Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Self-satisfactorily Yours

100 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Gareth Ward,

    And as Craig noted, it's a bit rich for that paper to be revelling in TVNZ's cost-cutting given APN's problems.

    Have I just been mistaken for Mr Ranapia? My conversion to the online world is complete =)

    "We've got too hung up on people's rights," says Garrett, a claim that would possibly raise a few eyebrows in ACT HQ if they were actually 'The Liberal Party' and not a sorry collection of failures who should go and get into business if they love it so freaking much and who need National voters to give them a pity electorate vote even to get them into parliament...

    GOLD.

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

  • Mark Harris,

    Ha! "Have you had your boobs done?" - deadpan brilliant

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Excerpted from Jeff Stone's tremendous review

    A number of his other reviews are well-written too, but there is the unfortunate tendency for everything good to get 10 stars, and most things not good to get 1 star. It leaves you to wonder if Melody Rules was that bad :-)

    Plus, everyone knows the best bond/film was not George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service , but Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights !

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3212 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Okay, now we've firmed up the panels: the billing for this week's show:

    Media7 this week examines two different but not unrelated topics -- The effect of Court suppression orders and other judicial directions to journalists and the behaviour of media towards sporting “heroes” when they fall from grace.

    Russell Brown is joined by senior television journalist Cliff Joiner, who has worked for both TVNZ and TV3 as a reporter: Val Sim of the Law Commission and Warren Young, the author of a paper on the effect of judicial orders on media reporting.

    The sports panel consists of Phil Kingsley-Jones (Johan Lomu’s manager); veteran sports journalist, author and commentator Richard Becht and NZ Herald sports columnist, Richard Boock.

    They’ll be pondering how the media and advertisers assiduously work to create sports “super-heroes” and “role-models” but then casually destroy their own creations, when the young sportsmen fall from grace.

    In many of these widely publicized cases the disgraced sports figures have sought and often gained name suppression from the courts.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Russell Brown is joined by senior television journalist Cliff Joiner, who has worked for both TVNZ and TV3 as a reporter: Val Sim of the Law Commission and Warren Young, the author of a paper on the effect of judicial orders on media reporting.

    That's an interesting way of describing the panel. Why not ... Val Sim and Warren Young of the Law Commission ?

    Is there a reason you need two Law Commissioners on a panel to assess any topic, let alone one related to the work of the Law Commission?

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3212 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    Last Sunday's meditation is particularly intellectually stimulating: nerds geeks drips twerps twats dorks: advice for ladies

    It is the readers' comments that make all the difference.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • davesparks,

    Plus, everyone knows the best bond/film was not George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights!

    That's actually true.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    This James at Editing the Herald. Is he "one of us"?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Re: court suppression...

    If it's not name suppression, but something else that's suppressed.... say current abode of the accused, (to give a recent well publicized example) and I've even heard the media report "something is suppressed but we cant tell you what it is and so are the reasons for it's suppression so we cant even tell you why we cant tell you..."

    What's to stop the public rumour-mongering in ignorance?

    Can you be breaking a suppression order if you dont know you are?
    How do you find out that you're breaking it? Anyone who tells you your guesses or rumours are suppressed is confirming them and breaking suppression themselves no?

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Can you be breaking a suppression order if you dont know you are?

    I believe so, although you could only expect to be punished after you've been told to stop.

    This kind of thing is a problem. It's worse because, for eg I recall, in the Dom Post case even the crown couldn't assemble all the suppression orders in any timely fashion.

    And it's not as if you can have a public index of what information is supressed.

    It occurs to me that the system - with the kind of meta-supressions they seem to use occasionally - is only functional where information is only disseminated by a small number of recognised media agencies and is therefore quaint. Hence the zeitgeist, no doubt.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Is there a reason you need two Law Commissioners on a panel to assess any topic, let alone one related to the work of the Law Commission?

    Let's just say it was a difficult panel to fill this week.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol,

    Ha! "Have you had your boobs done?" - deadpan brilliant

    I found it incredibly awkward and unnecessary.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    __Ha! "Have you had your boobs done?" - deadpan brilliant__

    I found it incredibly awkward and unnecessary.

    Would it help to know that they're husband and wife?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    "We've got too hung up on people's rights," says Garrett, a claim that would possibly raise a few eyebrows in ACT HQ if they were actually 'The Liberal Party' and not a sorry collection of failures who should go and get into business if they love it so freaking much and who need National voters to give them a pity electorate vote even to get them into parliament...

    What exactly does Mr Garrett want to change the BORA to? The Patriot Act? The Internal Security Act? Or maybe even the Reichstag Fire Decree?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5441 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    I know that Andrew Shaw can shoot his mouth off, with little regard for the consequences, but he was doing his job, in defending the programme against ill-informed criticism. The question really is: What the hell is such a minor kerfuffle doing on the front page of our major daily newspaper? It does continue a long tradition of the NZH being obsessed with real or imaginary goings-on in Hobson Street.

    Geez , I wish the missus would let me cancel our subscription to that damn newspaper! All I read of this morning's edition was the Travel supplement.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2560 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    What exactly does Mr Garrett want to change the BORA to?

    I imagine he'd like an amendment to section 9:

    9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

    Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

    Probably to something like this:

    9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

    Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, or degrading treatment or punishment.

    And when a different sections gets in his way some time in the future, well, he'll worry about that then.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3212 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    I think, Graeme, you are assuming that Mr Garrett has some knowledge of the BORA and is also competent to draft an amendment to it. Nothing I have heard from Mr Garrett would suggest that either possibility is true.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Probably to something like this:

    9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

    Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Are you kidding? All those awful "rights" stopping him from torturing out the necessary information for defending freedom? Or dragging accused child molesters through the streets in chains?
    Just get rid of s9, surely?

    =|

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

  • FletcherB,

    Heres the thing... given the circumstances, what IS disproportionate?

    When my son misbehaves in the same way again and again, the punishments get worse... (with advance warning).

    Now, I know all the stuff about people not expecting to get caught, so longer sentences arent a deterrent... But anyone in the position of "strike 2" already knows that sometimes they DO get caught.... has already served two five year sentences (at least) and maybe it might just act as a deterrent to them personally.... and if it doesnt, and they do get caught..... is it disproportionate to give them a longer sentence than the same crime would have received, had it been their first or second, especially considering they had been "warned" about what happens after strike 2?

    Now, I know that 25/life under some US 3-strikes laws gets handed for fairly low-level crimes that are indeed disproportionate...

    But I'm less convinced that it is under the circumstances required to trigger this proposed law (as described by Mr Edgeler)

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Fletcher, read point 13 here for why the Attorney General says it's disproportionate (can't copy the text sorry):
    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/77083170-E4A8-4905-AC0A-56FF04574624/100134/DBHOH_PAP_17759_64791.pdf

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

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Whatever happened to Belinda Todd?

    And was Melody Rules really that bad? I confess I didn't see any of it.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    But I'm less convinced that it is under the circumstances required to trigger this proposed law (as described by Mr Edgeler)

    That is indeed an argument that Mr Garret could have made, and as far as I know whether you accept it would just be a question of just how much moral weight you give to reoffending (although it does isolate the individual case from the wider system).

    Most of my shock is to do with the argument Garret chose to make instead. I'm fairly sure it's possible to be a prominent advocate (as distinct from present company) of this kind of thing and still seem sane but I'm not sure I've seen it happen.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Gareth, cheers for that...

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Whatever happened to Belinda Todd?

    I saw her on Ponsonby road about 15 years ago, driving a BMW if I remember correctly. I was, momentarily, star struck. She had balls, metaphorically of course.
    Oh Belinda, if only things had been diferent.
    ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Heres the thing... given the circumstances, what IS disproportionate?

    When my son misbehaves in the same way again and again, the punishments get worse... (with advance warning).

    You may have got it now - with the link to the report - but to continue the analogy...

    First offense - send son to room, not serious enough, not a strike.

    Second time 'round - no Xbox for 1 week - serious consequences now - so first strike.

    Third offence - grounded for a week - second strike - final warning.

    Fourth offence, you now have the option of grounding your son for a weekend (not enough to count as a strike), or grounding him until he is 18. You consider a weekend's grounding would be insufficient punishment, and that the appropriate conseqence would be grounding him for two weeks, so you ground him until he's 18.

    True story.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3212 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.