Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
WhaleOil’s allegations are very serious. I for one hope Mr Blomfield gets his day in court.
I don’t take Judge Blackie to be saying that blogs aren’t journalism because they are blogs. I read his quote from the Law Commission’s report as a statement that some people don’t adhere to the standards of care, accuracy and fairness that are expected of the news media, and that there is a point at which such failures might become disqualifying.
Blomfield puts it this way:
[WhaleOil] doesn’t check facts. He doesn’t research, investigate, or otherwise seek balance. He has no regard for anyone’s rights except his own. He has no time for anyone whose views don’t accord with his own. […]
Mr Slater is no more a journalist than he is a brain surgeon.
I suppose I'd have to agree that the protection of sources requires special consideration, but I can understand why a first instance judge might be sceptical of claims that WhaleOil is motivated only by the highest ideals of his profession.
the same individual or blog might be news media one day and just an arsehole the next.
Amen.
-
I think its generally accepted that people should have the right to express their views. The real battles are about access to influence and having particular views accepted as reasonable and legitimate.
A lot of organised effort goes into legitimising and delegitimising different kinds of opinion and behaviour. Some efforts are not much more than bullying, others break down misguided norms and introduce new ideas, yet others (as in the case of advertising) are simply self-interested. I suppose you could evaluate different methods of influencing opinion according to the extent to which they inform and persuade or simply manipulate audiences.
One set of restrictions on free speech that can be legitimate are the institutions that protect specific modes of expression. These include the courtesies that ensure that most of our everyday conversations are pleasant, the requirements that ensure that university professors are experts in their subjects, that ensure rock bands can’t hold a concert late at night or on the steps of a church (without permission), the rules that require you to be truthful and to respect judges in court. I can live with the fact that these rules constrain the behaviour of television and radio personalities.
Society expects the mass media to reinforce certain kinds of norms. People don’t want to see misinformation on the news, to have sex or violence gratuitously broadcast to their children, or to allow rudeness and ignorance to degrade basic norms of civil society. That said, most people accept that dissent and other kinds of non-conforming opinion should be given an appropriately public forum.
As talkback is pretty much a byword for ignorance and rudeness, you’d think it’d be a pretty safe place for most people.
-
But the other half was one thing I like about PAS is that we tend – or at least try really hard – to internalize really complicated situations in our heads without simplistic labels. Mostly. It’s not only refreshing, but rather useful.
I have decided that what I was going to say was really mean, so I have edited it.
One day, there should be a PAS thread where you explain your version of conservatism.
-
perhaps you can we conservatives who think the GCSB Bill and its ilk expands the state beyond it’s proper and legitimate bounds and infringes on the basic civil liberties of citizens the courtesy of thinking otherwise.
As the bill passed the House with every available conservative vote, I don't believe I should be expected to refer to the fact that some conservatives opposed the amendment every time I use the term.
Perhaps we can agree to divide voters into "the parliamentarians that voted for the bill, and their supporters", "genuine conservatives, such as Craig", and a much sought after miscellaneous category.
still manages to avoid needlessly troll-ish imputations of partisan bad faith
Jesus Christ, Craig. You need to put the rock down and back away from the greenhouse.
-
I doubt genuine conservatives are enjoying the lack of restraint on the radical right.
I can't say that I agree with your suggestion that David Cameron, Chief Justice John Roberts and Governor Rick Perry (or indeed John Key) aren't "genuine conservatives".
-
If it’s true we get the politicians we deserve (and elect) perhaps we need to ask who is really at fault.
I think conservatives are enjoying a period in which rights and constitutional norms don't have quite the restraining effect they once did. Maybe it's due to events like 9/11 and the accretion of cases like Abu Hamza's, which have eroded the currency of rights in political discourse.
You see this in the US, where Republicans aggressively suppress voter turnout and where the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is deliberately eroding the Voting Rights Act and other landmark legal protections (such as Miranda), and in the UK, where Conservatives have long called for the repeal of the Human Rights Act.
I don't personally dislike Key, and get the sense that being the Prime Minister must actually be quite annoying. Still, he sets the tone from the top, and he probably shouldn't be doing that with flippant remarks and cheap shots.
then one expects them to be consistently capable of dictating terms, at the very least on home turf – in print/on air.
I think it's always going to depend on context. Key made some good points, and you can't expect Campbell to just bang on regardless.
-
As John Campbell mentioned when Russell interviewed him last year; John wears his heart on his sleeve, and he seemed rattled from there on in.
Campbell seemed to have made a decision to focus on the New Zealand position and to avoid the NSA disclosures. That allowed Key to outline the structure of and rationale for the New Zealand legislation at some length. I can understand why he did it, but I think it put him at a disadvantage.
From there it was a hop, skip and a jump to John Campbell’s tetchy: “whatever” and shift towards the defensive tone that ensued “I want to come back to the mistake you think we’re making"…"I’ve never so much as had a coffee with Kim..”
I thought Key’s comments about snapper, the Law Society and Kim Dotcom were really inappropriate. You have to wonder whether a guy who thinks that New Zealanders' views about fish are a trump card in a debate about constitutional rights really has the temperament for this kind of responsibility.
Still, I’m sure lots of people thought they were great.
-
but I’d be quite interested in reading some kind of detailed analysis as to what John Campbell could have done better
John Key was able to establish inside five minutes that there that the underlying legislation had been introduced by the last Labour government, that it has (apparently) been invoked on less than one hundred occasions during the last ten years, and that the process is directly overseen by the Prime Minister and a retired member of the Court of Appeal.
Then, at the end of the interview, Key was entirely plausibly able to refuse to answer questions about the most problematic aspects of the legislation.
Campbell could offer little more than possibilities in relation to the very real danger that the government’s interception capabilities could be misused. It’s an important point, but its hard to sheet home during a section by section discussion of the bill.
-
I don't think John Campbell did a bad job. It was more that he wanted to ask about the risks posed by botulism, whereas Key went on the show to talk about milk.
I don't know who is right, but it concerns me that Key dismissed the feedback of the Law Society and Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the way that he did. Key bordered on smarmy at times, and as you say, it felt as though he was manipulating Campbell's willingness to let him put his case.
If Campbell wants to engage the public on this, he needs to start a broader discussion about privacy in the digital age that treats the dangers posed by unjustified government interception as one threat among many. This debate is not really about 88 instances of serious offending, spread over a decade. If that is how this issue is framed, John Key will go back to talking about snapper.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to Jim Welch,
Wonga is a “payday” lender and a British slang term for money. It is also the name of a 2004 coup d’etat in Equatorial Guinea and a kind of Australian pigeon.