a telephone number-like legal bill is some indicator of quality
Quality of income, yes.
Are you missing a 'not'? Perhaps
And you win the chocolate fish for detecting the cunning "trivial typing error" I deliberately included to make sure someone was paying attention. Well caught, Sir.
Please send urgently. Am drowning in Chocolate Fish Debt. Bigger than GDP of small nations. Too many people find my trviial typing errors.
..provide the site owner with verifiable contact details like everyone who writes a letter for publication to a newspaper or magazine.
Because that helps get a better quality of comment? Is it just me who thinks the majority of letters written to NZ national newspapers are from diagnosed mental patients, who were thrown out of the SS after failing the English exam? It's no coincidence that Garth George used to be the Herald's letters editor.
Is it just me who thinks the majority of letters written to NZ national newspapers are from diagnosed mental patients
As a very occasional Letter to the Editor writer, I do think you have to be a little crazy. I guess LtotheE writers are souls who haven't yet discovered the blogosphere.
I have just written a letter to the Dom Post, something I do a couple of times a year. I am not a diagnosed mental patient, but if so, so what, isn't that comment a little prejudiced. And I have discovered the blogosphere.
My letter was on two of my favourite subjects, autism, and Thorkil Sonne, a Danish employment advocate for autistic people. It was in response to a very ill-informed column earlier in the week, on both those topics. I don't expect it to be published, but I feel better for putting my annoyance into words.
Janet Wilson's appearance on Mediawatch was ... interesting.
If other media organisations have been pulling back from risky stories for financial reasons, that's a story, but it would help if she could name a name or provide some sort of evidence for what she was saying.
Instead, she repeatedly said she didn't need to provide evidence because she wasn't a journalist.
She declared that Herald editor Tim Murphy had been so alarmed by Odgers' allegations that he "went into saturation on the blogosphere." Um, he sent one email to Odgers with his statement in it, didn't he?
And then she said "I think Tim's been left out of the loop on this one," explaining Murphy's apparent lack of concern at the alleged scandal.
She just pulled that one of her arse. Not all APN journalists got the tune-up memo (it seems to have been up to publishers) but all the editors did, before the journalists, the majority of whom seemed to have read it and forgotten it. To claim, absent evidence, that one of the editors was "left out of the loop" is absurd.
It feels slightly odd to be defending APN; I think there's plenty to criticise them for. But some people are losing the plot here.
I think that piece went into the free advertising basket.
If she's not a journalist (now), what does her business base itself on?
At Media Law Journal, Steven Price notes that the paragraph some people find so appalling:
There are categories of people who are more inclined to sue if they are the subject of adverse publications, so particular care should be taken in reporting allegations of misconduct against lawyers, doctors, judges, other professionals, politicians, critics and wealthy businessmen/women.
Is "almost exactly" the advice he gives in his own book, Media Minefield, "recommending particular care when writing about people most likely to sue":
... politicians, business people, lawyers, celebrities, sports stars, the police, and journalists.
Perhaps Steven's in on it too. Someone should give him a call on his phantom line.
The other thing the two passages have in common is that neither is actually new.
One small point I had noticed was that most of those standing on their "Easy Kleen" detergent boxes screaming coercion, cover-up, corruption and conspiracy all claimed to have been something once. The kind of person that gets a job and resigns a week later because they didn't get to make all the big decisions, a bit like those Clowns and Muppets who traipsed down Queen Street demanding that "It is not Democracy because I don't get to make the laws". We do have binding referendums in this country, they're called Elections and if you think you can do a better job, then run for Parliament.
Self centred right wing tossers the lot of them.
She also asserted that she's been editors elsewhere in APN that their "legal budgets" have been slashed, if not totally eliminated. I would have pushed Wilson a hell of a lot harder to come out and name names, but unless Jolisa is in on the conspiracy The Listener is not among them.
As Colin Peacock pointed out in his follow-up, it's hard to make the case that APN's two flagship titles (or anyone else in the media) has gone soft of Witi Ihimaera, despite his own history of litigation.
Oh, I've just listened to the repeat of Mediawatch on National Radio. I think your assessment of Janet Wilson's contribution was... generous. Awful lot of "have you stopped beating your wife?"-style questions being loaded and thrown out there. And, of course, if you don't give the expected answers that's only because you're in on the conspiracy.
I think it's significant that neither any APN journalist I've heard of or the company's EPMU chapel has been fussed about this. I've had more than one tell me it's ridiculous.
Compare and contrast to those situations where APN actually has enforced economies that actually have damaged its editorial assets -- the shrinking newsroom at the Herald, the debacle around the outsourcing of sub-editing. People were very vocal about those.