Posts by Russell Brown
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
In your original post you refer to O’Connor as a homophobe and several other commentators have spoken to this, so your snappy little comment seems – to me – like yet another example of a PAS regular being pointlessly poisonous.
Blogger expresses possibly harsh thought about politician. Astonishing. I have never seen its like before.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to Richard Wain,
Good to hear some perspectives on why it was offensive. The media thing seemed like a beat-up to me.
Of course, it was also news because it was it was the very last fucking headline Goff and his party needed this week.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to Danielle,
Don’t worry, Danyl, you’re totally inspirational to ME.
I've always said you looked like Carly Simon.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Not so long ago in the ‘Perverse entertainment’ thread, someone calling themselves Kracklite embarked on a jaw-dropping series of posts systematically dehumanising and objectifying another human being. You’d think, especially given its proximity to Danyl’s critique, that this would’ve been quickly stepped on. But no-one bats an eye – it’s the straight-face delivery.
The individual concerned is a troll, one I’ve spent a bit of time talking to by email in the past, to no avail (and at the cost of being abused). He’s been banned and come back under multiple names and I’ve given him chances under those. I did try.
You also presumably didn’t see the comments by the individual concerned in the ‘Perverse Entertainment’ thread that I deleted. Among other things, he has a bit of a hang-up with Aspergers (or “ass-burgers"as he put it) and I was inclined to let Kracklite, who is an Aspie, play with him good-humouredly for a while – there’s something of a record of people dealing with the trolling with irony. It was either that or ban the individual under yet another name.
That said, I did get a bit uncomfortable with how long it went on. But it was the weekend and I was a bit over it.
Hope this clears things up.
PS: I’ve closed the thread.
-
Cracker: Send in the Clowns, in reply to Damian Christie,
In some cases I believe it’s the other way around – i.e papers are charged for publishing the listings. But certainly not with TVNZ 7. It’s pretty complex and I don’t really want to get into it, but I think there’s a link between the two things – i.e. having to pay on one hand, so then being less willing to publish the other for free. Not that I’ve used a paper or magazine for years to find listings…
I’ll wade in. Basically, 6 and 7 listings have always been free, but APN tried to use them as leverage to get a better deal from TVNZ on the listings it was paying for.
Apparently APN/Herald management were hostile to carrying the new channels’ listings per se, on the basis that “no one’s going to watch them anyway” – which speaks of nothing so much as pointless corporate hostility, but does cast an interesting light on that nasty little editorial.
The upshot of the spat has been not only no listings, but a near-ban on 6 and 7 coverage in APN publications. This looks particularly weird in The Listener, and speaks volumes for the lack of regard of APN management for readers of its publications. And, in a way, for taxpayers themselves.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to BenWilson,
Aha. How do you come by your 10,000 guess btw?
I guesstimated it.
-
Cracker: Send in the Clowns, in reply to Thomas Johnson,
Unless he was being deliberately ironic, or something?
Well, deliberate.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to BenWilson,
How to reconcile Russell's guess at 10,000 who read discussions with Nielson suggesting that 53% of readers contribute - surely there aren't 5,300 contributors?
The Nielsen figure was for readers who contribute somewhere on the internet, not necessarily here.
-
Hard News: Locking in the Future, in reply to James Butler,
Ok so I wanted to do some revision on the copyright thread, which I mostly missed at the time, but all the links to it (including from the original article) point to this – which I don’t think is it.
Heh. Let me get that fixed.
-
Up Front: Fairy-Tale Autopsies, in reply to Jo S,
I'm fascinated by our lurkers. The number of people who follow discussions here is clearly smaller than the total number of readers, which is somewhere between 17,000 and 40,000 a month (I mean seriously, fuck knows).
But still, maybe 10,000 reading some discussions. So many! Who are all these people? It's like the visible part of the universe versus the dark matter.
FWIW, Nielsen says a higher proportion of Public Address readers are active contributors to blog discussions and online forums than those of any other website it tracks -- 53%, from memory.
Nielsen also says our readers are highly educated, high earning, high internet users who buy things online. You'd think we might able to sell some advertising.