Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli
408 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
And I think it’s perfectly fair comment to ask whether Rudman’s going to grow a spine and turn that “brutal” invective on his own employers. I’m far from impressed by the sight of The Herald’s “Auckland issues” columnist posturing atop a moral high horse choking in its own shit.
Really? No news establishment, commercial or public, could have left this story alone once Slater broke it. There are angles of abuse of power, abuse of office, morality, politics, and dirty tricks conspiracy that are both entertaining and of public interest. As it is, the Herald seems largely to have left the nastiest details to Slater.
What did you expect? I imagine the Ranapia standard would require a paragraph on A10 saying "It has been reported on the internet that a public office-holder has been indiscreet but modesty forbids this paper sullying its pages further."
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
What did you expect? I imagine the Ranapia standard would require a paragraph on A10 saying “It has been reported on the internet that a public office-holder has been indiscreet but modesty forbids this paper sullying its pages further.”
Well, snark away all you like Stephen but I don't apologize for expecting slightly higher editorial standards from a major metropolitan newspaper than I do from WhaleOil and The Standard. But, OK... I guess The Judd standard where editors don't actually edit and outsource their news gathering to the more fetid corners of the internet is the new normal and I'm just pissing in the wind hoping for different.
But if this is The New Normal, I really would like the supposedly "legitimate" press to own their bullshit. You don't get to go sewer spelunking then feign outrage at the nasty smells and unpleasant sights. Or at the very least, don't try and do it simultaneously. Is that too much to ask as well?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Really? No news establishment, commercial or public, could have left this story alone once Slater broke it. There are angles of abuse of power, abuse of office, morality, politics, and dirty tricks conspiracy that are both entertaining and of public interest. As it is, the Herald seems largely to have left the nastiest details to Slater.
Agreed.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
I don’t apologize for expecting slightly higher editorial standards
What are those standards though? Could you please clarify:
- whether they should have covered it
- and if so, what aspects were legitimate to coverI do appreciate your love of rhetorical figures, but between the hyperbole and the litotes I really cannot understand what you do and don't find acceptable.
-
SteveH, in reply to
It was unnecessary for Rudman to imply that Whaleoil’s behaviour is his father’s responsibility – it clearly is not – but I don’t think it’s at all unfair to consider John Slater’s role as the manager of a campaign that is starting to look like it was knee-deep in this whole business.
Didn't Whale Oil state that he and his father had received threatening texts along with Bevan? Am I supposed to believe that John Slater got a threatening text days before the election and made no effort to find out what it was about?
We don’t really know the context in which she said, how strongly she felt it, whether it was offhand, in response to a question, or what.Given the striking difference between her reported words on Whaleoil and in the Herald, I’d say it was largely there to heap as much humiliation as possible on Brown.
Yes I have trouble believing anything attributed to her on Whale Oil that isn't in the affidavit, and even that probably has a different tone to how it would if it were her own words.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I do appreciate your love of rhetorical figures, but between the hyperbole and the litotes I really cannot understand what you do and don’t find acceptable.
Stephen: With all due respect, what part of “do your own fucking legwork, and make sure you’ve got all your facts straight before going to press” is obscure?
No, I don’t think there was any legitimate public interest in Len Brown’s private life.
I sure as fuck don’t think there was any legitimate public interest in the leering slut-shaming and casual racism Bevan Cheung is still being subjected to.
And I sure find it interesting how the New Zealand Herald is trying to distance itself from the very sleazebomb they’ve been running hard with for most of a week, don’t you?
But, hey - I think you've made it perfectly clear what kind of media you're willing to tolerate. Hope it works out for you.
-
Danyl observes than Slater junior's doltishness may have done the Mayor a big favour.
If the story was broken strategically it would have been used to force Brown into making denials that could be disproved, and rolled out over a series of days with separate components leaked to rival news organisations – the usual bag of tricks Labour and National employ when they get something juicy.
But Slater just vomited it all out there on his blog, which possibly saved Brown’s mayoralty.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Didn't Whale Oil state that he and his father had received threatening texts along with Bevan?
and who do we think sent them..
-
Sacha, in reply to
between the hyperbole and the litotes
great biography title
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
what part of “do your own fucking legwork, and make sure you’ve got all your facts straight before going to press” is obscure?
What is "legwork" in this context? I understand that the Herald's reporters are seeking their own sources and writing their own stories since Slater broke it. Likewise, what facts did they not get straight?
I don’t think there was any legitimate public interest in Len Brown’s private life.
What are the boundaries of private life? I think when you hold yourself to the electorate out as a caring Christian family man in an attempt to get people to vote for you and your values, and yet don't live up to those values, when you write references for people you are in a covert relationship with, when you may as an older authority figure have abused your role and influence in a sexual relationship, that there is a public interest there.
There is also public interest in an orchestrated campaign to destabilise a mayoralty, and it's hard to report on that without reporting on the substance of the campaign.
The challenge for the Herald is to find a way to report the facts without prurience, and they may well have failed at that, and all I ask is that you say how, which you evidently don't want to do.
I sure as fuck don’t think there was any legitimate public interest in the leering slut-shaming and casual racism Bevan Cheung is still being subjected to.
From the Herald? Again, example please?
I sure find it interesting how the New Zealand Herald is trying to distance itself from the very sleazebomb they’ve been running hard with for most of a week
Columnists are not reporters. I know you know that.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
IANAL, but it was my understanding that giving a reference is something previous employers are required by law to do, and they can’t say anything bad.
That would kind of defeat the purpose of "a reference", wouldn't it? Having to tell someone else that the thieving, psychopathic drunk you fired is "a conscientious team player with good people skills".
So ... no. Not how it works at all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Stephen: With all due respect, what part of “do your own fucking legwork, and make sure you’ve got all your facts straight before going to press” is obscure?
I think that's what the Herald has done.
I would have preferred to go without the shouty front pages and yesterday's censurious editorial, but the Herald, and Jared Savage in particular, have nailed this story. They've shown us what really happened.
-
martinb, in reply to
though someones probably already said this, yes the main thing out of all of this is that Brian Rudman should be very very ashamed. Astute analysis
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
What are the boundaries of private life? I think when you hold yourself to the electorate out as a caring Christian family man in an attempt to get people to vote for you and your values, and yet don’t live up to those values,
Which, now it is public, is a matter for voters rather than anything to do with professional duty.
when you write references for people you are in a covert relationship with,
Really not ideal, but more a matter of the pickle he got himself into than an improper action. The reference came via his office and was no more than might be expected for an active member of the advisory board.
The real problem with her getting the art gallery job is that she didn’t tell anyone about the conviction that resulted from her actions as an Auckland Museum employee.
when you may as an older authority figure have abused your role and influence in a sexual relationship, that there is a public interest there.
No. If there’s going to be an age at which adults are responsible for their own choices, surely it’s no older than 30. And she was 30 when it started. Also bear in mind that your only narrative of the development of the relationship comes from Cook and Slater.
-
martinb, in reply to
I thought good on his daughters. They don't want to see some bs concern over their well being destroy all of their fathers hard work, especially from a piece of work like Slater. If every man and his dog are allowed to come out and say 'oh his poor wife and children, he must resign' they certainly are allowed to put their view out there. And good on them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
though someones probably already said this, yes the main thing out of all of this is that Brian Rudman should be very very ashamed. Astute analysis
Seriously? The main thing out of all of this is Brian Rudman's column?
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
If every man and his dog are allowed to come out and say ‘oh his poor wife and children, he must resign’ they certainly are allowed to put their view out there. And good on them.
Thanks martin. Nailed it.
Garner, today, had me bloody livid when I read his piece saying that 'Brown couldn't have it both ways', an argument floated on whaleoil and spreading fast.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Sure. I agree with your comments, in fact. However I think those are all legitimate issues of public interest to canvas in a newspaper. It would be ideal in many ways if Cook and Slater hadn't been the ones to break the story and done it in the way they did, but once they had, all these things need reporting on.
Apologies for replaying my comment on the Dimpost tonight, but this is basically my position...
I think Brown should resign if he proves to have pulled strings for Chuang, or intimidated people, or something of that nature. Merely shagging your illicit sex partner at work is something that hundreds of New Zealanders will be doing around the country as the office party season kicks in.
In principle I too share Danyl’s view that if Slater is for it, I’m against it, whatever it is. Also, I’m a lefty, and I would prefer Brown to be mayor, and this is majorly inconvenient for the cause. But keeping your dick in your pants when necessary IS an important political skill and it disappoints me that Brown hasn’t mastered it. Further, abuse of power relations by an office holder is a no no.
My prediction is that Brown will tough it out, and by next election, he’ll be fine, and the more pious Christian part of his constituency will love a repentant sinner even more than they love a saint. We’ll see.
-
Konrad Kurta, in reply to
"They've shown us what really happened."
+1
-
martinb, in reply to
sorry- I was being a little sarcastic, which doesn't always translate in text! I think you your comment has picked up the nub of what I was saying exactly.
And I see that that discussion, which I started reading pages back has well and truly been had...
It's quite a stretch to potray the Slaters as somehow victims here.
-
The other thing that really annoyed me was Palino after the election not congratulating Len Brown after a truly resounding win, but saying how worried he was for Auckland and blaming the media etc etc which was essentially saying that he had no respect for the voters.
And then this happens a day or two later.
A bit 'Fair is foul and foul is fair' really.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
sorry- I was being a little sarcastic, which doesn’t always translate in text! I think you your comment has picked up the nub of what I was saying exactly.
Ah. Gotcha.
-
Hebe,
I have just visited Whaleoil's blog for the first time. I feel queasy. Herald-loathers can't really be serious about comparing the two?
Whaleoil blog is shit-stirring, not reportage. The tone is virulent and nasty, without humour or the slightest twinge of humanity. The writing is the ranting of someone who has had far too many energy drinks: no precision, no nuance, no crafting of words (apart from the lawyer's edit).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Garner, today, had me bloody livid when I read his piece saying that ‘Brown couldn’t have it both ways’, an argument floated on whaleoil and spreading fast.
Yes. Colin Espiner's column making a comparison with Anthony Weiner -- who sexted unsolicited pictures of his genitals to young women he had not even met, and lied about it for ages -- was also fairly annoying. Pundits gonna pundit, but ... jeez.
-
though: lets be honest as well as news junkies- the complexity of the story and explosiveness of the story has been a bit exhilirating compared to the berms of last week.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.