Hard News: Dirty Politics
2403 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 44 45 46 47 48 … 97 Newer→ Last
-
JLM, in reply to
Well, I have just returned home from a talk by Nicky Hager at the University of Waikato. Despite pathetic attempts by the university administration to limit publicity (dept secretaries were prohibited from distributing news about it), it attracted a crowd of 750 people (two linked lecture theatres). He gave a great speech, answered multiple questions, and got a standing ovation,
There are people listening!I hope Nicky had a good break over the weekend. In Dunedin on Friday night he would pause before the second half of his answer to a question and say, "What was it again, I'm so tired, I've been doing this for two weeks..." Yet he was unfailingly courteous and clear in thought and speech.
The thing he said that stayed with me more than anything else is that political parties use negative campaigning when they know they can't win voters with their policies. That simple statement crystallized a few things for me.
-
izogi, in reply to
Person not running for office or holding any relevant position, lashes out to defend her sister. Public interest: zero.
And yet it’s been popular enough for Stuff to continue milking it, with this “top comments on the Judith Collins compared with Diana story” story. And yes, there’s another comment section below.
Do Stuff writers get incentives for page loads?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I hope Nicky had a good break over the weekend.
He deserves our support and help. Target any news that doesn't support his book but supports attacks against his book. He is telling the truth. To see the big picture is to see the obvious. I have always been untrustworthy of National. I have never read Whale oilscum. I have never trusted Farrar The names of old National Party silver spoon offspring being involved is so obvious it is a mockery .
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Do Stuff writers get incentives for page loads?
It's far easier than doing any real work. That's incentive enough.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Judith Collins compared with Diana
What the fuckity fuck fuck fuck……
Diana was an innocent that a jealous public turned on, who was then persued to death by a ravenous media.
Collins, on the other hand, was ravenous, jelaous public servant that persued an innocent media to death.
Yeah, well maybe not so innocent but…. -
Angela Hart, in reply to
Well, there's a big story right here, though so far only Felix Marwick (Newstalk ZB) seems to be onto it ...
https://twitter.com/felixmarwick/status/508715576412217344/photo/1
Ombudsman responding by the end of "next week" (which is now this week, if you follow). It's important, because this is the only official action before polling day, the rest has been kicked for touch.
Thanks Simon, that would be Friday, this response will be interesting indeed.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Sad? Why not mad? I am disgusted and I have given up being polite
-
I will gladly possibly give you $10p.w.
in 2017, for your vote next week…National launches the Wimpy Tax Cut…
The devilry is in the lack of detailEyepopping stuff…
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Do Stuff writers get incentives for page loads?
Stuff as whole does. It's called "ad revenue."
-
chinashop, in reply to
You may be right, but that's a completely irrational conclusion for them to draw. National aren't going to help anyone who isn't in the top 10%, probably really 5% of incomes.
Yes, precisely. If it were rational behaviour, the Nats wouldn't need to engineer a climate of insecurity. Fear makes it easier to convince people to act against their own self-interest/principles.
-
Stuff is running Hints ahead of Dotcom announcement.
Kim Dotcom has released further details of his "moment of truth" announcement that the Internet Party founder says will turn the election on its head.
In a statement today, the Internet Party said the event on Monday "will present vital information to voters about Prime Minister John Key, the National Government and the sordid workings of Hollywood ahead of the general election".
"The elite panel of guests and experts will lift the lid on the New Zealand Government's involvement in spying, mass surveillance and more at this unprecedented event."
Let's hope it's not a fizzer. Although given the public's lack of interest in NZ's biggest political scandal to date, I'm not holding my breath.
-
izogi, in reply to
Let’s hope it’s not a fizzer.
I sort-of hope it is a fizzer.
Not because I’m partial towards the current government or JK (I’m not), but if there’s something seriously wrong with NZ’s surveillance as KDC is hinting at, which we don’t already know about, then the NZ public should have more time to absorb it and consider implications than 5 days before an election. If he knows stuff then he should just say it, IMHO, instead of getting so theatrical and vendettive.
To me this attitude of his is another indication that KDC has probably had nothing to do with @whaledump or Nicky Hager’s work, as the PM’s office likes to broadcast. If he’d had all that stuff, going by his attitude, he almost certainly would have been dropping hints week after week, and released it at the same silly time.
given the public’s lack of interest in NZ’s biggest political scandal to date, I’m not holding my breath.
Same. I guess you can never be sure until it happens, but I’m not convinced the usual suspects really care about spying and mass surveillance revelations, even if I personally think it’s important. We’ve already learned about heaps of stuff in this area and it’s apparently made little difference to how people (or at least supporters) actually feel about the government and vote. At most this will probably help to polarise the electorate more than it already is.
-
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
Sacha; can't find any solid evidence but it did not appear in Monday's Events Calendar which goes out to all staff.
-
Stewart, in reply to
There is also the issue of JK having lied about when he knew about Dotcom.
I am looking forward to a big public revelation that the PM has flat-out lied to the nation, repeatedly. The grinning, slick, facile, glib, feculent Prime Minister of our beautiful country. -
If you want to be part of an ad in the Herald demanding action on Dirty Politics, have a look at this
http://www.actionstation.org.nz/support_democracy_letter?utm_campaign=democracy_sign&utm_medium=email&utm_source=actionstation -
bob daktari, in reply to
yep and no one will care - how many times has been been caught lying?
One more time won't make any difference -sure there will be headlines and those who care to be informed will be upset/angry/happy/whatever
http://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/29406c/the_big_list_of_john_keys_lies/
I'd like to think I'll be proven wrong and the public will face the reality that has been staring them in the face for a number of years now and get informed and vote accordingly... nah can't see it
-
I'm thinking that an alternative system of representaion would be more effective, one where New Zealanders could either participate directly in democratic policy decisions or assign a proxy vote to the representative of their choice. The system wouldn't be party based, and people would be able to change representatives or participate directly at any time.
At the very least it would force the system the respond to the points being raised.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
No, it would be disastrous, as has been demonstrated in California and elsewhere.
The same voters who troop into polling booths to vote for John Key would happily support 20% tax, pensions at 55, buying whatever drugs Big Pharma's astroturfing are promoting that week and a squadron of jet fighters to boot.
-
Justice Fogarty's interim ruling has been released (here).
Not quite sure what to make of Stuff's headline
given that Fairfax was not named in the action. Is this some kind of perverse crowing over the fact that APN was named?
Anyhoo, obviously there was sufficient grounds for Fogarty to believe that Slater's privacy had been breached. But from my reading of the judgment, he highlighted two other issues which seem equally important. First the extent to which remedies can be made given the information was public already and second that the public interest in information already in the public sphere.
[8] The case for injunction against the hacker on an interim basis is
overwhelming. The common law knows no justification for breaking the law. There is, however, a distinction between illegal conduct to obtain information which is released into the community, and subsequent orders by the courts as to the use of that information once it is in wider circulation. In the latter case, the courts balance the breach of law in the acquisition of the information, against the public interest in examining the information once it is in the public sphere.Yeah Stuff do mention this but you would be forgiven for thinking these were of secondary importance to the wrong done to Slater. In one sense, all the information from the judgment is there but am I the only one to feel that the article underplayed the importance of the information?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
given that Fairfax was not named in the action. Is this some kind of perverse crowing over the fact that APN was named?
Fairfax is a named defendant. Read the judgement.
The Judge says that Rawshark can't release anything else to the media, because the emails were obtained unlawfully, but he hasn't ruled against any of the named media organisations publishing them. This is basically the write-up of the verbal decision he gave last week. Tomorrow's proceedings may be interesting, but I'm betting Slater hasn't got a prayer of stopping publication.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
In one sense, all the information from the judgment is there but am I the only one to feel that the article underplayed the importance of the information?
That's because this is only the warm up match ;-)
-
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
I'm betting Slater hasn't got a prayer of stopping publication
Slater's backers, however...
I'm disappointed we haven't seen anything at all yet. I was starting to think that there's no need to get a legal injunction when management in your pockets will suffice just as well.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Tomorrow’s proceedings may be interesting, but I’m betting Slater hasn’t got a prayer of stopping publication.
That's my expectation too. I don't think there's any more Slater's QC can say.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I’m disappointed we haven’t seen anything at all yet. I was starting to think that there’s no need to get a legal injunction when management in your pockets will suffice just as well.
That's probably because none of the media outlets want to give the judge a reason to rule against them. By holding off until a decision is given, they show restraint, which they hope will be to their credit.
-
The Judge says that Rawshark can’t release anything else to the media, because the emails were obtained unlawfully
The emails were not obtained unlawfully. Copying data is not unlawful.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.