Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Denial

136 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Testcard,

    Looks like the Herald's got a bit of a problem with allowing anyone criticise it.

    Very poor form.

    And this from a newspaper that printed a death threat towards Tim Barnett.

    Since Nov 2007 • 23 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    all you have to do is listen to willie on Radio Live to get his bias regarding the whole case.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Stevens,

    In fact, it seems to me that this Govt would have loved to have a Maori as Police Commissioner - the idea that "they didn't want a Maori at the top" is just absurd.

    Jackson is just a blowhard - never really seen what his point is.

    And rickards - well, I hope he leaves his kids with Shipton and Schollum when they get out of prison - they'd be perfect babysitters obviously.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 230 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    So what are we to make of Herald editor Tim Murphy's refusal to talk to Colin Peacock of Mediawatch for the programme's report on the paper's campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill?

    I assume the Heralds editorials on this subject were written by Audrey Young; its possible that Murphy doesn't want to be interviewed on the subject because he simply doesn't know very much about it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Danyl - so he put these editorials on his front page, twice, in glorious Rednicolor (TM) without knowing very much about it?

    Typical of The Herald, I guess.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Testcard - you neglected to mention that the Herald printed an apology to Tim Barnett.

    Interesting to hear that Media watch stated that people outsdide Auckland havent had an opportunity to read the NZ Heralds front page editorials. This is crap. Anyone with an Intenet connection or who can walk into a public library can read the editorial.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    what's a library precious?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    On BTW Danyl, both editorials were NOT written by Audrey Young. The first one was written by John Roughan.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • noizyboy,

    And on a more trivial matter: has there ever been a more overwhelming surge of Canterbury parochialism than that over the All Black coaching announcement? ... The parochial peak was struck on Morning Report today when both Fergie McCormick and Alex Wyllie appeared to say they would support a Wallabies side coached by Deans over an All Black team. Good grief.

    It's not just Cantabs. Deaker's afternoon talkback yesterday had a non-stop call-a-thon of people I can only really describe as 'idiots', calling in to decry the 'celebration of mediocrity' the NZRFU is buying into, with many offering their support to the Wallabies until Robbie was given his 'rightful' position.

    Absolutely nuts.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 171 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Testcard:

    To be honest, I think Russel Norman would be better advised to hire someone who can actually write instead of screaming 'censorship' in the most fatuous and trivial way imaginable. Seriously, I couldn't imagine Rod Donald letting anything that piss poor go out over his signature to a student rag, let alone a major metropolitan daily. Then again, he was articulate, able to frame an argument that was passionate but reasoned rather than paranoid, and media-savvy. God only know what added value Norman is bringing to the Greens.

    I had a letter published in the Herald last week that was cut by almost half. Pissed me off - not least because the editorial nip and tuck improved it no end. But corporate fascist censors crushing my dissent. Get real...

    Speaking of which:

    In fact, it seems to me that this Govt would have loved to have a Maori as Police Commissioner - the idea that "they didn't want a Maori at the top" is just absurd.

    It's not just absurd, but profoundly dishonest and flat out sinister. I'd actually argue that if Rickards wasn't Maori, then he'd never have made assistant commissioner. Not with the kind of company he was keeping (and still publicly supports, BTW) and the 'allegations swirling around him' (to quote Clark's classic reason for putting Dover Samuels on the back bench). It just defies credibility that senior police management were unaware of all this when they made the appointment.

    Finally, I'm pretty sure Louise Nicholas just wants to get on with her life, with her husband and child. But if she decides to sue Rickards, Jackson and Radio Waatea for defamation, I'd be quite happy to kick in a few bucks towards her costs.

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

  • Hamboy,

    <quote>Interesting to hear that Media watch stated that people outsdide Auckland havent had an opportunity to read the NZ Heralds front page editorials</ quote>
    True, but then we tend to read our local papers for news.
    So yeah they may have over stated it, but they do kinda have a point.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    So what are we to make of Herald editor Tim Murphy's refusal to talk to Colin Peacock of Mediawatch for the programme's report on the paper's campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill?

    About as much as the Justice Minister canceling a scheduled interview with Audrey Young when the paper's campaign started? Perhaps it might have been a good thing if she'd kept mum, because Anette King's sole substantive contribution that isn't either hysterical or wrong has heen the infamoys 'King Law of Common Sense'. Hardly a jewel in the crowns of parliamentary debate or Kiwi jurisprudence.

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

  • Don Christie,

    Deans has had a chance in the All Black fold with Mitchell. I wish him luck in Australia and also wonder whether he is *that* disappointed to have missed the AB job.

    In a way the decision to stick with Henry shows a certain maturity about the NZRFU board.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I thought Robinson's point was interesting, that the Herald basically didn't care that the EFB story is actually boring their readers.

    They have a bee in their bonnets - that is clear to all rational readers.

    I think they're basically flexing their muscles. They want to see to what extent they can move public opinion on something so tedious. It's pretty hard to argue that there's a particularly strong sense of self interest involved.

    Which in itself it interesting to watch, even if their opinions are not. I tend to think they expend political capital by doing this, that yes, they can move opinion. But I think the average reader has a strange sense of balance about how often they let a paper move their opinion. It's not an unlimited power, it's more like a card that can be played.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    Some of the hysteria coming out of Chch has been ridiculous, but lets face it, the reappointment of Henry has been pretty shabby...

    Not so much changing the goalposts as hiding them

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    <i>So what are we to make of Herald editor Tim Murphy's refusal to talk to Colin Peacock of Mediawatch for the programme's report on the paper's campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill?</i>
    If King unscheduled her scheduled interview - and if she cant defend her bill, because she doesn`t underrstand its implications - why should an editor have to defend something he didn't write - and you can bet he will not just be asked why he allowed those editorials, but he would be asked about the content as well.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I found myself a bit past the whole "most important thing happening in the world today is four guys being interviewed for a job coaching a rugby team" thing about a fortnight ago. Possibly earlier. It's the live updates that TV3 (and presumably the other lot) were doing with who was in the interview and who was up next that really got to me. Talk about the media hanging around somewhere where absolutely nothing was going to happen for want of some actual real work to do.

    My only comment about the result was that they've reappointed him for two years. I can't imagine he'll get another world cup, so possibly this is a defacto appointment of Steve Hanson for 2011.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Which in itself it interesting to watch, even if their opinions are not. I tend to think they expend political capital by doing this, that yes, they can move opinion. But I think the average reader has a strange sense of balance about how often they let a paper move their opinion. It's not an unlimited power, it's more like a card that can be played.

    The tone of the campaign has made it hard to have a rational discussion about the bill's shortcomings. We just all of a sudden got to the point where people were carrying placards with swastikas on them on the marches. And Roughan and O'Sullivan's columns on the issue have become unreadable.

    I'm still not 100% comfortable with elements of the EFB myself. But John Boscawen's astroturf activities -- phone-spamming 80,000 people in Labour electorates included -- had the perverse effect of making me swing more behind it. He just comes across as yet another man with lots of money and a raging sense of entitlement, and that gives me the creeps.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    If King unscheduled her scheduled interview - and if she cant defend her bill, because she doesn`t underrstand its implications - why should an editor have to defend something he didn't write - and you can bet he will not just be asked why he allowed those editorials, but he would be asked about the content as well.

    If he's the editor, and the pieces of writing in question are editorials, then he's put his name on them. Lots of papers use various senior reporters to write their editorials, it's fairly common I believe. That doesn't mean that his name isn't on it. If papers are going to put out editorials, then someone from the paper should be able to back it up just like they should be able to back up any news story.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • noizyboy,

    In a way the decision to stick with Henry shows a certain maturity about the NZRFU board.

    Exactly! But one of the ongoing themes from Deaker's callers was 'how are we ever going to win the cup if we don't get rid of a loser like Henry!'

    Did getting rid of all our previous 'losers' improve things?

    And any suggestions of 'experience' or 'learning from mistakes' was summarily shot down. Of course, no-one saw fit to mention the coach of the 2003 RWC squad had been a loser in the 1999 tournament. Experience? Pah!

    Deans has had a chance in the All Black fold with Mitchell.

    And he's still young. He'll get another chance, probably after the next World Cup.

    But ... gah! Sports talkback. I should really avoid it. It's like the radio equivalent of kiwiblog...

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 171 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington,

    Some of the hysteria coming out of Chch has been ridiculous, but lets face it, the reappointment of Henry has been pretty shabby...

    Yes, like the article you refer to, I feel both jaded and apathetic towards the 2008 rugby season. Super 14? Maybe later...

    In terms of the NZRFU, Steve Tew is starting to appear more and more like Cigarette Smoking Man in the X-Files.

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 949 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    why should an editor have to defend something he didn't write - and you can bet he will not just be asked why he allowed those editorials, but he would be asked about the content as well.

    Um, because that's part of the job description when you get to sit behind the big desk and put 'editor in chief' on your business cards? Just saying...

    Some of the hysteria coming out of Chch has been ridiculous, but lets face it, the reappointment of Henry has been pretty shabby...

    Perhaps, but call me a cynic because I had my doubts that the folks who'd backed Henry to the hilt were going to turn around and say 'Well, didn't we well and truly screw the pooch by trusting him?" And if, as some pundits have claimed, the whole process was a farce because they're already decided to re-up Henry's contract? Gee, like that's never happened before...

    But when you get right down to it, I don't really care - neither choice was going to be universally popular, but a coach had to be appointed. They made their pick, and just have to wear the consequences. Just don't ask me to care.

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

  • LegBreak,

    True the coach of the 2003 RWC winning side had failed in 99, but the other 5 winning coaches had not previously failed; that is a totally spurious argument.

    As is the argument that changing coaches every 4 years hasn’t worked before, so why not do something different??

    If that’s all the pro-Henry camp can come up with….

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Gregor Ronald,

    As a casual (i.e. less than fanatical) rugby watcher, this Henry business appears to me as just another step in the long downward road that NZ Rugby has taken in recent years. I haven't been to the ground to watch a game this year, and I don't watch much on Sky either.

    It's got to the stage where we were sick to death of rugby by the time Super 14 finished, then there was the half-baked provincial series without the ABs - the highlights were the minor provinces, especially Southland's performance (revealing my origins here...) - and the World Cup was a long drawn-out media wank, from the "Mighty Warrior" TV ads, the little tins of "homeland" dirt, down to the loss in Cardiff.

    I think there are a lot like me, who've got to the attitude of "Let them do whatever they want, I just don't care about it any more." And the boof-head comments in my Christchurch local this weekend didn't help either.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    He just comes across as yet another man with lots of money and a raging sense of entitlement, and that gives me the creeps.

    And some of the more, shall we say, excitable proponents of the Bill come across as yet more wingnuts with a raging sense of paranoia who can't get their heads around the notion that opponents aren't all whores of the Exclusive Brethren, foreign-owned corporate media and the Business Roundtable who want to "buy elections". Gives me the shits, Russell, and just hardens my view that the EFB is a very bad bill and no substitute for a serious and well-worked out package of election finance and campaign reforms.

    Do you really think the Herald is to blame for that, Russell, or can we just split the difference, and agree that there's a lot of hysterical fucktards on all sides who aren't adding any value to the debate?

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

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.