Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken
394 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
George Darroch, in reply to
Which is wholly different from a threat to boycott advertisers, which didn't happen.
And different again from advertising boycotting advertisers, which did happen.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The fact that the 18 year old’s speech (and any other young woman who might have thought about commenting on the issue) was in reality pretty severely curtailed as a result of this interview doesn’t factor into this at all.
A few other people called in and had their speech summarily curtailed by the hosts, too. They got hung up on. Hooton got thrown out of the studio.
-
B Jones, in reply to
Who also have a razor sharp sense of what is a Good Look for their company.
I don't think it's possible to deal with this issue without a little bit of a shakeup of whose speech gets out there, and someone's going to lose out. I'm just fine with that being radio hosts rather than victims of sexual assault and their supporters. I'm also fine with how that was achieved - I certainly can't think of a better alternative. Yeah, consequences, but the consequences of doing nothing are worse.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
A few other people called in and had their speech summarily curtailed by the hosts, too. They got hung up on. Hooton got thrown out of the studio.
It may have been said upthread, but this whole right to free speech resembles more and more the right to have your own radio show for fifteen hours a week. When do we all get one of those then?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And different again from advertising boycotting advertisers, which did happen.
I don’t actually think “boycott” is really even a good word for the withdrawal of advertising in this case. A boycott is an organised campaign. The companies here didn’t organise or confer.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
When do we all get one of those then?
I don't even want one of those.
-
I have read the post and quite a few of the comments, and have a couple of things to say as someone who:
* was a bit player in all this
* has totally mishandled live radio/TV myself over the years
* works in PR
* considers Matt McCarten a good friend, JT a friend and is on good terms with Willie, and would ultimately like to restore good relations with them despite all this.Based on all that, I think it should have been possible that the scenario Graeme proposes could have played out.
However, that would have involved them accepting that, at best, they had badly mishandled a call from a listener. It would have seen them say so the following day, instead of only apologising for any offence taken and saying they thought they had in fact handled the call sensitively. They could then have decided to take criticism, including from their colleagues and friends, in a constructive manner on air and maybe invited a few experts in the sexual assault field to discuss the whole matter, including from a more conservative perspective.
But that didn’t happen. The reason for that, I think, is that Willie & JT really do think that:
* they handled the call sensibly
* they had nothing to apologise for
* I was a sanctimonious pillock (we have had lads’ drinks every Thursday for four years and not all the conversation was scholarly and pure)
* it really isn’t reasonable to expect West or South Auckland boys to respect “no more thanks” when a girl they are making out with says it at a teenage party when everyone is pissed (although apparently they do think that middle class should be expected to follow that rule), and
* they are victims of a racist and radical feminist mob.It is also true, as Matt McCarten wrote over the weekend, that there really isn’t any management over content at RadioLive, especially since Mitch Harris left. This means I doubt anyone would have tried to talk this through with them, to try to implement a series of events that would have redressed what had happened while protecting Radioworks’ advertising base, and the RadioLive, Willie & JT brands.
As it happened, even I felt, as a regular contributor, that I was being bullied, so – as someone said in an earlier comment – how was a young rape victim meant to feel comfortable calling into their show.
Just one more point in response to Graeme’s call for people to take more care before tweeting or emailing advertisers:
I’m a free-marketeer and that means I think people can do, broadly speaking, what they want, including respond emotionally. I think that someone – in this case Giovanni Tiso – is allowed to respond emotionally to a situation like this and say, fuck it, I am going to try to put some pressure on the advertisers. And I think the marketing managers are allowed to say, wow, this is too hot, let’s pull our ads. And JT is allowed to attack me for going to King’s College (actually I went to Auckland Grammar so some will know how offensive that was) and I am allowed to raise the Clint Rickards angle, and Willie is allowed to say get out of the studio, and Matt is allowed to take a more intellectual approach.
I don’t think people are under any obligation to be as analytical as Graeme has been in his post on this matter, or any other really. It’s a free country and most things unfold roughly as they should without the benefit of 3500-word essays. I don’t see that anyone’s free speech has been violated because even Willie & JT could have survived this situation had they listened to people around them and consequently handled the PR better.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that’s dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?
Bravo. I was wondering how to rebut that diatribe and you have done it so very well, thank you.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
[Redacted -- because I'm just feeding a distract troll.]
-
Quoted from Twitter:
This fucking intellectual exercise shit is real simple when it's not your LIFE. Blah.
Oath.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
trying to pretend I somehow think child rape is a trivial matter
You opened your post by inferring that Amy was not real and that the criminal events, rapes, that occurred were not real.
Frankly I found your post hard to read because it tried to dismiss something utterly reprehensible as non-existent.
That to me is trivialising a non-trivial matter.
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
Willie & JT really do think that:
* they handled the call sensibly
...
As it happened, even I felt, as a regular contributor, that I was being bullied, so – as someone said in an earlier comment – how was a young rape victim meant to feel comfortable calling into their show.Which raises the point: do talkback radio stations have any training or standards for how they handle their guests and callers? Many would think that basic human decency would cover an issue like this, and even though not every lacks it to the extent that Willie & JT seemed to in this case, some sort of processes should have helped. I'd've thought that a media organisation would have principles and guidelines for interacting with the public, especially potentially vulnerable ones. Is this not the case?
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
I note that no one has been able to find JT & Willies now famous Amy
I don't care about the rest of your diatribe (none taken, btw), but what difference does it make if she's been found or not? Is anyone apart from Donna A-H even looking for her? Even if (IF!) this Amy (IF that's her real name and who cares?) wasn't telling the full truth, does that excuse Willie and JT? Did they know this?
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
I will make the same argument to Bob McCoskrie, and hope to be (at least partially) successful. Bob is highly concerned about censorship (state or otherwise) of traditional Christian views about a range of issues, such as same-sex marriage. There will be a number of issues where Family First thinks the risk involved is worth it (and I imagine Into the River would be one of them), but on a lot of issues, I’d like to think that Bob could realise that his calling to limit free speech in some way could come back to bite him.
I'm sure Bob is. But he's also the head of a pressure group, that exists for the purpose of … pressuring on things. And in order to keep that group in the public eye (as well as maintain its membership flow and donation stream), it has to be seen to take stances against forms of expression that the group disapproves of.
Hence, news releases like this one: https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2013/11/lady-gaga-bus-ad-causes-a-stir/
Now, you may go to Bob and say, "stop your pressure activities, because they may cause others to respond by pressuring against speech you like". To which I'll bet Bob says "sorry - pressuring on moral issues is what we do … if and when it appears that our pressuring is actually counter-productive and contributing to the censorship of good things, then maybe we'll think again, but until then if we don't pressure then there's no reason for us to exist."
So … why should Giovanni et al do any differently?
-
The slippery-slope argument:
Does this one event now herald a flood of attempts to shut down unfashionable views in the media?
I suppose anything's possible, but it's extremely unlikely. It very, very rarely happens. The only other significant example I can think of is Mitsubishi withdrawing its sponsor of of Paul Holmes' TV show in response to Holmes' "cheeky darkie" brainfart on his radio show.
(Note that it was entirely Mitsubishi's decision as to whether it wanted to continue to be associated with Holmes. What are you gonna do? Pass a law stopping them?)
It didn't happen to any of the other idiots who voiced vile and damaging opinions on the matter -- Michael Laws included. It didn't happen to Willie and JT every other time they said or did offensive things. It didn't happen when they gay-baited Grant Robertson for an hour after inviting him on their show. Because we know that Grant Robertson is a professional politician and can look after himself.
But it did happen in this case. And that was because Dumb and Dumber subjected a teenage girl to an inquisition at an extraordinarily sensitive time -- and their non-apology highlighted a staggering vacuum of editorial leadership at their station.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I do not see those quotes as being contradictory.
Without meaning this in a derogatory way I suspect that is because you are a lawyer. You are technically correct it is possible for both those statements to exist and be non-contradictory.
But most people when they read Tom's inference that the rape claims were not real, draw the not unreasonable conclusion that he believes most rape claims are not real.
The data indicates that only a tiny fraction of rape claims are false. That the legal system makes it almost impossible to convict rapists does not prove that rape claims are false but rather proves that the legal system has failed* in particular for this crime.
Thus most people conclude that Tom is trivializing rape by denying it's existence.
*Taken from the perspective that the legal system exists to protect members of society from actions that society has deemed to be "wrong".
-
This fucking intellectual exercise shit is real simple when it's not your LIFE. Blah.
Oath.
Speech has consequences.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Which raises the point: do talkback radio stations have any training or standards for how they handle their guests and callers? Many would think that basic human decency would cover an issue like this, and even though not every lacks it to the extent that Willie & JT seemed to in this case, some sort of processes should have helped. I’d’ve thought that a media organisation would have principles and guidelines for interacting with the public, especially potentially vulnerable ones. Is this not the case?
Apparently not. I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
-
john Drinnan, in reply to
Agree that willie and JT probably do believe what they say - which is different than some talkback hosts. But re your exclusion The other argument for cutting out a guest is that they could develop into legal issues- is it possible that some of your comments could have raised those concerns?
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
That's actually astonishing, even for a shock jock station. I'm sure they've been told "Here's the dump button, for when a caller gets too boring." Would they not even have any training in how to safely deal with, say, a suicidal caller?
-
john Drinnan, in reply to
RadioLive is much looser than TRN
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
So … why should Giovanni et al do any differently?
Well, I'd like everyone to do it differently. Should I not ask at all?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Apparently, it is. I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
And it has to be on-going as well. As others have pointed out, its not as if JT and Willie don’t have previous form when it comes to slut-shaming rape complainants. After all, Jackson gave Clint Rickards an hour on Radio Waatea in December 2007 to repeatedly (and without challenge) call Louise Nicholas a malicious, mentally unstable stalker. If that wasn't a red flag, what the hell is?
-
john Drinnan, in reply to
The twitter reaction to some who questioned anti Willie and JT feeling was pungent - in some cases describingskeptics as "rape enablers" - some on PA will agree, of course
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
I think that someone – in this case Giovanni Tiso – is allowed to respond emotionally to a situation like this and say, fuck it, I am going to try to put some pressure on the advertisers.
I agree.
And I think the marketing managers are allowed to say, wow, this is too hot, let’s pull our ads.
I agree.
And JT is allowed to attack me for going to King’s College (actually I went to Auckland Grammar so some will know how offensive that was)
I agree.
and I am allowed to raise the Clint Rickards angle,
I agree.
and Willie is allowed to say get out of the studio,
I agree.
and Matt is allowed to take a more intellectual approach.
I agree.
I don’t think people are under any obligation to be as analytical as Graeme has been in his post on this matter, or any other really.
I agree.
No obligation on anyone. I'm just asking.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.