Hard News: Why we thought what we thought
287 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Cecelia, in reply to
Ha! Can't think of any knitting puns but Macbeth crying for sleep comes to mind, "sleep that knits the ravelled sleeve of care". Way off topic unless you can think of a link.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I see where you are coming from now, a graph depicting something along the lines of relative scores on each question. That, surely, would become quite cumbersome and open to "cheating" yes?.
-
Michael Meyers, in reply to
Cunliffe should actually have known his own policy (and one IIRC he developed while finance spokesman before the last election) well enough to zing Key right back
While this is true, I don't see why the CGT gaffe has become the most important thing in the news today. We have had a two hour debate and the most important thing was that DC didn't have a rehearsed answer for a question about family trusts and CGT? Really??
More important points from the debate for me were that JK was stating that we already have a CGT on investor profits on house sales (interesting rebuttal to CGT), and that I now know more about JK's mum than about the Nat's policy.
Also, JK has got a lot of praise for condemning Cam Slater during the debate but it was a pretty limited censure of Slater's behaviour, only related to the SFO. This seems to have been lost. Overall it looks like news doesn't do subtlety.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
To which sin do you refer? Greed, Averace, Guutony, Sloth, wrath?, I could go the full seven but
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
he had cast himself
Knit one, purl one, cast off into a boiling sea
made treacherous by hidden monsters with needle teeth
that clatter like the hooves of an aran jumper
The cable knit ties that anchor are dropped
And sew to sea Lord Cardigan...I do like a good knitting yarn.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I counter with Commandments... 13 of them.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Well presented as a single number for each candidate you’re comparing with, sorted in order, it’s not that cumbersome. It depends how much analysis you really want to do. It’s not outrageous to aggregate the answers to related questions, I just think that there could easily be more than 2 aggregates (which is what the political compass does). If you want a multidimensional view then a pairs plot with each of the aggregates against the others could be made.
One of those plots would look just like the political compass, but you could easily plot religion answers against social progressivism, or stance on women’s rights against stance on the rich/poor divide. Or all of the aggregates against them. Or even all of the questions against all of the other questions (but you’re talking about thousands of graphs there). I think you’d learn a hell of a lot more about your position relative to the candidates. Your choice of the most important plot would say a lot about your views to yourself (since that is the point of this – it’s a self-analysis tool).
As a corollary of this, is it not apparent that the choice of axes made by the designers of the political compass says a lot about them? It’s not anywhere near as impartial as it might seem. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the NZ projection has all of the points close to a diagonal line? In other words, the two dimensions are strongly correlated. If that is really so, then they’re actually quite a poor choice of dimensions, showing very little, since the candidates form a left to right line anyway.
ETA: Further to that point, choosing those two aggregates means that the designers can really only ask questions that actually relate to those two dimensions. Your stance on alien abductions doesn't separate you, so they don't ask. But actually, I want to know if the candidates believe in that kind of thing. Because that makes them people I want to avoid.
Basically, if you're going to go multidimensional, I see no reason not to do it properly. The questionnaire could ask any questions whatsoever, then.
-
Cecelia, in reply to
You've said so well what I wanted to say but ...
Who are the hard-core Nat supporters who gave him a clear win? The Herald people?
Weren't the snarky wit and put-downs more forced and desperate this time?
Was the one gaffe in the context of the whole debate really worth the prominence it has been given in the Herald this am?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
You could do that with a Pie graph, although you may have to blow on it first and in Brownlee's case make sure he doesn't take a big bite out of it.
;-) -
BenWilson, in reply to
If I even mention a pie graph online I might be failed out of a statistics major on basic principles.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Or was it meant to be a schoolboy debate? Maybe I missed the point?
As I said, I turned it off after five minutes because two adults shouting over each other seemed like a waste of my host's broadband. I know, as they say in Boston, politics isn't beanbag but I really don't get the kind of advice that says chipping in and shouting over people is "strong." There was one train wreck of a televised debate back in 2000, where Rick Lazio, Hillary Clinton's Republican opponent for the Senate, was obviously told to "get in her face" and it just read as epic man-tronization that lurched into the downright creepy. It's a tricky line to stay on the right side of, because what "reads" well in a room can come across differently on television and vice versa.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
But…. Florence Nightingale invented them…
Well, the Polar Area Diagram to be precise. -
BenWilson, in reply to
I don't mean to say that the Political Compass is useless. It's better to use a 50 year old idea than a 225 year old one. But we could use even more modern ones, since the software is there to do it.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Was the one gaffe in the context of the whole debate really worth the prominence it has been given in the Herald this am?
I looked at the online Herald. Almost nothing on the debate- the first two election stories were 'Hacker hits back at Collins' denial' and some 'Nick Smith pilloried at housing debate' -neither what National would have wanted.
I guess the print version led with 'Another Gaffe from Tricky Dave'? -
Cecelia, in reply to
The print version has a smallish sidebar "PM lands tax blow" on the front page and a double page spread pages 4 and 5. Banner headline: "Cunliffe's tax stumble brings back memories". There's a story where Cunliffe refutes Key's CGT claim but the dominant feature of the page is a grey box around the large central photo with four colourful articles by Herald journos (including Manhire!) saying that Key won.
I read the online reviews of the debate last night but I'm handling the Herald with tongs today. I'm so upset. Does that make me "tribal"?
-
Cecelia, in reply to
What a great poem that you have written
It's like a damn fine piece of knittin'I knit my brows in some dismay
That Herald folks opined that way -
Alfie, in reply to
The production values were bloody aweful through , audio levels all over the place , the intros were far too long and it was very hard for me to hear what Press Editor was saying.
That's a valid point Richard. We tuned in around 7:35pm and found numerous technical problems. For a start the pictures were out of sync by about two seconds. I closed and reopened the page, switched to the lowest quality offered, but nothing improved that.
The audio levels were poorly mixed and I found myself riding the volume on my PC to try and hear what was being said. It didn't help that the Press journos often stood some distance from their mics - radio mics would have been a better call. And when Key was shouting over Cunliffe his audio took precedence, suggesting a poor or even unattended sound mix.
It appeared to us that Key was trying too hard to score cheap points by trying to get laughs - or relying on noise over substance. In reference to what a couple of people have already mentioned, I actually said to my wife, "Is Key pissed?" Because his performance at that point was looking increasingly unhinged. We gave up after five minutes.
-
For Pie graphs, I would rather credit the "colourful" William Playfair
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-visionary-and-a-scoundrel
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The production values were bloody aweful through , audio levels all over the place , the intros were far too long and it was very hard for me to hear what Press Editor was saying.
That’s a valid point Richard. We tuned in around 7:35pm and found numerous technical problems. For a start the pictures were out of sync by about two seconds. I closed and reopened the page, switched to the lowest quality offered, but nothing improved that.
The audio levels were poorly mixed and I found myself riding the volume on my PC to try and hear what was being said. It didn’t help that the Press journos often stood some distance from their mics – radio mics would have been a better call. And when Key was shouting over Cunliffe his audio took precedence, suggesting a poor or even unattended sound mix.
I tweeted last night that it showed how hard producing this kind of live video on a limited budget actually is. The Green Room webcast I did last week had its rough edges too -- our director couldn't hear the discussion and had to cut on what he could see (which did seriously well).
But The Press event was, even given the inevitable challenges, bloody poorly produced. The difference in volume between Key and Cunliffe in the first half actually influenced the debate.
-
Alfie, in reply to
I tweeted last night that it showed how hard producing this kind of live video on a limited budget actually is.
Good or poor production -- they both require the same setup -- the same number of mics, etc. The difference with a good production comes down to having a decent sound engineer controlling the mix. I've worked with soundies who can mix six radio mics simultaneously and successfully. Just pre-setting levels and letting a limiter take care of the peaks doesn't work when once person consistently interjects at a higher volume.
I think part of the problem with the current debates is the candidates being encouraged to shout over each other. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer debates to be more balanced and reasoned with each speaker being treated with a little more courtesy. If necessary, mute or at least dip the other mics when someone has the floor.
The cacophony of noise experienced last night and at times in the TVNZ debate may fuel the adversorial, game show style we're seeing this election, but it adds little to audience understanding of the issues. Give me controlled, intelligent debate any time.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
If necessary, mute or at least dip the other mics when someone has the floor.
I think it was actually Key who suggested Tracy Watkins step back a bit, and talk at the microphone - most of the time she talked away from it which didn't help...
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Give me controlled, intelligent debate any time.
Let them eat Internet.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
The cacophony of noise experienced last night
There were times when Key’s mic was almost as distorted as his ‘arguments’.
Anyone know who produced it? -
CJM,
Interesting to see that the Herald had 'comments' for the 2nd debate open but shut them this morning and have only put up 3 comments. After the overwhelming number of pro-Cunliffe comments last time clearly they feel the need to shut up the rabble at their keyboards confusing things with contrary views and opinions about shouty John, the graceless berk.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Shouty John, the Graceless Berk.
Hmmmm... Could be a kids book in this...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.