Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM, and is that a good thing?

424 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 17 Newer→ Last

  • kw,

    This thread has turned into the Listener's Life in NZ column, but today's eye-roller in the Herald is quite funny.

    Leading Kiwi real estate agent Graham Wall said New Zealand had a "golden future", with three unusual aspects which differentiate it from most other countries: a plentiful supply of fresh water, extremely safe boarders and able to produce far more food than is consumed here.

    Repel all boarders?

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2014 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Johnson,

    Well I just read an editorial by Johnathan Milne which basically shows Jonathan Milne really shouldn’t be writing about politics unless he does a little bit more reading.

    Apparently Labour not backing John Keys flag mess means they have lost their way, wow, what incredible logic. Also if you are fighting a defamation suit you have lost your way because ?.

    Oh and incredibly being concerned about a run away housing market is , of course, not a Labour thing, because Labour are not about that according to Milne, because they are about diversity which means they logically should love bubble house markets. I mean yes ,the party has it faults but the article once again would be sent back as a Not Achieved in any NCEA english exam I can think of. C’mon.

    Who is writing this shit?

    hamilton • Since Mar 2016 • 99 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I placed a comment at about 8am, ripping this 'rah rah' piece to shreds, by 11am that had not appeared so I placed another comment marvelling at the lack of comments

    I've given up on expecting any standards from Stuff in this area. Its comment moderation is completely random, which contributes to it being impossible to have a rational conversation with anyone. At any given time it's impossible to know if they don't have the resources to let comments through, or if there's someone with a particular bias one way or another doing the moderation, or if there's a clear intent to let through comments that make people mad and filter those which might quell the conversation, or if there genuinely *is* a torrent of opinion under today's article which happens to seem the opposite of what showed up a few days earlier.


    On the other hand I'd expect more from Radio NZ, but I had an unexpected comment thread experience a few days back when I tried to write a comment on its Facebook page. (You can read the eventual text here, from when it was finally posted.)

    It was immediately deleted for no obvious reason. I wrote it out again, and it was deleted again. So I sent a message to ask why. Apparently:

    "We don't generally allow comments with links - because of our responsibility to be independent."

    Huh?

    The person on the other end agreed that it seemed overzealous that I wasn't allowed to include references which backed up things I was actually saying, and I was told that if I posted it again, they'd make sure it stayed up. And it was deleted again, apparently. By now I'd saved my own copy of the text, and I posted it again, and it immediately disappeared. By this time, Facebook had decided I was spamming the page, and it was auto-deleting comments as I posted them, so the RNZ person had to post it for me.


    So... apparently the policy of Radio NZ is that it's fine to post subjective assertions and nonsense that hasn't been fact checked and with no references (as long as it's not hate speech), but the moment you include a link to another source to back up what you're saying, the comment gets deleted.

    I can only imagine this is a strange part of a response to that hate speech issue on the Checkpoint page in Feb, where RNZ was criticisised for not moderating its Facebook presence actively enough.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1141 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    RNZ have announced that they're shutting down comments on their online stories. They explain their reasoning and ironically, the very first comment on that story proves their point precisely.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1438 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to izogi,

    where RNZ was criticisised

    so the sewerbloggers claim a scalp.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    An attempt to impress with big words by one reporter today in a story about backfiring twittering - using a word that could literally backfire!

    Think back on the pantechnicon of announcements the Government has made to address its public relations nightmare over housing - one as small as $750,000 for families to leave Auckland - and the idea that it would blow a $92m good news announcement on a 140 character blurt is beyond the pale.

    I'd have thought Vernon Small would know better...
    ...I suspect he was grasping for 'panoply' - not a furniture truck!!

    Then again this Government does have a lot of 'baggage'...
    see:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/81991274/governments-92m-dividend-snafu-raises-more-questions-than-ministers-will-answer

    Interesting story though - Joyce's loose tweets now circumvent proper announcements from the correct sources - National have let a very lax culture grow in this third term.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to izogi,

    I can only imagine this is a strange part of a response to that hate speech issue on the Checkpoint page in Feb, where RNZ was criticisised for not moderating its Facebook presence actively enough.

    Maybe there's a budgetary dimension to it as well. Given the deliberate funding freeze of RNZ, a comments moderator would be a nice-to-have.

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

  • izogi, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    Maybe. What got me was that the deletion wasn't because of what I'd said or how I'd said it.

    It was because I'd linked to a news article from the Otago Daily Times, and an open letter from Federated Mountain Clubs (basically to demonstrate a counter-claim at least as significant as the unverified claim the story was reporting), each of which I'd specifically referred to in the comment. According to what I was told, if I just said the stuff without linking to the references, as if I'd made it all up, then the comment would have been fine.

    If that's the only way to have a discussion then I don't see the value in having the discussion, because it's just a bunch of people talking to each other, baselessly asserting themselves without being allowed to establish any evidence for anything.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1141 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    If you run any kind of writable website, jokers will post links on it to various unrelated places: either in a misguided attempt at SEO, to get people to genuinely come to their site or to try and install drive-by exploits.

    Hence many moderation policies disapprove of links - I don't think it's any more sinister than that.

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

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to izogi,

    It was because I’d linked to a news article from the Otago Daily Times, and an open letter from Federated Mountain Clubs

    Stuff often doesn't publish my comments if I include links to NZHerald or other sites - so now I always try and find a fairfax link if possible.
    Yet they publish the most knuckle-headed comments un-challenged...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    If you run any kind of writable website, jokers will post links on it to various unrelated places

    That's true. But it does cause me to what value it's expected to add if it's acceptable to post unverifiable rubbish yet not okay to post referenced information.

    I'm really in mixed minds about RadioNZ's decision to nuke comment threads on its website. On one hand, it's not an especially toxic place (right now), but on the other hand I think it has every potential to be so if a wider range of people used it. It's an avenue for any random person to confuse the journalistic information which they're underneath.

    Following from that, what's the value of having it if there's only a small niche of people getting involved? Those people may as well just get together around a blog or a social media site (like here), and then RadioNZ doesn't have to invest resources in moderating the whole thing which might be more usefully used for journalism, or something else in its charter.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1141 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    the panel right now, its niche.

    Is that the niche frequented by a portion of humanity who whistle while the society around them 'burns'?
    In a manner of speaking ;-|

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to andin,

    is it a niche we need to scratch?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1942 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to ,

    RNZ already has lots of niche parts.

    Yes it does. But most of the parts can't be easily replicated by any random person running a blog with comments enabled for everyone who drops by.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1141 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    The brave ‘anonymous’…
    A fine example of the lumpen commentariat and their lack of graces follows the article on John Minto announcing that he is running for mayor in Chchch.
    I’d wager not one of the almost completely negative commenters had ever had a conversation with John or even bothered to examine what he said or stood for – the hoary old ‘rent-a-crowd’ trope is strong with those scared of change and full of themselves.
    I used up my daily comment quota attempting rebuttals (or reprisals)… I guess I’m no better – c’est la vie.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/82021018/keep-our-assets-run-john-minto-as-christchurch-mayoral-candidate

    PS my favourite is the one I saw this morning (after comments had been switched off)

    There is no doubt about it, the 'Ian Dalziel' comments are definitely from either Minto or Sue Bradford (that is Minto in drag). No-one else could be so pathetic.

    Pots and kettles it seems - the anonymous bullies can't believe anyone would own their own words - sad folk...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to izogi,

    Once again Stuff won't allow links it seems ...
    I've tried twice now to submit this you tube link: to the story about Kiwi astronomer Michele Bannister and the new Kuiper belt discovery;
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/82040919/kiwi-astronomer-michele-bannister-helps-discover-new-planet
    The You Tube link is a 50 minute long talk by Bannister on the Outer Solar System Origins Survey - it's fascinating stuff!
    I tried once as a standalone comment and once as a reply to your comment there...
    I even tried pointing out that The Press should like it as she is a University of Canterbury alumnus, all to no avail - but they publish a real meathead comment rambling on about gawd knows what ... what is wrong with these people?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    I understand your frustration Ian. It’s easy to get the impression that the Stuff moderation is subbed out to a group of primary school children.

    The ODT also runs some extremely slack moderation. Even when you write a considered and polite comment with no hint of defamation, you’re lucky if it appears online hours later. Sometimes it takes days. Even then there’s a 50% chance that the moderator will decide to remove a couple of lines, making nonsense of the comment. I’ve pretty much given up posting on the ODT for this reason.

    Meanwhile, here’s a clanger from today’s Herald. They’ve published a reasonable public service piece about the avalanche risk in the South Island. Right at the bottom they’ve included a handy link to the Mountain Safety Council’s avalanche site which would be very helpful, if the link wasn’t coded directly to a Herald 404 page. Hover over the link and you'll see the coding.

    Doh!

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1438 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I did manage to get the most egregious comments removed from the Minto story comment thread - the libellous, the violent and the untrue apportionment of identity....
    ...and nice to see that The Press has done a positive editorial on his candidacy today.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/81990861/editorial-john-mintos-christchurch-mayoralty-bid-injects-life-into-campaign

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I did manage to get the most egregious comments removed from the Minto story comment thread - the libellous, the violent and the untrue apportionment of identity....

    Good on you. While Minto's managed to kick the occasional political own goal - arguably Sue Bradford emerged from the Mana-Dotcom debacle with her credibility relatively unimpaired, and his appearing to briefly join the pile-on over Len Brown's affair didn't help - the legacy of his perceived role in the 1981 tour still triggers a deep streak of nastiness.

    Perhaps it's not surprising that the entitled whaddarya mentality still endures, and that the mere mention of Minto's name provokes the kind of reflex that wants to make any dissenter's face the same shape as theirs, with the handiest means available. Even those who maybe should know better have pitched in. Back in 2012 the somewhat flakey Poneke, whose blog now appears to be deservedly defunct, attacked Minto over his refusal to accept an honour from the ANC Government.

    Citing a couple of highly dodgy cheerleaders for the post-Mandela regime, the hapless Poneke attempted to portray Minto as yesterday's man, clinging to an obsolete opposition to the capitalism that was delivering so much to the new South Africa. Only a few days later the Marikana killings happened, tragically vindicating Minto's misgivings.

    ...and nice to see that The Press has done a positive editorial on his candidacy today.

    Also The Press still has the huge plus of having John McCrone on board. His Minto profile from last April is pretty good.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • izogi,

    Thanks, Ian.

    In other news (as nobody's yet referenced it), The Spinoff declared this morning that it was doing away with comments.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1141 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to izogi,

    The Spinoff declared this morning that it was doing away with comments.

    They were damn hard to get comments on at the best of times - I tried several times to place comments on that Gary Steel evisceration of Roger Shepherd's book, to no avail.... and I wasn't even really rude or nuffin', guv, just the facts...
    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Bête blues...
    I can't figure how they can spell these 'foreign' words right in the paper itself (used in Tracy Watkins' piece in today's Press ) - but when they get to the web either people or process mangle them:
    the site's front page link

    Housing National's bette noire
    OPINION: Is National experiencing a midterm crisis

    and

    If housing is the Government's achilles heel, it has become Bennett's bêête noire.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/82146247/housing-solutions-out-of-reach

    The black beast in action, indeed...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    Attachment

    The curse of The Harold strikes again.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 499 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    The Herald must have someone reading here - it's been corrected.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 499 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    John Drinnan has an interesting story in the Herald looking at the Fairfax decision to run a monthly eight-page China Watch “PR/propaganda sheet”.

    Fairfax claim that being paid to run PR for the Chinese government won’t compromise their editorial status in any way. Drinnan begs to differ.

    But in my opinion, the willingness to run politicised content overwhelms that distinction. Who is next – North Korea?

    The good news is that China Watch features so much heavy handed PR and boosterism, only a moron in a hurry would confuse it for editorial.

    The same liftout will also appear in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Australian Financial Review, the London Telegraph and the Washington Post. Last month ABC’s Media Watch discusses the ethics involved in taking money to spread propaganda. They also look at how the Chinese government “trains” journalists and its influence on Chinese language papers abroad. It’s worth a watch.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1438 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 17 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.