Hard News: Birthday Cheer for Ricky the Special-Needs Monkey
89 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
I can see, that on a day-to-day basis.... a publisher doesnt need to worry too much about what is filling the gaps between the advertisements... They just need to get the gaps filled.
But, long term, if they want to keep attracting eyes to those adds... they've got to have quality "filler"... And in a wider sense, its what's in the filler that shapes what types eyes are looking, and therefore what constitutes appropriate advertising to be sold for that particular publication...
And I dont think you really need to be that astute to come to that conclusion.... So what Kerr said was probably more " a stick to beat the freelancers with" than a genuine reflection on his understanding of publishing? Or am I being too generous to Kerr?
-
Are freelancers like musicians and software developers...more and more competing with "free" rather than (or as well as) rapacious owners?
PA model is obviously an attempt to address that issue.
-
Conrad Black was (before his trial and conviction) in business both to make money and because he enjoyed the power and influence that owning influential publications like the Telegraph and Spectator got him.
Sure, but I don't accept that it's a zero-sum game. As Simon Courtauld's To Convey Intelligence: The Spectator 1928-1998 lays out with admirable candour, Black's bid to become proprietor was (to put it mildly) greeted with far from universal acclaim by staff, contributors or readers. The fear was that he was going to go on a cost-cutting rampage that would dumb down and sex up a venerable magazine, or become a hands-on prop. would compromise editorial independence and the diversity of views expressed in its pages.
Whatever his other failings (and they are legion), I don't think you could accuse him of screwing up The Speccie. How could you not love a magazine where, after the 2001 election, both the editor (Boris Johnson) and his deputy (Siôn Simon) ended up in Parliament -- but on opposite sides of the House. Couldn't imagine that happening at The Listener. :)
-
utterly off-topic...
am i the only one who can see chinese characters where the date and times should be at http://publicaddress.net/system/ ?
-
oh, fixed now.
-
am i the only one who can see chinese characters where the date and times should be at http://publicaddress.net/system/ ?
Don't worry, it's just The Matrix. Go back to sleep. :)
-
am i the only one who can see chinese characters where the date and times should be at http://publicaddress.net/system/</quote>
This happens to me sometimes when I'm looking at PA System on my Mac. It seems that the AM and PM next to the times turn into some sort of Chinese/Japanese characters.
-
It's not just on Macs
-
It's not just on Macs
True! I'm getting the blank character squares on my Windows work computer, which doesn't support the rogue alphabet set.
-
Craig
I think the difference between these guys and Greenpeace is that the sceptics operate on behalf of big oil and coal, whose core business is the very substance that is causing global warming.
Their tactic is to dress up politics as science. Greenpeace does accept the science of the IPCC - but then so do 178 Govts.. and all the major scientific institutions around the world. Sure, Greenpeace lobbies but on behalf of stopping climate change, not to prop up big business.
The first time this Heartland book's author, Fred Singer, appeared as a sceptic on global warming was when he was touted round by the Global Climate Coalition in the early 1990's - the GCC was a coalition of big oil, coal and car companies who were fighting against any regulation on climate change.
Another example: the head of the GCC in the late 90's, William O'Keefe, was also Chief Exec of the American Petroleum Institute (API), and now heads one of the long-time sceptic groups, the George C Marshall Institute (which works closely with Heartland - and Fred Singer).
O'Keefe was paid by Exxon to lobby the White House on climate change 2001-5, which was handy because his old colleague from the API, Phil Cooney, worked there. Cooney was the one accused of (well, caught out) watering down scientific papers. Cooney has since left the White House to go work for Exxon.
Greenpeace operates on behalf of the environment... it's funded purely by individuals (40,000 of them in NZ). If the global warming issue was solved tomorrow, there would be plenty of other issues for it to be getting on with.
-
I think the difference between these guys and Greenpeace is that the sceptics operate on behalf of big oil and coal, whose core business is the very substance that is causing global warming.
Sorry, Cindy. Well-intentioned bullshit is still bullshit in my book, and I think it's more than a little naive to think that Greenpeace aren't perfectly happy to manipulate the media and public opinion for their own ends. If journalists aren't treating all lobbyists with equal scepticism, and subjecting their claims to equally rigorous scrutiny, they're just not meeting their most basic professional and ethical obligations.
Then again, as I've said here and elsewhere at great length, I don't see how we're going to raise the quality of reporting when scientific and statistical literacy doesn't appear to be valued in our newsrooms.
The media seem determined to be either Pollyannas or Jeremiahs; and the rest of us can't be trusted to think, or feel, for ourselves without the guidance of Judy Bailey's tear-ducts.
How about we join Dragnet's Joe Friday and start replying: ""All we want are the facts, ma'am"? Or would that require journalists who knew, or even cared, what the facts are? Much easier -- and cheaper -- to get a soundbite from Fred Singer, another from whoever Greenpeace's designated media flack is this week, and pretend you've done shit.
-
Craig,
Yes, well intentioned bullshit is still bulshit..... But part of the point is that what Greenpeace does, IS as you say, for IT'S OWN ends..... it makes no pretense about what it stands for and why it's doing it. Heartland, and some of these other groups however, are not so up-front about their motivations...
-
Yes, well intentioned bullshit is still bulshit..... But part of the point is that what Greenpeace does, IS as you say, for IT'S OWN ends.....
I don't know how to put this more concisely: If you ends include telling porkie pies, you deserve to be exposed. Full stop. If you are a liar, good intentions or a worthy cause shouldn't get you a pass. Full stop.
And I sure shouldn't have to say this, but I will. It doesn't matter how 'up front' Heartland's motivations were, Jim Salinger et. al. had every right to be seriously pissed at having their work and views seriously and (IMO) deliberately distorted. Bast is being, to put it generously, too fucking cute for words to say this is a hissy fit over a bibliographic citation.
-
Then again, as I've said here and elsewhere at great length, I don't see how we're going to raise the quality of reporting when scientific and statistical literacy doesn't appear to be valued in our newsrooms.
agree with you entirely on this one Craig - since I've been back in the country I've been horrified at the utter lack of science reporters ... and the environment round getting chucked at the newest cadet.
Having been dealing with the likes of the BBC's environment unit, and media climate specialists who've been going to climate negotiations since I have (91), NZ's been a bit of a shock.
There was not ONE NZ journalist at the Bali negotiations... not one. When I asked someone in news about this he said it "wasn't on our radar". Says it all really.
If your ends include telling porkie pies, you deserve to be exposed.
yup, couldn't agree with you more.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.