OnPoint: Association of Community Retailers. Again.
139 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Whenever I come across something I know about, I tend to notice things that have been gotten wrong
This!
My guess from what I've seen and remember* is that 90%+ of the time science is reported it is incorrect either in the actual science being reported or in the interpretation.
From that I conclude that, in a subject where I don't know for certain, 90% of what is reported is also either flat out wrong or misinterpreted. That is a kind of depressing.
And it doesn't seem to matter how many times Kieth or others nail the media on these things it continues. It's like they just don't care.
*And yes I'm aware I'm much more likely to remember the mistakes.
-
merc, in reply to
All actors are using a range of tools, but making smoking illegal is part of the plan.
I'm guessing you mean illegal is not part of the plan here. Yes I am aware this will never happen, Govt. cost benefit (to them) analysis and all.
Oh and science reporting is right there beside military intelligence. -
Sacha, in reply to
It's like they just don't care
and no one *makes* them do otherwise
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Correct. I've edited, and said I've edited, on the earlier post.
-
"Better Help for Smokers to Quit" is one of the Government's Health Targets.
Performance by DHBs is reported quarterly, including by taking ads in the daily papers. I believe Governments of all stripes over recent years are genuinely committed to reducing smoking rates. If Treasury ever has raised issues around loss of excise duty, or tried to at a future date, I have little doubt they'd have their ears boxed.
-
I'm sure it's true, but here we are, at the point where our biggest news organisations run stories without spending 10 seconds on a Google search, or asking if something makes any goddamn sense.
This is something Google News could exploit to its advantage. Providing background on the stories authors as well as related stories.
-
Sacha, in reply to
asking if something makes any goddamn sense
wisdom costs too much
-
Will blog about it next week.
My 10 millions worth.
We all give each other our bank account details.We set up automatic payments to each other. Keith posts. The first one to comment is docked 10c into KN's bank. The second one banks 10c into the first commenter's account and 10c to KNs. The 3rd commenter is docked 10c to KN and and 10c to both the first and second commenters. etc.
Trust me. It works.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Ross "Ponzi" Mason?
-
PS - I have hijacked the PS comments system to ensure I get dibs as first commenter.
Carry on.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Very good then. Will Keep Calm And Carry On.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
In 2012, we have reached the point where the harmfulness of tobacco is generally accepted, just as it is accepted that the earth is round. In the third reading debate last year, John Boscawen of all people quoted Helen Clark saying around 1989 that the reason for the workplace ban was because tobacco kills.
Next time you go with an analogy like this, could you use "the Earth revolves around the Sun", rather that "the Earth is Round"? The later was pretty much known in 2012 BC (okay, 600 BC, but still) =)
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the "of all people" crack at John Boscawen. He did, after all, spend a bit of maiden address talking about how awesome Michael Cullen was, and he was well-known for his anti-tobacco views throughout his political career.
-
Jake Pollock, in reply to
Indeed, we've known of tobacco's harmful effects for a few years longer than we've known that the Earth revolves around the Sun, if James I is any kind of authority.
-
3410,
Keith, you're dead right about NZ's news media's memory having shrunk to virtual non-existence.
In the latest example, we suddenly have a govt. minister declaring that Brian Tamaki is "entitled to" millions in state funding for his Jonestown school system. It was only about five or six weeks ago that we were all saying "Charter schools??! where did that come from?", and yet no reporter seems able to put two and two together.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
In the latest example, we suddenly have a govt. minister declaring that Brian Tamaki is “entitled to” millions in state funding for his Jonestown school system.
I was also thinking the Wackos from Waco.
And Richard Boock's blog on the matter has drawn the creationists out of the woodwork. What next, school textbook revisionism?
-
3410,
Well, don't be surprised if Manurewa records an unusually high turnout for ACT in 2014, if you know what I mean.
-
Rowan Crawford, in reply to
Whenever I come across something I know about, I tend to notice things that have been gotten wrong… e.g. only people who vote to change MMP get to vote in the second referendum question; or, three strikes means XYZ.
This has a name! It’s the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/65213
-
Sacha, in reply to
great quote, ta.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
For the record, the science convinced 97.5% of MPs to vote for the third reading of Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill last July and so ban power walls in New Zealand.
Evidence, please. Let’s start with proof that 97.5% of MPs actually know what the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill does, and then we can move to evidence that they each made up their own mind on how to vote on the bill, and each was convinced by science and not something else.
You could apply this test to virtually any legislative vote in the House and reach the same conclusion. I'm unsure what its real significance is in this context.
Your contention is, I take it, that most MPs did not have a full technical grasp of the relevant medical science -- and instead relied on expert advice in casting their votes. Again, does this not happen regularly in a representative democracy? And does it have any bearing whatsoever on the science itself?
I suppose you could turn it around and ask whether any MP cast a vote for the Smokefree Environments bill without believing that there was a scientific rationale for the new regulation. It's possible I suppose, but in the absence of any evidence it doesn't seem likely.
-
izogi, in reply to
Next time you go with an analogy like this, could you use "the Earth revolves around the Sun", rather that "the Earth is Round"? The later was pretty much known in 2012 BC (okay, 600 BC, but still) =)
Well to get pedantic, we now know it can be approximated as an oblique spheroid, and it's only very recently that geographers, geophysicists and mathematicians have started modelling the Earth to take into account the dynamic nature of its shape. =P
On the GiveALittle thing, I realise that Keith and other journalists need a living, and I've just finished reading James Murray's take on the issue, thanks to all of you in the twitterverse.
Compared with pure un-biased public funding of media, if such a thing even exists, doesn't the model of voluntarily paying for a work after it's written just encourage a situation where journalism most likely to be funded is that which is consistent with what a certain class of people want to hear? Public Address readers are fairly generous. This has been happening for ever, of course, like when buying magazines because of the content, but as I read James Murray's words I thought he was suggesting that quality journalism will attract funds given a frictionless payment system, even if it concludes with something that those with the money don't want to hear. I think that's what I find mildly concerning.
-
Goos interview with Keith on this issue on RNZ National this morning. Listen to it here
-
Yamis, in reply to
Whenever I come across something I know about, I tend to notice things that have been gotten wrong...
Yep. I had fairly intimate knowledge of the bullying stories covered by a TV program that shall remain nameless last year but rhymed with Ramble Jive that was filled from start to finish with over the top sensationalism, rampant bias, distortions, unfairness, and complete and utter wankery. For starters.
I can now no longer believe anything that that program airs so do not watch a second of it.
Save the bollocks for news and current events shows and other MSM that don't have enough time and resources to find the truth. Even if Joe Blogs and Joeline Blings can find it in a 2 minute google search. And why is it that the TV journalists on the ground appear to be under unstruction to F people over to manufacture a pre conceived story as opposed to find out the truth or LEARN something?
As an side here's a freakin news story from Yahoo NZ News that's a straight PR release FFS that I stumbled across today: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12565751/top-australian-chefs-to-host-special-dinner-event/
I may as well email them and let them know I'm having some mates around to play pool, shoot some darts and talk a load of shit for 5 hours. They'll probably run it in their entertainment section.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And why is it that the TV journalists on the ground appear to be under unstruction to F people over to manufacture a pre conceived story as opposed to find out the truth or LEARN something?
We need Jono Pryor to pull another fast one or two.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
You could apply this test to virtually any legislative vote in the House and reach the same conclusion. I’m unsure what its real significance is in this context.
That kinda was my point. Phil was making a claim about the voting on a piece of legislation that I considered unlikely to be true about almost any piece of legislation.
Your contention is, I take it, that most MPs did not have a full technical grasp of the relevant medical science – and instead relied on expert advice in casting their votes.
No. My contention is that most MPs don't even know the effect of the laws they are passing, and vote the way they do simply because that is what their party is doing. Half a dozen people from each of the major parties, on most pieces of legislation, will know, and those will be the ones who speak. They may know the evidence, or some of it, but the other MPs mostly don't turn up. On something like banning cigarette displays, most MPs may know that the bill does that, and when asked to defend their vote will say something to the effect "we need to do something about smoking" or "too many people are dying from cigarettes" etc. with no idea whatsoever of whether the change is considered likely to make any difference whatsoever. Mostly, it will be emotional, not scientific, and in many cases, not really based in any way on what the law would actually do.
-
mccx,
Of related interest, the New York Times's Public Editor asks for reader input on,
whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.