Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How could we let this happen? Well, a quick perusal of the main media websites gives us some clue. On TVNZ, TV3, Herald and Stuff, the story is confined to the margins. Credit to Morning Report for leading with it (I only heard the headlines, not the interviews), but overall, a global report from the OECD is given less prominence than any press release by the "Taxpayers' Union".
Inequality depends on ignorance. In modern New Zealand it's got ideal conditions for growth.
-
If we're using the Time "Man of the Year" criteria (i.e. a nomination represents acknowledgement, not approval) then #dirtypolitics gets in not because it 'failed' to move the public, but because it was successfully twisted.
"Key brushes off Hager's/ Dotcom's/ Left's dirty politics", that kind of thing. See Hosking, Roughan, usual suspects. The Vox Pop of the year would be "I haven't read Dirty Politics because it's dirty politics".
I agree with "beheading" too - it's there because of, not despite, it's horrible associations. Let's face it, New Zealand's foreign/intelligence/defence policy has been dictated by murderers with cameras, so that's pretty damn influential.
-
Yes. It's titfer tat.
-
Name of the Year: Kim
(Jong Un, Kardashian, Dotcom ...)
Otherwise my vote for Word of the Year would be [ ... ]
because there are no words any more. John Key has removed all meaning from them.
-
Wow. And wow again.
The editor – not a newbie intern, but the fricking editor – says, of Auckland councillors on Twitter:
“Maybe they’d all attend more if they had their own hidden rooms to muck about in.”
So, just to clarify this extraordinary mindset, when asked about councillors’ attendance she acts as their defence spokeswoman. Because they are not Len Brown, she is entirely uninterested in holding elected representatives to account. And – incredibly – is happy to admit it.
Ladies and gentlemen, our city, our newspaper.
ETA: Twitter source, editor's account.
-
He was the guy who transformed his private office into a glass-walled room as a symbolic representation of transparency.
"Brown's Vanity Show ... On the Rates!".
"This is yet more proof of the mayor's inflated ego, wanting to be on display" said Councillor Speeddial ..."
etc, etc.
Nothing stops those whose agenda is set in stone. To claim otherwise is naïve at best.
-
And I ask again, how?
What should have been done, by whom?
I'm pretty sure the Herald could twist anything you suggest , but would be happy to be wrong. Enlighten us.
-
Hard News: Some reprehensible bullshit, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
How would this "making it clear" work, Jim?
A phone call to the Herald: "Hi, here are some things you might deliberately misreport, this is just a heads-up so you won't ... " ?
In short, get real.
-
May not mean anything, but somebody on Twitter has noted that the reporter's by-line (Cherie somebody) has been removed from the online story.
-
I counted at least six examples of mendacity or innuendo in that short release.
If the Farrar Front is going to be quoted in the media, couldn't the journos at least read a couple of paragraphs and then ask questions ?
"Why do you call it a lair? In what way are the rooms secret? Should ensuites in Ministerial offices be demolished?" etc
Research and effort required: minimal. Is basic professionalism too much to ask?