Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: A nation bullied, in reply to
Stephen Judd: Papers like the Guardian are distinguished by ownership via a trust or foundation with a charter stating the values they must adhere to.
The big problem is that The Guardian is emphatically in the midst of its most influential and important era -- and losing 50 million quid a year.
The lifestyle titles that usually cover the flagship's losses aren't as profitable as they used to be either. It's a bloody worry.
-
Hard News: A nation bullied, in reply to
all journalist use subterfuge, like all council workers on garbage trucks collect garbage, it's just the way it is and I for one have a choice, don't read them, anyofthem! The press in NZ is diabolical and there is not one journalist I would trust, period.
In which case, you do yourself a a great disservice as a citizen, and essentially ensure your own ignorance.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to
So say something uncivil. I think its more than justified.
Oh, it certainly is.
But I might end up covering this story in the day job, and that would be more straightforward if I haven't called anyone a [redacted]. :-)
-
Here's the Herald story confirming the police's "criminal investigation" of the Sunday programme.
I'm not sure I can think of anything to say that is civil.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to
Hopefully the investigation Plunket cites is one into the allegations, and not into how the programme was able to go ahead when Police tried to stop it.
It appears to be the latter, unfortunately.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to
* – What’s the non-abelist word for “crippling” in this context? My internal thesaurus is momentarily offline.
This is not somewhere where you’ll be reproached for using English. It’s a perfectly good language, full of useful imagery and well-understood phrases.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to
That was a truly sympathetic and persuasive piece. But, did TVNZ cross a line in interviewing basically all the participants but the police in a pending trial?
I think all they could get from the police was a repeated statement about the "seriousness" of the charge. They definitely went to the cops for comment.
And yes, it could be seen as sub judice, but given the highly unusual nature of the case, the repeated remands and the extraordinary behaviour of the police from the very beginning -- the "perp walk" staged for the cameras was outrageous -- there's a strong and obvious public interest element in reporting it.
Anyway, according to Sean Plunket, the police are now proceeding with an investigation into the Sunday programme, at the expense of the taxpayer.
Plunket says the police statement on it was something vague about it being "in relation to dealings with parties" in the case.
I'm just wondering how far they really want to dig themselves in here.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to
The police statement that diversion hasn’t been offered because he hadn’t admitted guilt seems bizarre. He seems to admit that he was taking the lightbulbs, something isn’t right there?
He initially pleaded guilty, until it became clear that the police were not going to consider diversion.
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to
It does, and has done for a long time. Just put the raw link in your post with no square brackets in sight and behold the magic.
Yes.
-
I watched Thursday night's BBC Question Time, in which Shirley Williams stated as fact that the last select committee to look at the phone-hacking allegations was explicitly threatened by Rebekah Brooks with having their private lives turned inside out, and the committee chair was subsequently outed as gay by The Sun.
This is how the Murdoch papers were able to maintain their position. It's astonishing. And presumably, Nick Davies, Rusbridger and other people must have been subject to the same sort of private threats as the story developed. Which says all the more about their pursuit of it.