Posts by Alfie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Katharine Moody,
We purposefully watch One News and then flick over to Campbell Live at 7pm ON THE DOT. It's our way of 'digitally signalling' to TVNZ what a crap show they have in that time slot.
We go the other way -- 3 News followed by Campbell.
I've worked in news and current affairs (as an editor) for most of my life, including stints with TVNZ and TV3, most recently in Christchurch. I've always felt that the TV3 approach was less over-produced and thus had more integrity.
Mark Jennings and his team at TV3 tend to put more trust in their staff. The journo writes their script, runs it past the local bureau chief and gets a green light to start editing.
With TVNZ the journo writes the script, runs it past the local bureau chief who puts a little flag on the story. Then they wait until someone in the Auckland newsroom gets time to read the piece and possibly makes a few changes. That can add an hour or two to the process before you finally get the green light to start editing.
We used to MySky both bulletins and 7pm shows to do a compare and contrast. These days it's 3 News only. The style is more direct. The viewer is hearing what the journo wrote, not what head office decided. And we gave up on TVNZ at 7pm a week after Seven Sharp hit the screens. Fluffy tele vs real current affairs? There's no competition.
Just my 2c.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Katharine Moody,
OMG - Campbell Live tonight - OIA response from Work Safe NZ just received by them show Pike River Mine Stage 1 Recovery has been safe to enter since October 2013 (as assessed and agreed by both Work Safe NZ and Mines Recovery).
That OIA was released on the first working day after the election. What a coincidence. Something else which seems to have slipped past the media last week was the government flicking another $103m to Solid Energy to "restore mining land" and avoid "technical insolvency."
Technical insolvency? So that's not like real insolvency then?
That announcement was made last Thursday - just two days before the election when not many people were paying attention. Meanwhile I'll bet Solid Energy's top staff are still pulling in huge salaries and living very comfortably, thank you.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Emma Hart,
Thanks Emma! That explains the piles on the table. The other two clips in the video still look dodgy though.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Michael Meyers,
The "Yes votes on the No table" conspiracy seems to have been pretty thoroughly debunked since they were apparently votes waiting to be counted.
Do you have a reference for that, Mike?
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Not The Messiah,
Slightly off topic but there seems to be a whole lot coming out of Scotland about voting irregularities ( fraud, vote counting oddities, deceased people voting etc.. who knows ).
My son in the UK just sent me this link which shows some pretty blatant vote manipulation.
-
Hard News: Interview: Glenn Greenwald, in reply to rabold,
Nothing screwy in the DNS (either 'whois' or 'MX'). What do you mean by 'domain seems to be redirecting'?
I was referring to tactics dot net dot nz - the domain Daniel used on his letter. Yesterday it redirected me to a Facebook page, today it's producing "Server not found".
Plenty of people own domains which are either not in use or redirect elsewhere. It's just that I expected Daniel to have a killer web site. Or maybe the GCSB have been messing with something? ;-)
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Chris Waugh,
You don't seem particularly interested in reading any of the objections raised. For example, Emma wrote...
Give me time, Chris. I've been outside dealing with overflowing water tanks.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Emma Hart,
Your tone makes me assume that for you, abuse is something very abstract, something it's okay to play thought-experiment hypotheticals with.
Whoa! I'm not condoning domestic abuse and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression Emma. To be truthful I was thinking more about voting fraud and hadn't even considered that angle. To be clear -- I find domestic abuse abhorent.
On Saturday, I had a guy moved away from standing over his wife while she voted.
I've voted in more than ten elections now and I've never observed the type of behaviour you describe. When my daughter and I voted on Saturday -- it was her first election -- we were chatting and joking with the electoral staff. Maybe I've always lived in nice neighbourhoods, but the process of voting has always been a pleasant experience for me.
I accept your point that online voting would make that type of influence easier for an abuser. But don't the males you're describing already exert a high level of psychological control over their victims? Intimidation is a powerful thing and I'm sure that "She votes the way I tell her" already happens within our current system.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Also, if the norm for voting is in-person at a polling booth, then it's close to mandatory privacy, which you can't opt out of.
That little barcode on your voting form already has your name and address. The entire form is machine readable including which boxes you ticked. While scanning 2m+ forms would take a while, that information could still be extracted by an evil government, if they so wished.
I can't find any figures on how many kiwis have had their online bank accounts drained by scammers but I've yet to meet anyone who has suffered that fate. I'd look upon the security of online voting in exactly the same way. And of course we'd rely on the integrity of the Electoral Commission with digital votes as we do with our paper-based system.
I do see online voting as being inevitable one day, even if I appear to be in the minority.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Gary Young,
Is RealMe sophisticated enough to identify the actual person logged on and using the computer?
eg. What would prevent the dominant male in a household taking his wife and kids voting IDs and doing all the voting himself?
Who's to say that your dominant male isn't already collecting the entire family's EasyVote cards and tripping around a few polling booths with his mates?
A determined person could theoretically game any electoral system, but unless there was mass-scale fraud which would surely attract public attention, their influence would be statistically insignificant.