Posts by Russell Brown
-
DATA!
Total words in Public Address posts in 10 years: 4,006,730
In Hard News alone: 1,491,048.
Will look for some data viz love for more.
-
Meanwhile, in the civilised West, a young Indian woman is allowed to die in dreadful pain by doctors who repeatedly denied her an urgently-needed abortion because "this is a Catholic country".
There aren't words.
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Megan Wegan,
Dude. It was your finest hour.
Animalistic penis-brains! I'd forgotten!
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Damian Christie,
for asking me to be part of PA as a result (I assume) of my rants on bFM
Yep, the ones you did on your Wire show. I thought: dude can form an argument. I'm really pleased that invitation did something to bring you to the attention of people who paid you :-)
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I will add my thanks to David Hood, for programming the Referendum tool!
And I think that's a great example of the way readers step up and contribute here. Thanks to both you and David, Graeme.
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to Glen Wright,
It is a good day for Mediaphiles.
I see what you did there.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Scott Chris,
Heh, nice framing Russell. Returning to my initial observation, I was merely disagreeing with you that the Waikato Times should be compelled to remove the article, primarily based on the simple principle of free speech.
Except that nowhere did I say that.
I expressed the view that “The Times should, in this instance, step up and take out its own rubbish.”
I said nothing about them being compelled to do anything, just that I felt they should step up in this instance.
And then on the first page of comments I said:
The part of Anjum’s request I have mixed feelings about is that the column be removed from the website. I’m generally keener on annotating such tosh with links to a rebuttal, but that’s between Anjum and the editor for the time being.
I trust that clarifies things.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Scott Chris,
Russell, my argument is based on my opinion and rationale, not regulation.
I just don't understand what you're saying. That no one should be able to make a press standards complaint to an organisation that invites press standards complaints?
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Scott Chris,
I’m not saying they are obliged to publish those views but I don’t think they should be forbidden from doing so. It is a measure of a society as to how it reacts to such opinions.
For the umpteenth time, Scott, if this does get to the Press Council, they'll be accountable to press standards to which they chose to subscribe -- that subscription earning them a reputational benefit. It's not "society" "forbidding" the publication of certain things.
This tosh being printed is most likely an editorial failure. Someone really should have said "this is bullshit -- write a proper column". The editor himself may now decide along those lines -- that's his right.
And it's probably worth tossing in an explanation I used on Facebook yesterday, with respect to the idea that opinion columns need not pay any attention to facts ...
If I write an opinion column saying I personally think someone is a rotter, that's basically okay. If I write a column that says someone is a rapist, and that's not true, I can expect to hear from defamation lawyers.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Sacha,
a state broadcaster has more incumbent responsibility to uphold ethical standards than does a privately owned regional newspaper
Not under our current laws. Publishing is a privilege that brings repsonsibilities.
No, actually. Leaving aside general laws on privacy, defamation, contempt, etc, there is no statutory regulation of print media in New Zealand.
The Press Council is an example of industry self-regulation. The only companies subject to its decisions are those who have voluntarily chosen to be subject to them – as the Waikato Times has. I have pointed this out to Scott and Angus.
Some print media – NBR, notably – have chosen not to make themselves subject to the Press Council. The council might still choose to consider complaints against NBR, but it can’t oblige NBR to publish or otherwise comply with its decisions.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority, on the other hand, is a statutory body with some statutory powers – including taking a broadcaster off air for a short period, or forbidding it to run advertising for a similarly short period.
The most commonly-cited rationale for this is that they’re using a limited public resource — the radio spectrum – but it also relates to the historic power and reach of broadcasting as compared to print.