Hard News: Dropping the Bomber
389 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
On Bomber, as someone who doesn't buy into his hatred of John Key, I commonly find his rants (in a pejorative sense) on RNZ unnecessarily over the top and unbalanced. I presume he is making the most of the platform and going 'all out'.
An as I indicated, I think that's a rude thing to do. But it doesn't seem to have bothered them at RNZ hitherto.
It could undoubtedly be handled better, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they have asked him in the past to tone it down, but he couldn't or wouldn't.
If that was the case, I'm sure they'd have said so. Instead, John Howson has now said (according to a Standard commenter who called him on the phone) that he was dropped because the rant was defamatory and the Prime Minister might be taking action. Which does rather suggest Radio NZ got a complaint from the PM's office.
Does RNZ pay people to appear on The Panel?
Yes. Can't recall how much, but it's under $100 i think.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
They have as much right and responsibility to be free as anyone else.
If you want to argue about an appropriate approach towards rehabilitation/societal integration, that's fine. But personally I'm comfortable with loose cannon who are demonstably violent to the point of being able to secure a conviction and an incarcerative sentence being kept off the same streets as me.
Erwin James was convicted of violently murdering two random strangers. By his own admission, it took him many years of his 20-year sentence before he himself was able to face up to his actions and start to rebuild himself into something other than a randomly violent sociopath.
Call me weird, but personally I'd prefer people whose violent tendancies have been clearly demonstrated to the extent that they have managed to secure a period of incarceration for themselves to be kept in a location where they can't do me physical harm.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Yes, except with political problems the people who get harmed will protest the decision and blame whoever makes it.
You mean, politicians might get upset at journos making them answer some hard questions for a change?
Diddums.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
And that really is the issue. The Prime Ministers and other senior ministers will not front for serious questioning about what they're doing.
Because they are thick and must be selfish if they are consistent with ignoring emails, requests for interviews, all from their employers, us! They have no idea unless it is getting their staff (accountants or lawyers) to minimise the risk or reduce costs. Bean counters don't ask questions, they just do as they are told and Lawyers, well yes, Lawyers. Did you know many of the National Party are Lawyers or Accountants.
Also I suspect, because all and sundry have to toe the Party line ,any views need to be scrutinised and that could take all week to gather the collective brain and that's a long time in sound bites. JK is a puppet on a string (I'd wager his money does help position because it's always about money with National). He is always ready to be hung out to dry when it suits the suits. -
Rich Lock, in reply to
look, a cat..
Ooh, ooh, where? I love cats.
Probably shouldn't have taken the tasty bait. But it smelled so good....
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Call me wierd, but personally I’d prefer people whose violent tendancies have been clearly demonstrated to the extent that they have managed to secure a period of incarceration for themselves to be kept in a location where they can’t do me physical harm.
I respectfully disagree. I think that problem can be much better dealt with for all concerned. Much, much better than simply locking them up.
It’s about empowering that person to manage those tendencies within a supportive environment. We know how to do this. Ultimately, that environment would be an open and tolerant society, one that looks after all its members equally.
Once again, what’s so outrageous about that?
And are you insinuating that I'm merely trolling? Insincere?
-
andin, in reply to
They have as much right and responsibility to be free as anyone else.
Ohhhh free. What of prison? what was the charge again?
Responsibility! Yes well back when there were a few of us scattered on islands around this here globe, frolicking slightly clad about the place hey, No problemo!
One could be as responsible as one liked.
Then.... then..... breeding sort of exploded. -
Paul Williams, in reply to
I presume he is making the most of the platform and going 'all out'.
Which is, imho, deathly boring, can't RNZ come up with a format that's more interesting or is that Focus on Politics?
-
A simple process:
1 Identify your options.
2 Assess the consequences of those options and sort them into 'good' and 'bad' according to relevant criteria.
3 Choose the best option from the 'good' options for that situation, or at least the one that does the least harm.
Whether you're solving a painting problem or a political one, I suggest the process is sound.
I suppose it it is if one shuts people's mouths with tape and forbid them from moving around.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
It’s about empowering that person to manage those tendencies within a supportive environment. We know how to do this. Ultimately, that environment would be an open and tolerant society, one that looks after all its members equally.
Once again, what’s so outrageous about that?I guess we could chain the intolerant ones up
and what about those who want to be there... -
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I suppose it it is if one shuts people’s mouths with tape and forbid them from moving around.
What?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I guess we could chain the intolerant ones up
and what about those who want to be there…Prison theme parks. Just watch this space.
-
Let me be somewhat abstract and whimsical for a moment, without detracting from the serious business of discussing quite I'm not sure what about Bomber.
The nation state is an aberration. Let's just ignore it. It hasn't been around long enough. It could go in any direction, most leading to oblivion.
For at least the last 6000 years, there have been three main ways of organising human societies: tribe, empire, and republican city state with communal government. Now, obviously tyrants have taken over all three, but I still think it's a no-brainer which is the best of the three, which I'd rather live in.
Doesn't matter how large or small it is, in a republican city state everyone does their bit, and no citizen starves. Imagine if the whole world were one great big city state and everyone citizens. Then the whole solar system. Then we go off to construct glittering things between the stars.
Why not?
-
Kracklite, in reply to
regulars at the Stranded seriously calling him a psychopath, a sociopath, and an alcoholic. Seriously bizarre.
They’ve been doing that for some time now. I might be inclined to say that Key presents (that’s counsellor-speak) psychopathic behaviour,* but as Babiak and Hare point out in Snakes in Suits, corporate environments compel that sort of behaviour, as do media advisors. It’s hardly the basis for a diagnosis.
The sinister side is the latent authoritarianism of so many Standard commentators and moderators that is never far beneath the surface. OK, so you’re going to call Key a psychopath, but that goes beyond a personal ad hominem attack; it becomes an implied judgement on all people with that specific disorder, making it synonymous with evil. Those who have it are not worthy of consideration and are a ‘safe’ minority to be persecuted.
If you define someone as pathological in some way, it seems to become safe to discount all who fall into that category at The Standard. For example, one of their regulars, Brendan Mills, has elsewhere advocated the purging of the genes for autism from the human gene pool either by selective abortion or genetic engineering, because it’s an undesirable condition or “corrupt code” as he put it.
Turn over a rock at that blog and you’ll find some very unpleasant creatures exposed to the sunlight.
*The same can be said of Goff, except that he does it so ineptly.
-
Maybe, as someone suggested (Cavanagh, I think), the core audience for RNZ is pretty damn conservative and not as liberal as we might think it is . The problem with The Panel is that it calls on folk who already have ample access to the public discourse and some are outright reactionaries (Hooten, Boag , Franks, McCormack). Time to dump the whole damn thing, I reckon.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
So what do you think should be done about it? What incentives/disincentives are there? Consider them the way they consider a recalcitrant beneficiary.
Not particularly scientific, but TVTropes is your best friend here. Or should that be best frenemy?
-
I've been banned from listening to The Panel for years because the middle-class pearl-clutching and right-wing smugness made me shout at the radio too much.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Actually, TVtropes could reduce crime kinda like this.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
As a people, all of us on the planet are staring several large complex problems in the face right now. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm worried about my stepkids and their kids. What kind of a world are they going to live in?
The world we make with the choices we make. Everyone of us. You are individually responsible. It's up to us, all of us. And there's only 1% in the way. The people with something to lose.
Is it really such a crime to suggest that we can actually handle these problems? Break them down step by step and actually get through this? Really? Such a bizarre concept?
Really?
-
Step 1: Open all the prisons.
-
As some rapper repeatedly asked the crowd at Occupy Wall St: 'What is the endgame?'
The crowd answered: 'This is the endgame!'
-
Step 1: Open all the prisons.
-
andin, in reply to
Break them down step by step and actually get through this? Really? Such a bizarre concept?
Oh so you are in serious let's sort it out mode. OK
Well shouldn't step 1 be : Get everyone, and I mean EVERYONE on the same page, or to the same "mindset". Hasnt worked before, I dont hold out much hope of it happening now, but thats by the by.
Anyway we are waaay off topic. -
Jackie Clark, in reply to
If it's any consolation, Danielle, after extensive polling at the dog park (well two other people, since it's such a rainy night) you are not alone. This woman said that there are people who see Key for who he is (she called it his shadow side) and those who don't. For those who don't, what they see is something that isn't charisma, but whatever it is, she said she thought that sort of "adoration" for lack of a better word, turns quite quickly into the negative, and will, eventually. It's just when that worries me. And another friend mentioned that they had wondered why there was an article in the Herald this morning ( I think the one on business during the RWC? ) that was critical of Key's govt. And then clicked that it was probably because the Herald had been banned from Parliament. All of which discussion sounded completely credible to me. There is something masked by his apparent affability, and it scares me. So no, you are certainly not the only one.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Well shouldn’t step 1 be : Get everyone, and I mean EVERYONE on the same page, or to the same “mindset”.
Yeah, I am, and, yeah, we are off-topic. But I'll quickly say you'll never get everyone thinking the same way, nor do I think you should try to. The glorious thing about people is that they're all unique, each sees the world in their own way, from their own perspective, their own point of view.
To belabour the point.
But we've got a common cause. We don't need to all look at it the same way. More ideas the better I reckon.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.