output, which at the time of that tweet included people like David Moffett (he has since moved on). Bigotry is exactly what they embody, or worse, pander to.
Swarbrick is out of line? Well, the leader of the National Party calls the Greens communist. And he wants to be Prime Minister.
Every vote for Peter Dunne, over 4 or 5 successive elections, was a non-binding referendum on whether Labour or National would be in government.
I'd rather take my chances with the 95% probability of this referendum result being honoured by Labour and the Greens, than throw darts blindfold at Dunne's dartboard.