Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Key has just been quoted on Radio NZ news rejecting the police conclusion and saying he believes there was an external super-hacker.
Jeez ... Just let it go.
Someone should assist Mr Key pick his battles - he keeps picking other's.
-
__So, whodunit?__
Cui bono?
Well that's hard to answer assuming it wasn't Key (who'd be stupid to be directly involved...).
Perhaps the person had a more personal than political motive? I suspect, but don't know, it was likely a coincidence of benefits for a group and a group dissemination.
-
What new laws would they wished for? Bag and person checks for everyone who works in parliament?
I think the Police involvement in this was always going to result in nothing of substance - the inside word I heard was that a disgruntled secretary obtained the emails as she had access to the Don's in-box.
If that's the case, and Don was stupid enough to conduct business through email that ought not have been, then no new law will suffice to reduce the risk of being exposed for being an idiotically indiscrete lothario simultaneously with leading on a public campaign on morals.
-
Right, so Fairfax and Rupert Murdoch were the tame bitches of John Howard... except when they weren't. What is the emoticon for 'my eyes are rolling like a Jaffa rolling down the starwell of the Empire State Building"?
Craig, I don't imagine either were the bitches of anyone but you're being a little naive if you think that Fairfax and News don't have interests in the election. Last election, a major issue of particular interest to them both was cross-media ownership and they both ran very favourable editorials about the Coalition's reforms in this, and many other, areas. My memory is that they were also incredibly critical of Latham and pretty much endorsed Howard.
On the issue of pro-war editorials, there are a number of very well known writers for the Australia in particular who were stridently pro-war; Janet Albrechtsen is one, Andrew Bolt another however I don't for one minute think Murdoch, David Kirk or James Packer dictate verbatim the editorials. That is quite ridiculous.
Here's a great quote from News Corp CEO, John Hartigan who gave the annual Andrew Olle lecture last year (it's a superb speech, well worth a read)
Before I go any further let me deal with the elephant in the room - Rupert Murdoch. I'll be damned by some of you if I do, and damned by the rest of you if I don't.
So let me share my perspective from more than 35 years at News - 35 years as a reporter an editor, an editorial director and now as chairman and chief executive.
Is Rupert Murdoch an assiduous reader of our newspapers? Absolutely.
Does he tell us what he thinks? He sure does.
If he's not happy are we left guessing? No way!
Is he passionate about journalism? Yes, and thank God for that.
Does he issue blanket instructions on how to cover politics or major business stories or what to write? No, he doesn't.
I read our newspapers every day. I look at the coverage of politics across the group, the tone and treatment of stories, the leaders, the views of our columnists and our contributors.
There is no evidence of a blanket order from the top. Because there simply isn't one.
But then he would say that wouldn't he :> (I don't know how to do emoticons either).
-
doh! mixed coding...
-
<quote>__The Fairfax media backed Howard in Australia and they back the Nats here.__
I'm going to call double bullshit on that, Steve -- because it's just not true.</blockquote>
We'll, it's probably fair to say no media backed Howard this last election but I don't think it's an unreasonable comment for the previous elections - Fairfax and News in fact.
-
If they detach from the group to do it, respect their privacy, if they don't, respect their 'still being a personness'.
This about sums up the way I approached the situation when I was was working part-time and caring for my youngest while my wife was part-time back at work. My experience is that most new mums are happy unless something has happened to make them feel otherwise, in which case they'd detach and I'd respond in the way Emma described, and most experienced mums don't give a proverbial.
-
I've never met the man, but I gather he's bright, upbeat and energetic. He really just needs to think about what he says sometimes.
Perhaps so, but it still appears as if his part in this situation has been exagerated somewhat. And wouldn't it be nice if the print-media started to examine policy issues to compliment their obsession with phantom scandals?
-
Mike Williams -- the fool -- uttered words to the effect that it was a damned good idea.
I'm still a little unsure about why this is such a big deal? I think Young's piece was pretty overstated, and have said so over at the original thread - I'm, however, quite surprised that it's elicited today's Prime Ministerial denouncement - perhaps I'm simply too far removed to gauge the significance of this (though I thought Craig's points about the role of electorate offices and departmental literature was well made yesterday).
The point, from my perspective, is that Labour should be campaigning on its record and should clearly and regularly point out that, despite the the constant repositioning of late, National opposed WFF, Kiwibank, Kiwisaver et al.
Even if Williams did err in thinking it was a good idea to use the publicly available material, how has this developed into such a huge story? Couldn't the story equally be: Labour to campaign on policies and achievements, National to campaign on John Key's dental work?
-
Looks like I was wrong.