Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Fluency, ease of manner - and Norton Antivirus

173 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    A couple of years ago (God! it seems like forever) I remember Key standing alongside the Bennett Bomb and declaring it was all really about stick and carrot, . It appears it is all about slick and parrot. Anything to remain popular, truth fallen by the wayside.
    What I saw on Campbell Live the other night was politicking, not any policy interview.
    I would suspect that Crosby Textor are still on the National Party payroll and Key's office having complete control of the questions being put was probably a big part of how he was groomed to respond. I'm not sure it was wise to allow him on when as a current affairs show, it seems the spontaneous stuff excites the listeners and the announcement of the impending gloom showing his face was just that for many, thus up the ratings must have occurred, but how can we get common sense when all everyone is looking for is "gotcha" soundbites.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • dcnbwz, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    Exclusive due to the favourable reporting? Interesting to note that there is an admission that Key got a major statement wrong during his Campbell Live "discourse". Just makes that whole appearance seem even more like it was designed to take John Campbell down rather than actually answer questions about anything important.

    uk • Since Sep 2009 • 24 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    A premier production...
    I guess we have to be grateful that PM Key can't just unilaterally magic legislation into existence, as the POTUS can - why only the other day he completely restructured the Ammonium based industries in the US* with a detailed Executive Order.

    *NB: the above link is to the White House Press Office
    so you will be surveilled! (I'm sure) ....
    here's a non .gov source

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7948 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Glenn Pearce,

    It would be interesting to know what the real story is, either way Campbell Live have had plenty of time to prepare.

    Well yes, to prepare for the PM's office all questions to be put to him. As I saw it Key wouldnt let him speak at all. JC managed a few questions, that was it. And of any questions submitted ,how many were crossed out?
    I personally was more interested to get some info. We got PR spin of which I now feel has become the main discussion point being played out. I fear they got exactly what they intended and anyone in JC's position that night would have been frustrated beyond all. So beside all the bullshit, can anyone tell us anything new other than of course the carrot offered up today and of course as Ian D said makes the law now entirely up for interpretation again.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    as the POTUS can – why only the other day he completely restructured the Ammonium based industries in the US*

    Ha! Yeah, we only got Planet Key restructuring the Aluminium Smelter. ;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Bill Patterson,

    when Key says the experts “aren’t really experts” he’s dismissing people who are highly respected and spend their entire lives in law and technology.

    And this makes me so angry. How does the NZHerald call Key the winner when he comes out and calls these people liars. Surely it is the job of the print media, who have the time to look at the text, to identify outright bollocks by Key.

    Seriously these people are genuinely talented in their fields, as talented as Richie McCaw is in his field. They have trained for decades, their expertise has been tested time and again by their colleagues, they really are experts. And our PM gets away with dismissing them?????

    Makes about as much sense as me dismissing McCaw because he plays in red!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    why only the other day he completely restructured the Ammonium based industries in the US* with a detailed Executive Order.

    Wasn't that to stop them blowing themselves up with shody workplace safety?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    Exclusive to Herald this morning…..
    Key pledges to restrict Agency’s Probe

    The article also says, "In the course of the interview he said incorrectly that under the bill, the GCSB would not be allowed to look at the content of communications when conducting their cyber-security functions."

    Key says, "Trust me". Sorry, JK, it's not about you. Some future PM may be untrustworthy and constraints on the GCSB's domestic spying need not, and should not simply rely on having a nice guy in the PM's seat.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari, in reply to Euan Mason,

    some may trust Key not to spy on them but would you trust Shearer? Or Norman? Peters?

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 540 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    All this talk of media management.

    National's media approach is simplicity in itself. They do what is all-pervasive in Kiwi life and they do it with such ease because it is what comes naturally to aggressive and arrogant males like Key, Joyce, Brownlee, and English. They are bullies, and the media largely cowers before them.

    Those in the media that that are sympathetic get to be part of the bullies gang. Mike Hoskings, for example. Those in the media who are cowed with the velvet glove, are bullied with the velvet glove. Paddy Gower, for example. Those in the media who stand up to the bullying, ignore. All of National radio, for example. Those that can't be ignored, use the bullies iron fist to dissemble, smear and threaten. Jon Stephenson for example.

    Bennett is a bully, who can be relied on to help out the other bullies by kicking the poor. National's online cheerleaders Slater and Farrar are bullies. When Brian Edwards raises the mildest complaint on Jim Mora's panel, Michelle Boag ensures she bullies an old man (her "friend", apparently) into silence. Judith Collins is a bully.

    To stand up to this National government is to stand up to an administration that has raised bullying to it's central political idea and it's central political management tool.

    And let's face it, how many of us had the balls to stand up to the bullies at school?

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    And let’s face it, how many of us had the balls to stand up to the bullies at school?

    David Lange was one of them. His acidic sense of humour - as showcased in the 1985 Oxford Union debate on nukes - came out of the need to defend himself from being bullied about his weight.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5439 posts Report Reply

  • Alec Morgan, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    “Snapper election”, heh actually laughed out loud, well there was the ‘schnapps’ election in ’84 as a precedent.

    Tokerau Beach • Since Nov 2006 • 124 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    the other day he completely restructured the Ammonium based industries in the US*

    All that is subordinate legislation. The NZ government could do any of that if it felt the need - look at the CERA Act with its Henry VIII powers to change almost any law. That would be unconstitutional in the US.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Euan Mason,

    Key says, “Trust me”. Sorry, JK, it’s not about you. Some future PM may be untrustworthy and constraints on the GCSB’s domestic spying need not, and should not simply rely on having a nice guy in the PM’s seat.

    Quite.

    "Guys! C'mon ... it's me!" is not a substitute for the actual text in an actual bill. It's absolutely absurd.

    Here's the link to the follow-up story.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22843 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    When Judith Collins takes over the National Party (plausibly after a Key-won election) I'm not sure I want her to have the power (alongside one of her appointees given recent form) to sign off our supposedly-international surveillance agency intercepting all mobile calls in the interest of poorly defined "cyber security"...

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • AndrewH,

    I think the strongest rejoinder to "Trust Me, I'm John Key" is that was Obama's image a few years ago. And just look how far that image of trust has fallen, without even a change of executive.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2008 • 33 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    And let’s face it, how many of us had the balls to stand up to the bullies at school?

    ME!
    I absolutely agree with you there Tom. Why, just today my good friend said, (after her review at the ADHB) “Why is it the nice peeps always come last?” Because they are polite and considerate, honest with integrity. And they usually have empathy. I don’t believe that the job of a politician should have bully, thuggish behaviour as a prerequisite. Unfortunately National has it in spades.

    ETA. I was never bullied at school but I saw others bullied, I had no choice but to stand up for them and was quite good at mouthing off to stop any sort of discriminatory behaviour. I have no idea why I couldn't stand it, just that it was wrong. And moi, usually such a quiet wee thing....

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    I have a considerable degree of discomfort with Keys behaviour in dealing with issues – that range from a brain fade, to an apology, the Casino Deal, and using the police and other agencies to intimidate people in the Tea Pot Tapes saga – these incidents do not paint Key in a favourable light. I feel he is not trust worthy.

    The driver for the GCSB review is that through the KDC fiasco the NZ people learned the NZ government was breaking the law – the GCSB spying on residents/citizens.

    The law change will ensure that all of the surveillance activity of the GCSB (past, present and future) will have a basis at law – where previously it did not. I feel the past surveillance activity conducted by the GCSB (on behalf of the Government/Head/Prime Minster) would likely exceed the number of 80 people spied on illegally as identified by the Kitteridge report.

    Should additional past illegal surveillance activity come to light – the response will be – “But we changed the law” and the matter will be dismissed - despite it being illegal at the time.

    I fail to see the “public good” and I have not been given or seen an adequate explanation of the need for the law to be changed particularly in the absence of a more thorough and honest facts based review.

    "We" are doing this because we are stupid and got caught doesn’t cut it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to DexterX,

    “We” are doing this because we are stupid and got caught doesn’t cut it

    What I think their headspace for it may well be. “So, you think we cant do what we want. You cant tell us we cant, we’ll just change the law so we can. So we won nahnananana”

    No, it is stupid that tinkering with highly sensitive law as if it just changing the colour of the ambulances and treating anyone with expertise or joe public with dismissive disdain once again shows us the disregard for our democracy that our forefathers , ancestors, whichever you can think of before us have worked tirelessly to retain our freedoms that I don’t wish to part with.
    I recall several, “urgent” laws and legislation changes that have been eroding our human rights and our democracy. All designed to keep the average kiwi subservient meanwhile lining the pockets of a few. Disgusting.

    Also, WTF! PETER DUNNE? You of all politicians at the mo should be against this stupid law! He's pathetic after all the Vance intimidation.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to DexterX,

    sine qua non...

    I fail to see the “public good” and I have not been given or seen an adequate explanation of the need for the law to be changed particularly in the absence of a more thorough and honest facts based review.

    Totally, and why the rush to push it through under urgency - is it the only option, 'without which there is nothing'?
    Have they even explored other alternatives? (y'know, like not being part of a spying cartel and tinkering in other people's countries and cultures, to start with...)
    The Obamas and Keys of this world seem to believe that the E pluribus unum* concept, confers on them demigod-like status, when it is really more holistic than that...

    * out of the many, one its origins and early uses connote more to do with aggregation of information - in fact it would be a great slogan for the Web!
    Hmmm, maybe that's where the US gets confused...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7948 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    And this makes me so angry. How does the NZHerald call Key the winner when he comes out and calls these people liars.

    What bemuses me about this is that Key could irrefutably say that Governments receive reams (or would that be Terrabytes?) of advice and opinions every day of the week. They're under no obligation to take a blind bit of notice of it all (however foolish that may be), and fairly often they don't.

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

  • David Hood,

    So, according to leaked internal reports, in America (70 times the Polaroid and spend a lot more on intelligence) the NSA in internal audits count around around 1000 privacy breaches of U.S. citizens a year.
    And they not reporting things like getting a phone digit wrong and accidentally spying on U.S. area code 202 (Washington DC) rather than international 20 (Eygpt)

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Don Christie,

    What surprised me is that people were surprised a NZ prime minister could front up and defend their policies. Has JK set such a low expectation?

    This. The main surprise seems to be that JC didn't tear him to pieces. I've never seen JC tear anyone to pieces, that doesn't seem to be his style. But we've seen Key in so few interviews from unsympathetic interviewers, that there could be tendency to think he hasn't got the skills for them.

    To that end, the main triumph was to get him onto a serious prime time interview at all.

    The business of tearing him to pieces is unfortunately the job of the Opposition. If that is to happen for the public to see, then he needs to be pitted in an interview against a competent antagonist, rather than a journalist who is required to be impartial for their own credibility (even if they are aligned away from Key on this actual issue).

    Personally, I didn't and won't watch this kind of interview. It tells me nothing that I don't know, since 95% of the information that is imparted is non-verbal - so long as Key remains calm and folksy, and the interviewer gets frustrated, then it really wouldn't matter what he said to an issue that people who get their news from Prime Time TV won't really understand or care about.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Also, it's dead easy to get stuck into Shearer again. But he wasn't in the interview, and it would have been a very different beast if he was. He may come across poorly when questioned about what Labour's policy and direction is, but that's not what this would have been about, and he's perfectly competent at taking an aggressive line of questioning, from what I've seen in Parliament. To even have the Opposition present in such an interview raises the most important question of all - is there really a significant threat at all to justify these laws? The Opposition don't even have a case to answer there - they can simply assert that they don't believe it to be so, and ridicule the hypothetical threats that Key raises. The question has never been "is there any threat at all", but rather "is the tiny threat worth the massive intrusion into civil liberties?" to which the Opposition can simply place their opinion on the table.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.