Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Everybody has one

91 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Parks, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.

    I wouldn't have.

    That Greenwald saw this and wanted to help , may have been about that and nothing to do with “his career”.

    I'm not suggesting that Greenwald supported Dotcom because he thought it would advance his career or some such; I'm saying it wasn't a great judgment call. Rightly or not, it lessened his credibility with a certain portion of his audience in NZ. And it didn't seem to help Dotcom much anyway.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    a certain portion of his audience in NZ

    There would have been some but that’s a fairly select grouping Steve. I imagine it would not include those who had already bought into the PM’s line on Hager as “left wing conspiracy theorist” following the release of Dirty Politics – a work that sold all of 10,000 copies plus an additional 1000 e-book sales. It would likely also have bypassed many of Hosking’s monkey withholders. It was never going to be pretty, whether he was one of “Dotcom’s henchmen” or just another “left wing conspiracy theorist” he’d have still left the country covered in the kill machine’s muck or possibly never have arrived – the revelations would have garnered a few headlines in the locals before being drenched with tommy-k. At the end of the day, given the implications of the revelations, personalities aside, as little more than the messenger, Greenwald’s reputation, his credibility amongst the incredulous, should be the least of our concerns. But it isn’t.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Steve Parks,

    Rightly or not, it lessened his credibility with a certain portion of his audience in NZ. And it didn't seem to help Dotcom much anyway.

    The machine behind National went into action and denigrated anyone (and still do) who showed up to question the Government and it's seedy invasion of our privacy. Who would have got a better reaction ? Nicky Hager proved it really doesn't matter who you are , just that if you are not "on message" with National there is a powerful influential set that will swiftly use whatever means necessary to hide the truth. I'm thinking along the lines of Luigi Wewege and Bevan Chaung being used to manipulate Politics in Len Brown's case.
    I really cannot accept willful ignorance as a measure of the kind of audience one would want to or could educate. Those people are already blind and I really do believe the information Greenwald brought with him was for those mature enough to see through the smokescreen put up. Dotcom is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't anyway so why not try. The NZ public may be anti him but it looked like some foreigners weren't. Good on him for trying I say.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to chris,

    There would have been some but that’s a fairly select grouping Steve. I imagine it would not include those who had already bought into the PM’s line on Hager as “left wing conspiracy theorist” following the release of Dirty Politics – a work that sold all of 10,000 copies plus an additional 1000 e-book sales. It would likely also have bypassed many of Hosking’s monkey withholders.

    The point is Greenwald’s reporting didn’t have to be lost in the “jello wrestling bout” between Key and Dotcom. He had information that was independent of that. But any chance of the public perceiving him as an independent journalist (albeit with a “left wing” bias perhaps) with interesting and valuable information on the NZ situation was lost once he was so clearly associated with Dotcom. It gave ammunition to Hosking et al, but more generally he became seen by many as part of a petty dispute between Dotcom and Key. It tainted the whole manner in which Greenwald was received.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to Steve Parks,

    I don’t know, who’d have imagined that collaboration with an individual who’d had his house raided by 76 officers using subsequently invalidated warrants, (that the Crown knew were the wrong order while the raid was in progress and that Dotcom should have been given the chance to challenge the seizure) who seized $17m worth of assets including hard drives which were then sent to the FBI in breach of extradition legislation, (the FBI’s cloning of the hard-drives was also invalid) based on information the GCSB gathered illegally while helping police to locate him and monitor his communications in the weeks prior to the raid, in order to bring charges that for the most part hinge on something not unlike this (that is the full Leon the Professional (1994) Full Movie HD available to view freely on Youtube at time of writing uploaded by salomon sea in September 28 2013 - also see the user's uploads of Lady Mobster and The Beastmaster), that Kim would somehow have emerged as the bad guy?

    Who’d have guessed that the general public of any democratic country would totally lap up the taint of a pliant media painting him as the villain, and that this whitewash would be so successful that despite the greater visibility this association necessitated in the local MSM compared to this, that perceptions of Greenwald’s journalistic independence would be lost on otherwise intelligent people?

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to chris,

    Well said !

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I just think it’s a fairly revisionist point to be making:

    To be fair, Greenwald did bring that result on himself, to some degree. His close alignment with Dotcom wasn’t the best judgment call of his career.

    To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.

    I wouldn’t have.

    When Steve is on record as of August 25th 2014:

    "Given the announcement re Assange, I may have to resile from my ‘genuinely considering voting for IMP’.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Lest we forget

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to chris,

    Yeah. I mean, who would have imagined that directly aligning yourself with someone that even some on the left were wary of, or outright critical of, and who has a personal gripe with PM, might undermine your message? Definitely hindsight required.

    To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.

    I wouldn’t have.

    When Steve is on record as of August 25th 2014:

    “Given the announcement re Assange, I may have to resile from my ‘genuinely considering voting for IMP’".

    I don't know about you, but I don't put myself in Greenwald's shoes before considering who I'm going to vote for. (Also, someone purportedly changing their position from a year ago isn't "revisionist".)

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to Steve Parks,

    Yeah. I mean, who would have imagined that directly aligning yourself with someone that even some on the left were wary of, or outright critical of, and who has a personal gripe with PM, might undermine your message? Definitely hindsight required.

    In the context of this thread, my question is whether you see this undermining as some kind of natural occurrence like a sinkhole or whether it was actively undermined by a pliant media? Getting right to the heart of the issue for me, I'd like to know whether you personally don't believe Greenwald's revelations because he associated with Dotcom or whether this is based on you speaking to others who don't believe Greenwald specifically because of his association with Dotcom? If the latter is the case I'd like to hear more about their thoughts. Hager associated with a criminal, it undermined his message but without the association there would have been no message, did the greater visibility conferred by the unholy alliance of a trio facing charges of rape, treason, money laundering, copyright infringement garner lesser or greater visibility for the message? Is there a widespread perception that the message itself was untrue or simply lacking concrete proof? How do you propose things would be any different now if The Moment of Truth had not taken place?

    I would say loosely that I am of the left, and I have always been wary of Dotcom, I never seriously considered voting for the guy's party and I have no difficulty understanding why he has a personal gripe against John Key.

    If Dotcom were to bring a journalist over to hold an event more closely related to his own personal circumstances then I'd probably not even bother tuning in, but Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, their reputations preceded them, they didn't just pop onto the global radar for the event, their revelations and crimes and stories and movies had been dinner table conversation for quite some time, as had the topic of mass surveillance of New Zealanders. If you were even going to give credence to any of those three names it's highly likely that you already had well before Moment of Truth was announced. What did Kim Dotcom gain from hosting that expensive spectacle besides being blamed by Labour and the Greens for losing the election? Would mass surveillance have been hotly contested in the leader's debate or even discussed if he'd not held the event?

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t put myself in Greenwald’s shoes before considering who I’m going to vote for.

    I don't either, but the standards of honesty and integrity I seek in a minister or a Government are not dissimilar to the standards I expect of journalists.

    Also, someone purportedly changing their position from a year ago isn’t “revisionist”

    It's not so much the length of time that I was getting at, it's that at that time, despite "Fuck John Key!" posted on August 12th you were still considering voting IMP, and for all appearances it wasn't so much Dotcom's as much as Assange's association with Moment of Truth that turned you off IMP.

    Even more to the point:

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to chris,

    Attachment

    With only 13.1% unbelievers, I don’t see the credibility of the messengers being the issue here. This propaganda touting the need for such surveillance had already established itself as the standard authoritarian line around the globe, it was being pushed hard by Key well before Greenwald arrived. 86.8% of those polled are not disputing Greenwald's claims, the contention here revolves around the ethics.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    In the context of this thread, my question is whether you see this undermining as some kind of natural occurrence like a sinkhole or whether it was actively undermined by a pliant media?

    While I love your wording, I have to answer that you’re being simplistic: the (broadly) pliant media were part of the problem, but not all of the problem.

    I’d like to know whether you personally don’t believe Greenwald’s revelations because he associated with Dotcom or whether this is based on you speaking to others who don’t believe Greenwald specifically because of his association with Dotcom?

    I believed Greenwald. It appears not enough other people did, or simply didn’t pay him enough attention, to make a difference to National getting elected and IMP getting routed. Dotcom acknowledged that he was “poison” to Mana. I expect that the same applies to Greenwald’s message. Is this anecdote sufficient?

    Hager associated with a criminal, it undermined his message but without the association there would have been no message

    So he had no choice. This is not really relevant to the discussion.

    How do you propose things would be any different now if The Moment of Truth had not taken place?

    The general perception is that the “Moment of Truth” didn’t take place. The moment of truth was more about Dotcom’s Warner Brothers email revelation than Greenwald’s reporting. I’d love it if that email could be verified; but as it stands, it hasn’t been. Not sure how tarring Greenwald with this fizzer helps your point.

    … despite “Fuck John Key!” posted on August 12th you were still considering voting IMP, and for all appearances it wasn’t so much Dotcom’s as much as Assange’s association with Moment of Truth that turned you off IMP.

    If you go back over this discussion you’ll see that the point that I made, and that you are supposedly refuting, was essentially that I wouldn’t recommend that Greenwald directly associate himself with Dotcom. There’s no contradiction between that position and in having given consideration to voting for IMP.

    Perhaps we can just agree on Fuck John Key?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Steve Parks,

    Perhaps we can just agree on Fuck John Key?

    Not even with yours.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to Steve Parks,

    I believed Greenwald. It appears not enough other people did, or simply didn’t pay him enough attention, to make a difference to National getting elected and IMP getting routed. Dotcom acknowledged that he was “poison” to Mana. I expect that the same applies to Greenwald’s message. Is this anecdote sufficient?

    So the measure of Greenwald’s effectiveness is not so much that in the poll above only 13.1% were disbelievers, the goal posts have shifted and the new measure is that Greenwald didn’t cost National the election? Surveillance isn’t a partisan issue. The original bill – in which the right of an individual to define what is private communication was usurped by the state in its exclusion of situations where one “ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so” e.g online, applicable to warrantless surveillance of New Zealanders – was introduced under Helen Clark in 2003. The revelation that this legislation is being exploited was hardly likely to win Labour an election. It's not as if a meaningful percentage of people really care anyway, they’re all over Facebook. As someone who believed Greenwald you no doubt would have caught Russell’s interview with him:

    And apart from anything else, it’s not as if these activities have only taken place under governments of the right.

    That’s a really important point. The GCSB is a long-standing agency, it’s a lot like the NSA. The NSA has grown more or less steadily regardless of whether there’s a Democratic or Republican administration, and of course currently in the United States there is a Democratic President who is perceived as more on the left than the right, and yet the NSA has grown dramatically over the last six years. These agencies really do exist outside the democratic process. They are in a sense their own autonomous beasts and election outcomes really don’t determine the extent to which they continue to grow, unfortunately. That’s part of the problem.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • chris, in reply to chris,

    Yahoo

    Please note that no data transmission over the Internet or information storage technology can be guaranteed to be 100% secure. We continue to evaluate and implement enhancements in security technology and practices.

    Facebook

    WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS BE SAFE, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS FUNCTION WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS, DELAYS OR IMPERFECTIONS. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.

    Skype

    However, no method of Internet transmission or electronic storage is 100% secure. Therefore, while we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

    etc...

    private communication—

    (a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but

    (b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    Toby Manhire's last column for the Herald?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514702

    Advice to "Malco" Turnbull....

    Be yourself. But choose which bit of yourself depending on the audience.

    In Parliament, seethe at the infighting opposition; rile them up, all cutting jibes and sick burns. Outside the house, tone it down a notch. Remember there are always a range of views. Remember there's a good chance it's the last government's fault. Blame them. Remember to be relaxed about things. Remember that reasonable people don't always remember.

    If the issue is complex and detailed, it may be necessary to assert that grass is orange, the sky is green and oranges are blue. Invest in a large cupboard to store all your hats.

    Don't be aloof. Don't be slick. Be a bit of a dork. Be the dorky, lovable uncle, though preferably not in a hair-pulling way.

    Give the man an award of some sort....!!!

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.