Posts by Russell Brown
-
Speaker: TPP: Nearing Endgame, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
I don’t want to be unkind to the writer, especially being quite new to this blog, but this really is a boring topic. I doubt a TPP can be signed that would be acceptable to free trade countries (NZ, Singapore etc) and if it were acceptable to us, then the US Congress and Japanese Diet would never ratify it.
"But they'll never ratify it!" isn't all that reassuring ...
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to bmk,
I remember a long, long time watching a docu on stoned driving in Adelaide. They ran drivers through a simulation both stoned and sober. They found that on average the stoned drivers had slower reaction times but as if they (either consciously or or more likely sub-consciously) were aware of it they also drove comparatively slower.
That was the view of Mark Kleiman when I interviewed him. He said the danger period was 2-3 hours later, when when pot smokers were meaningfully impaired, but weren't aware of it. Also, as Damian said, when both alcohol and cannabis were in the mix.
-
New Zealand’s head of road policing, Superintendent Carey Griffiths, says, while drink driving remains the priority, next year will see further attention given to drug-impaired driver testing, including the best approach to take.
“My preference based on what I’ve seen and know so far is a saliva-based testing regime similar to what’s conducted in many of the Australian jurisdictions, because there is an element of general deterrence to that.”
Gah. What he's really saying is "Sure, it doesn't work as a meaningful test of impairment, but it might put people off smoking cannabis altogether."
-
Hi folks. In consultation with Graeme, I’m closing the thread, from which I think there is no more to be gained.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Swan,
That is not the argument. The argument is that editorial interference from advertisers is fundamentally undesirable. That editorial independence is to be prized.
Yes, after 16 pages, I think we’ve established that as an argument. Excluding all other other arguments -- including those relating to other "fundamentally undesirable" things -- to preserve the purity of the proposition isn’t really credible..
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,
You are right about WJT non-apology not talked through . Also understand that Andrew Fagan Sean Plunkett apologies were also on their own bat – RL management missing in action
Which is really unforgivable. And a matter, one would think, for that new Mediaworks board.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to annamarama,
I’m also an editor, so I ask people to think about curtailing their speech every day. It’s not that big a deal to me. Sometimes I even curtail it for them. Most of the time this is in the interests of trying to help maximize the impact other bits of their speech will have. Someone at RadioLive should have been playing this role for Jackson and Tamihere – they weren’t or didn’t. A really awful thing was done to a caller, a really terrible non-apology was given, an attempt (Hooten) to discuss opposing positions was made, speech on the subject was then shut down. In this context, where not a lot of fruitful discussion was being had, and counter-arguments were not being heard, the effect of the advertisers pulling support from the programme and the station was a circuit-breaker that increased speech about the issues.
Exactly. In the real world, there was a comprehensive editorial failure.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Let’s imagine we did as Graeme suggested: we rang RadioLive endlessly, to tell them how offensive what they did to Amy was, how wrong and offensive their views on rape were.
I’ve got a simple observation on that. Who has their fingers on the dump switch in this scenario? If you’ve answered that question correctly, let’s stop fucking pretending that Jackson and Tamihere ever operated on a level playing field.
No, they didn't, and while they heard out some callers, they quickly dumped others who sought to put them on the spot. For a few hours, people were able to post comments under the online audio of the Amy interview, but that ability was removed. Mediaworks Radio CEO Belinda Mulgrew didn't make a statement in response until the following Monday.
My suspicion is that the non-apology from Willie & JT the day after the Amy interview wasn't talked through with management -- and it really did make things worse. The apology in the statement that announced they'd be standing down was, I suspect, drawn up for them (probably by the long-suffering Rachel Lorimer, who I'm sure hated the whole thing).
But the reason that statement eventually came was external pressure. The earnest entreaties Graeme imagines would not have got far, if only because the station seemed incapable of dealing with them.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to ScottY,
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard’s blog you are violating his rights.
I'm going to call for a boycott against myself. Just give me a moment.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: The First Time, in reply to Peter Darlington,
Talking of Christian rock, two bass players + drums Youth For Christ from Christchurch were anything but!
Ha yes, saw them a bunch of times. Good noisy fun!
Oh, well. I have a story about this.