OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance
397 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
I’m guessing you are thinking you are making a really brilliant point here
- what a shame your imagery is so OTT, vile and debased that any point is negated.Thanks Ian. I'm with you.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The one that did creep me out was the bookending of traffic reports on Radio Live and ZB with “party vote National” ads. This was in the middle of the news, with the electoral ad spoken by the same announcer who gave the traffic information, almost in the same breath. That really crossed a line for me, but I suppose I’m not a commercial radio listener.
Woah... that's weird even by the standards of... unfortunate ad placement. Then again, it strikes me as inappropriate having advertising inside news bulletins full stop and period. Guess that's my inner National Radio-loving liberal elitist popping up again. :)
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
but I’m still struggling to see what the media could have possibly done
For me, it would have been nice if the media actually fact checked Key's quotes before they published them. We repeatedly got Key quoted front and centre and then 3 days later the retraction below the fold on page 17.
The media were all too keen to give Key airtime for denial after denial, but when later data showed the denials to be only loosely connected to reality Key was given more airtime to explain it away, usually with some "look a kitten" deflection. There were very few who ever challenged. It was easy mode news.
I get that, in the end 40% of eligible voters voted for National and SFA Labour voters got off their arses but frankly using that as proof that the media are just fine, is plain weird.
-
izogi, in reply to
Albeit that you’re being a bit unfair to Wallace!
I agree. Also, is there a reason why such an awesome show like Back Benches, which lets people see their representatives in a less-negative and more fun environment, has to screen so late at night? Is there some thought that it wouldn’t rate if it were screened earlier?
It’s one of the best developments to have come out of TVNZ7, where its audience must also have been throttled, before that channel was canned. Good on Prime for picking it up, but the potential audience must be quite dumbed down by that timing.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
What do you mean by “a vehicle”? If you mean that the media quoted Key, et al saying this, then … yeah. That’s what the media does, unless you really want it to stop reporting things that the journalist in question happens not to believe. But if you mean that the media actively promoted this meme … I’m not convinced.
Yes, media did promote the meme – if by the meme we mean the repeated messages Key used over and over without critical analysis – and yes, they were indeed “the vehicle”. The vehicle to spread the propaganda (Key’s).
Where was the headline: Key employs propagandist techniques from the master
With quotations from Hitler’s Mein Kampf which prove the above headline. Such as:
“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out...”
“..But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html
Indeed, the media failed – or succeeded – in propaganda winning on the day.
-
Further to my earlier comment about Jordan Williams, Carrick Graham and the Fizz lobby group – it’s much worse than I thought.
As this February blog post by Eric Crampton explained, the whole thing involved what is clearly a false-flag Twitter account (@Fizz2030) that purported to speak for the Fizz researchers (they were completely unaware of it) and posted increasingly provocative messages for Williams and Graham to tout around.
On this basis, there was a threatening legal letter from Jordan Williams, an official complaint to Otago University and a public warning from Carrick Graham to “be careful”. All aimed to intimidate and silence. I’m not inclined to congratulate those responsible for a successful “parody” account like Eric did – this wasn’t a parody, it was aimed at undermining and discrediting scientists.
The whole thing appears to be a carefully-constructed effort to smear a group of health and nutrition researchers on behalf of a paying client.
These people are scum.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Honestly, can’t people remember when Labour was the big dog and those on the right were saying the media was crap cause they lost.
You are kidding right? You are referring to the Brash defeat presumably, even Craig admits that National deserved to lose that one. That same media then followed up with an attack on Labour over the electoral finance act, killing our democracy, which was a direct result of Nationals early attempts at "Dirty Politics".
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
For me, it would have been nice if the media actually fact checked Key’s quotes before they published them.
Can't argue with that, then again the dark art of sub-editing seems to be going the way of dressing for dinner and the Latin mass. Hell, I'd be happy if newsrooms just hired people who grasp the idea that correlation does not imply causation. At least that would start to reduce the incidence of junk health and pseudo-science stories, quarter-arsed moral panics and statistically innumerate beat ups.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
The whole thing appears to be a carefully-constructed effort to smear a group of health and nutrition researchers on behalf of a paying client.
A defamation case must be mounted which serves as a legal precedent to discourage such dishonest behaviour by these individuals (and the many more, I assume) who also deploy such techniques.
Given in this case, it is Otago University academics, perhaps Andrew might represent them.
We could crowd-fund the legal costs. This really must be stopped.
-
Rob S, in reply to
Just for the record Craig what is your take on the Hager book's claims viz dirty tricks emanating from the Beehive? How do you feel about your favoured political party using what seems to be criminal methods and character assassination as one of there main methods of staying in power.
If I got pulled up before the Judiciary for entering a website in the same manner as Jason Ede and Cameron Slater and said to the court that "everyone does it" how well would that wash do you think?I for one would like to see a full enquiry with powers to put people under oath to get at the heart of the matter.
Love or loathe Cunliffe how could he expect to survive a coordinated series of attacks using the powers of the state and various media elements from the vile to uncurious opinion pieces calling for his resignation with John Key calling tricky on his arse when the moniker might be better attributed to his own methods to smear him?
Something dark has been going on in our Government and the media has let obvious bluster and obfuscation pass as a rebuttal.
I don't want this to be the end of it as corruption from the top of society will slowly work it's way into all aspects of our Country if left unchecked.
I'm expecting a lot more of nothing to see here move along, 'oh look at those kittens' from National if any media does carry on with investigating Dirty Politics.
-
Richard Wain, in reply to
They accept generous salaries
Um, not so much. Journos tend to be badly paid actually. Horrible hours usually too. Would you do 50-60 hour weeks for $50-60K, in Auckland? Less if you're a junior... $70-80K is pretty much top dollar nowadays, unless you're Mike Hosking et al.
-
Richard Wain, in reply to
The way the protagonists kept on being invited onto The Panel as if nothing had happened was fairly troubling
+1
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I guess its all about going through the stages of grief.
Is this the new meme from National Supporters.Y’know, that corrupt party?
-
Eric Crampton, in reply to
I was only congratulating their having fooled me, as I like to imagine that my radar isn't that terrible for this stuff.
Patton could say "Rommel, you magnificent bastard!", couldn't he?
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
I thought The Herald giving its whole front page (large border around three sides, large square advertisement within actual page) to the National party on its online edition on friday before the election was pretty nakedly partisan.
It didn't give National anything. It sold that space to it.
Media companies are companies that seek to make money. If Labour's fundraising efforts weren't completely in the toilet, it could have done likewise. But it couldn't, so it didn't.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Russell, additionally you have likely read Wendyl Nissan's account of having been smeared;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11325097
The comments by readers on this article were many, many in number and all shocked and supportive of Wendyl. They have since been removed. Is this normal practice for Herald comments? Are they removed after a certain period?
Regardless, Wendyl is another individual who in my opinion has a case for defamation.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
people who grasp the idea that correlation does not imply causation
I can rant for hours on that. And please can people stop saying half of New Zealand voted for National ... sigh.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Just for the record Craig what is your take on the Hager book’s claims viz dirty tricks emanating from the Beehive?
For a start, I wouldn't believe anything Cameron Slater says without independent corroboration from multiple sources.
How do you feel about your favoured political party using what seems to be criminal methods and character assassination as one of there main methods of staying in power.
I expect a little more than :"seems," especially when the primary source is someone I've long considered a pathological fantasist whose relationship with the truth is distant and intermittent.
If I got pulled up before the Judiciary for entering a website in the same manner as Jason Ede and Cameron Slater and said to the court that “everyone does it” how well would that wash do you think?
Not at all, but I'd do you the basic courtesy of extending you the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law rather than by Mr. Farrar's free-range troll farm. The judicial process seemed to work just fine when Slater was convicted of eight breaches of suppression orders and one of identifying a victim in 2010. (The penalties were farcical, IMO, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Given in this case, it is Otago University academics, perhaps Andrew might represent them.
Can't, sorry. Not a real lawyer.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Indeed, the media failed – or succeeded – in propaganda winning on the day.
Brilliant and without Godwin. Excellent.
I have tried to say this so often, you said it better. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
The comments by readers on this article were many, many in number and all shocked and supportive of Wendyl. They have since been removed. Is this normal practice for Herald comments? Are they removed after a certain period?
No, it isn't.
It appeared there was some legal heat and the column was briefly offline while a couple of small factual errors were amended. The language was also (unnecessarily) qualified in a couple of places.
But all the comments being disappeared? That's strange. The editors should not go along with this bullshit.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Can’t, sorry. Not a real lawyer.
So what can you do to defend your colleagues? Give us your ideas.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Would you do 50-60 hour weeks for $50-60K, in Auckland?
I'm a scientist, I spent 9 years earning SFA to get a PhD which got me a job that paid $36k*, we can play this game all day and night if you like.
*I earn significantly more than that now having worked for 25 years as a scientist and consider myself to be "rich" although still well under the rich tax threshold proposed in the recent election. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
For me, it would have been nice if the media actually fact checked Key’s quotes before they published them.
To be fair RNZ did
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Something dark has been going on in our Government and the media has let obvious bluster and obfuscation pass as a rebuttal.
Too true, we need a proper inquiry.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.