Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Filthy Five
Oh Christine, you're so licky
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
looks like Cameron Brewer is going to find out what The Herald does to its useful idiots when they’re no longer useful
And they will be just as wrong for doing it to him as they were for doing it to our democratically elected mayor.
It's not the corruption (minor at best) present in our councils that concerns me but the corrupt editors and owners of some media outlets.
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to mark taslov,
Mark, I'm not talking about Len, I'm talking about the councilers who represent their constituents by ... well let's just say I don't want to be represented that way.
-
" Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse expressed sadness at the impact Brown's affair had had on the Auckland "reputation that we have worked so hard to build".
What a disgusting hypocrite. She could have cut through the smear campaign in a second but she chose to use it to gain political capital.
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Steve Withers,
NZ Herald deeply in love with business interests
"deeply corrupted by" is my guess
The whole response to a fair and democratic election has been for The Herald and The Right to throw an enormous tantrum, screaming and crying so loudly that they might just get their way and we might lose a mayor who has achieved much good for this city ...
Every Aucklander should be ashamed of the way their representatives have tossed aside democracy for personal political gain.
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
reached the level of flat out deception, both by commission and omission of relevant context
That’s the way I see it as well. And honestly isn’t there some kind of press council or something that can (pointlessly I guess) censure them?
The news media has legal and social privileges extended to them because they act in the public good, providing an important service to society. They are an important part of our social structures. If a media outlet, especially a large one such as The Herald starts to deliberately deceive in order to create or shape a story, surely at that point there should be some consequence.
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Russell Brown,
“Auckland Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse is refusing to back her boss”
At what point does The Herald step over the line into deliberately trying to deceive it's readers and are there any consequences for doing that?
-
Hard News: We need to talk about Len, in reply to Russell Brown,
This morning, the Herald decrees
This is the same trashy mag that published someone bragging about a successful incitement to suicide yesterday.
It would be nice to have the self proclaimed voice of the people of Auckland under the same level of moral examination that they demand of others.
I'd be happy to bet money that (extra-marital) office romances occur as frequently in The Herald offices as they do anywhere and that Herald editors have as many failed marriages as the rest of the population. I'd also be willing to bet money that they get "perks" that remain undeclared both to the shareholders and to the taxman.
The hypocrisy on display from the editors at the Herald is disgusting.
So actually to answer the post's question
"No, no we don't need to be talking about Len"How about The Herald find something worthwhile to conduct journalism on, assuming anyone there remembers how to do it.
-
Speaker: Levelling the Playing Field, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
many art house/independent cinema offer a different experience
Yeah I can see that happening more. If technology makes the actual experience of the content better for an individual, then cinemas as gathering places must become much more, or simply different.
But in the same way that music shifted from a radio broadcast experience to an individual consumer experience I think cinema content will adapt. Sure some cinemas will adapt to become places where folks gather to experience the content together. But equally because individuals will be able to consume content at the same or better quality solo, in any location, then producers of that content will also adapt. Film makers will market to individuals, world wide, directly. No distributors required, just the internet. Surely that must change the type of content.
To try and swing this back to the original topic, in a market like that does it make more sense to direct funds to large scale cinema that tries to fill that legacy market or is it better to fund smaller, perhaps more locally focused art. Could money be directed into exactly the kind of content that is distributed via the internet. At the moment that's short webfilms. Should the career path of a new artist be always to make and participate the big cinema?
-
Speaker: Levelling the Playing Field, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Humans are social creatures and we have a deep and abiding need to gather in public or semi-public places, to experience ...
Very true. But films/cinema are not the only social gathering and I can think of a lot more social activities than sitting in rows in the dark staring at a screen. I suspect we will find other ways to be social.
And head's down looking at screens?? I was thinking more along the lines of lying on the couch with a glass of wine and my "eyes" switched over to media. Or even with all my senses switched over to media instead of just eyes and ears. Technology can mean dramatic changes not just slightly better little screens.
But in the immediate future I strongly suspect the experience from glasses and earbuds in 20 years will make any HD look quaint. What then for cinemas? Surely then they must become genuinely social spaces where humans can interact with each other rather than sitting quietly trying not to disturb (or not).