Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Hot Media

106 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Here's the Heralds Environment page online:

    16April a story on Climate Change :)

    14April a story on Carbon :)

    14April Gary McCormick fence sitting so as not to get the bash from Simon Barnett :(

    11April Good story from Reuters - 1/3 of oceans warming :)

    10April Propaganda from the deniers posing as a legitimate group by plagarising the UN conference of the same name :(

    8April - brilliant story from Niwa on how Climate Change may effect us & BEER - too late they've all gone dirty dairying already. :)

    8April - Missinfomation special on the positives of global warming. Current thought (& yes it always changes because we're always thinking) revolves around climate change which may bring about more extremes of weather. :(

    28March an online poll of ignorance :(

    These last eight 'stories' on Climate change have:

    Four about Climate Change as a reality - 1 nicked off Reuters & 1 Brilliant one from Niwa

    Four from climate change deniers or monkeys with type writers

    Hansford is right, the deniers get 1/2 the copy and are but a fraction of the thought. As with the ice shelves getting smaller and a more slippery position to hold day by day.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    What is that Hanson is "right" about.
    He uses a study that claims to be a random sample, but its really only picked from 4 US print media outlets. Who tend to be the paper of record types and the Wall Street Journal , even I would think would be far from balanced.

    Too boot some "random" articles date back to 1993.
    Thats like 15 years ago.

    And dont forget in a statistical sense the IPCC gives it a very likely rating that increase intemperatures are caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    I wouldnt travel in a plane that was "very likey" to reach its destination

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I wouldnt travel in a plane that was "very likey" to reach its destination

    Or you could use an analogy that made sense and related to the debate at hand.

    Because you're already on board the plane, and scientists are telling that you should get off because there's a problem with it.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Steve - I'm right then in following Hansfords premis, from the Herald covering this year.

    The one thing we have to thank Climate Change deniers about is checking Green Hyperbole.

    Al Gore is guilty of it in regard to NZ role in saving the Pacific. We are guilty of in in our 100% Pure Tourism campaign.

    That's not to say alarms aren't warranted but they can be over stated beyond the findings. People start making sh!t up or quoting stats out of thin air.

    The NZCSC are being highly ethically questionable to say if we don't know we shouldn't act.

    In science nothing is ever truely known. Not every thing can be measured. We have to go with the best we can NZCSC are not the best, or even what they might have been 30yrs ago.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    I don't think the foreign owners of our media have a dark conservative agenda as such. But I do see foreign owned media companies using the opportunity of the fact they have a monopoly/duopoly in the only book shop in the isolated shopping mall to screw the local shoppers for every cent of profit they can. What do a bunch of people in Sydney care if we get a shit product made up of cheap right wing shock jock opinion pieces and manufactured controversies produced by reporting the garbage spouted by climate change deniers, anti-vaccination cranks and single issue loons as (to use the now notoriously Orwellian phrase) "fair and balanced" coverage? They'll get their wallopingly fat return to shareholders and that's all that counts.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    Hey Insider Outsider:

    As an ex-Listener staffer who's out of the loop these days, I'm just curious: who are the other Listener columnists who have been pushed in the last month?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    I thought you were one of them Philip! John Drinnan today says "Ussher [who has left as well] joins a long list of long-time staffers who have left the magazine and past luminaries include Denis Welch, Bruce Ansley, Alastair Bone and Phillip Matthews."

    Joseph Romanos is no longer in there too.

    Hansford was only there since November and I think he replaced some English woman who was also short lived.

    I see the story has made the NZ Herald. Pamela stirling said the column is now being done by a staffer and Hansford's was only a short term role.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    I wasn't pushed -- left six months ago. Welch went in about January and the other two left much earlier.

    None are in the past month and Romanos was a few years ago.

    I know that sounds pedantic, but to imply that Hansford was just one of a whole lot of columnists to go at the same time makes his case less exceptional than it (allegedlly) is. But the budget cut argument is just as credible.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    No be pedantic. If i'm wrong I'm wrong. I was going on vague memory - doesn't seem like years since Romanos went - and a few stories about the Listener's changing face.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • Dave Hansford,

    Pamela Stirling’s statement in John Drinnan’s column this morning is correct. I took on Ecologic back in November when the incumbent columnist, Francesca Price, took leave to work on another project.

    As such, it was indeed a temporary arrangement. But it was not terminated on the due date, and continued to run as Francesca’s leave extended. The fact that Francesca did not, in the end, return to reclaim her column did not automatically mean it was mine in perpetuity.

    But if my time was simply “up,” it’s baffling that I wasn’t simply told that. I was told instead that negotiations over Francesca’s return were under way. They were not.

    Francesca had already made it clear she was not returning. I was then told that I had been “rationalised” in a response to a shrinking contributors’ budget. That the column would be brought in-house because the magazine could no longer afford a freelancer to write it.

    I accepted that explanation, but it soon transpired that The Listener had, in fact, approached another freelancer to take the column over (They declined, and the column will now indeed be written in-house), placing a question mark over the claim of an ailing contributor’s budget.

    Drinnan's claim that "[Hansford] has had differences of opinion with Stirling during much of that time" over eggs the pudding somewhat. Pamela and I had a single conversation on the subject, during which I announced my intention to write the climate deniers column and she agreed to it.

    At no time was any suggestion raised that I had made any errors in that column, or left the magazine legally exposed.

    I cannot prove that I was rolled because of legal posturing by the Climate Science Coalition, and I have never stated that as fact.

    What I have stated repeatedly is;

    That I was dropped from the Listener column, Ecologic.

    That it came less than a fortnight after my column of March 22 about the Climate Science coalition’s financial and ideological links to the Heartland Institute and, by extension, Exxon Mobil.

    That it came in the wake of a published call for my dismissal by the President of the Heartland Institute.

    That it came in the wake of a threatened complaint to the Press Council and alleged threats of legal action by the Climate Science Coalition.

    That The Listener agreed on a settlement with the Climate Change Coalition that gave the CSC the right of reply published this week.

    That the Listener did not inform me of the bringing of the Press Council complaint.

    That I was not informed of the letter from The Heartland Institute calling for my removal, nor given a right of reply.

    That I was not informed of the Listener's decision to give the CSC right of reply on behalf of my own column.

    That both reasons I was given for my axing proved to be unsubstantiated.

    That my subsequent request for the truth of the matter was never replied to.

    That I was told that “We stand behind our columnists.”

    Given this concert of circumstances, and the artifice surrounding my axing, it is valid to ask questions of the Listener and of the Climate Science Coalition about the nature and terms of their negotiations.

    The implications for the independence of the media, and for the public interest, are too great not to.

    Perhaps these events WERE entirely unrelated. But if they were not, editors, journalists and readers alike have cause for concern.

    Nelson • Since Apr 2008 • 28 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Robeson,

    Why is this extraordinary? The Listener has been going to pack for ages and is well into sensationalist tabloid territory. Its science/health reporting is a joke and the writers seem to have no idea of scientific method or what constitutes scientific research. It regualrly trots outs hysterical stories of the "Diet Coke Wants to Kill Our Children" ilk. The latest story on cellphones causing cancer is just appalling and relies on a very dodgy piece od research, which has been well and truly skewered here: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/cell_phones_and_cancer_real_or.php
    The writer seems to think a "self-published" research study is considered credible. By the author perhaps, but by noone else in the scientific community.
    The most disappointing aspect is that there are no major print media doing good quality scientific reporting. They all seem to have decided hysterical and one-sided is the way to go. The tragedy is that there are valid concerns and debates that are being hijacked by ill-informed nutters.

    sorry mate- you've got it completely wrong...To quote from the Herald article...

    "Stirling says the magazine is more centrist and allows everyone to express a view."

    Being completely wrong, and having banal little topic headlines in addition to your headlines as one headline is not enough, or not trusting your readers to form their own opinion about a movie from READING a synopsis without an asinine 6/10 rating (introduced by an ex-Craccum ed obviously slumming it) this is more centerist.

    The Listener is now proudly part of Don Brash's mainstream New Zealand! What would Ian Cross think? Or would he be blogging for Public Address?

    Since Feb 2008 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Robeson,

    I thought you were one of them Philip! John Drinnan today says "Ussher [who has left as well] joins a long list of long-time staffers who have left the magazine and past luminaries include Denis Welch, Bruce Ansley, Alastair Bone and Phillip Matthews."

    Joseph Romanos is no longer in there too.

    Hansford was only there since November and I think he replaced some English woman who was also short lived.

    I see the story has made the NZ Herald. Pamela stirling said the column is now being done by a staffer and Hansford's was only a short term role.

    and Gordon Campbell...another one who actually had the confidence to do investigative journalism...

    Since Feb 2008 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    What do a bunch of people in Sydney care if we get a shit product...

    They care very much if it goes down the toilet, because people don't buy it. And to be quite blunt, Tom, I don't recall The Herald or The Listener being that wonderful under domestic ownership.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Gareth Renowden has taken down his post about Dave Hansford's departure and published a "Correction and apology to The Listener and its editor Pamela Stirling" after being contacted by by Bell Gully acting on The Listener's behalf.

    The "correction" covers statements he didn't actually make, and would seem to have been provided to him by The Listener's lawyers.

    Obviously, the legal risk of saying anything about Dave Hansford's departure has been considerably escalated, and I'd ask readers to bear that in mind when they comment here. It's a sad day.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    But just for some light relief, the Kiwiblog commenters on this case and climate change in general. Yes, you do have to laugh.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Robeson,

    They care very much if it goes down the toilet, because people don't buy it. And to be quite blunt, Tom, I don't recall The Herald or The Listener being that wonderful under domestic ownership.

    They don't care if it goes down the toilet. They care if people stop buying it. And a morally apt magazine, filled with intellectually scrumptious reading does not always shift product, or attract advertisers.

    Since Feb 2008 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    But just for some light relief, the Kiwiblog commenters on this case and climate change in general. Yes, you do have to laugh.

    Not quite so funny are commentators on this case who apparently don't know -- or just don't care -- about taking the post hoc fallacy out for a walk. Does anyone actually have anything useful to add to what we really know about what looks to me like an employment dispute gone toxic?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • horse,

    Off topic (and I'm happy to discuss it further elsewhere) but:

    It may end up with TVNZ buying the gear and hiring it out at affordable rates.

    Sorry, not a snowball's chance in hell. That's so far from how TVNZ does things that I'd fall off my chair if it came to pass.

    And it doesn't have to be expensive if you choose not to worship at the Throne of Sony. For one example see http://www.red.com - Rocket have 1, Rubber Monkey have 2. A significant part of that HD story was authored by Panavision, who certainly don't have any complaints about the status quo.

    Palmerston North • Since Feb 2007 • 32 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Kia kaha Dave Hansford.

    Anyone who feels so inclined may wish to email the Listener to share their views on this issue.

    Kia ora

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    So the editor of the Listener doesn't deign (yet) to respond to Poneke's emails and the magazine uses the threat of litigation to shut down discussion on the internet.


    Says all you need to know really.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    So the editor of the Listener doesn't deign (yet) to respond to Poneke's emails and the magazine uses the threat of litigation to shut down discussion on the internet.


    Says all you need to know really.

    Theatre. If there's any prospect of litigation, Stirling would be a fucking fool to start entering into any correspondence on the matter with anyone.

    And I don't know about you Tom, but the allegations made here aren't exactly trivial. Not for the first time, I wonder what is it about some bloggers that make them think they exist in some higher plane where you can talk any shit you like without responsibility or consequence.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Craig - you can't call theatre & then continue the arguement.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Theatre. If there's any prospect of litigation, Stirling would be a fucking fool to start entering into any correspondence on the matter with anyone.

    I don't agree at all. She talked at length with John Drinnan; she could have replied to Poneke. Perhaps she might have if he'd got in touch as his journalistic alter-ego.

    If Pamela had chosen to respond to either Poneke or Hot Topic, she would have been assured of a verbatim transmission of what she had to say. The fact that she immediately chose the route of legal threat and a dictated "apology and correction" saddens me greatly. No editor should do that.

    Obviously, I'm a columnist for The Listener. But I've also written for AUT Media, the co-owners of Hot Topic, and the publishers of Idealog magazine.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    I note that Owen McShane is offering the view that

    "...I suspect that the Listener found they could be facing an employment court action if they did not come to the defense of the Editor..."

    But as Russell says, any response would have been printed promptly, and verbatim. The subject was being discussed in good faith at hot-topic. The comments at hot-topic were nothing like the sort of sewer you get from the kiwiblog right. It seems to me that if one Helen Clark of Mt. Albert had as thin a skin as some seem to have then David Farrar's comments section would have been out of business years ago (perhaps that is something Mr. Farrar and the rest of his "Free speech Coalition" buddies ought ponder before their next bout of EFA hysteria, but thats another discussion).

    Really, it tells us that the sort of robust freedom to debate small fry interwebbies have become accustomed to collapses faster than an ice sheet in an unaccountably warm summer in the face of a decision to use corporate money to pay for legal threats. To that extent its a case of "so what's new about that?"

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    Just caught up with media7 shows 2 and 3.A real progression from a solid but slow show1. Very good show 2 and great show 3, the panels were interesting and rational, and it was nice to hear fresh political thought.

    Love to see the political panel back to see if the gallery takes note of their excellent points about seeking out facts and extended dialogue in regard to the "slippery" and "waste" political messages .Our governing and wannabegoverning competitors need to be examined on message and strategy fast.

    ..and would love for barry coleman to come back and physically show the timeline of when articles were written predicting the present collapse of investment companies, I think that's what he was saying. How obviously bad are (were) these companies? What did those articles say?

    Media 7 , looking good already.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.