Posts by Steve Parks
-
Hard News: Family Matters: a post about 2020, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
I rather regret that I have drifted away from PA,
Same. I remember that episode of Mythbusters where they did myths suggested from reddit users and I learned that Reddit was considered - or described itself as - "the front page of the internet".
For me, PA was the front page of the internet, at least in New Zealand.
Not sure why I drifted away but some country singer could write a song about it.
As for "digital ghosts", Dude, this is a family friendly website. Go make your Japanese horror movie pitches somewhere else.
-
I usually just ride out earthquakes without running for cover under the door frame or whatever. This one was different: it was really scary. It was like a movie; the slow build up was ominous and I just knew there was going to be climatic moment.
I can’t believe more things didn’t fall over or get disturbed in some way.
Also I’m in the ‘not noticed aftershocks’ camp.
-
In the context of this thread, my question is whether you see this undermining as some kind of natural occurrence like a sinkhole or whether it was actively undermined by a pliant media?
While I love your wording, I have to answer that you’re being simplistic: the (broadly) pliant media were part of the problem, but not all of the problem.
I’d like to know whether you personally don’t believe Greenwald’s revelations because he associated with Dotcom or whether this is based on you speaking to others who don’t believe Greenwald specifically because of his association with Dotcom?
I believed Greenwald. It appears not enough other people did, or simply didn’t pay him enough attention, to make a difference to National getting elected and IMP getting routed. Dotcom acknowledged that he was “poison” to Mana. I expect that the same applies to Greenwald’s message. Is this anecdote sufficient?
Hager associated with a criminal, it undermined his message but without the association there would have been no message
So he had no choice. This is not really relevant to the discussion.
How do you propose things would be any different now if The Moment of Truth had not taken place?
The general perception is that the “Moment of Truth” didn’t take place. The moment of truth was more about Dotcom’s Warner Brothers email revelation than Greenwald’s reporting. I’d love it if that email could be verified; but as it stands, it hasn’t been. Not sure how tarring Greenwald with this fizzer helps your point.
… despite “Fuck John Key!” posted on August 12th you were still considering voting IMP, and for all appearances it wasn’t so much Dotcom’s as much as Assange’s association with Moment of Truth that turned you off IMP.
If you go back over this discussion you’ll see that the point that I made, and that you are supposedly refuting, was essentially that I wouldn’t recommend that Greenwald directly associate himself with Dotcom. There’s no contradiction between that position and in having given consideration to voting for IMP.
Perhaps we can just agree on Fuck John Key?
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to chris,
Yeah. I mean, who would have imagined that directly aligning yourself with someone that even some on the left were wary of, or outright critical of, and who has a personal gripe with PM, might undermine your message? Definitely hindsight required.
To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.
I wouldn’t have.
When Steve is on record as of August 25th 2014:
“Given the announcement re Assange, I may have to resile from my ‘genuinely considering voting for IMP’".
I don't know about you, but I don't put myself in Greenwald's shoes before considering who I'm going to vote for. (Also, someone purportedly changing their position from a year ago isn't "revisionist".)
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to chris,
There would have been some but that’s a fairly select grouping Steve. I imagine it would not include those who had already bought into the PM’s line on Hager as “left wing conspiracy theorist” following the release of Dirty Politics – a work that sold all of 10,000 copies plus an additional 1000 e-book sales. It would likely also have bypassed many of Hosking’s monkey withholders.
The point is Greenwald’s reporting didn’t have to be lost in the “jello wrestling bout” between Key and Dotcom. He had information that was independent of that. But any chance of the public perceiving him as an independent journalist (albeit with a “left wing” bias perhaps) with interesting and valuable information on the NZ situation was lost once he was so clearly associated with Dotcom. It gave ammunition to Hosking et al, but more generally he became seen by many as part of a petty dispute between Dotcom and Key. It tainted the whole manner in which Greenwald was received.
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.
I wouldn't have.
That Greenwald saw this and wanted to help , may have been about that and nothing to do with “his career”.
I'm not suggesting that Greenwald supported Dotcom because he thought it would advance his career or some such; I'm saying it wasn't a great judgment call. Rightly or not, it lessened his credibility with a certain portion of his audience in NZ. And it didn't seem to help Dotcom much anyway.
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to David MacGregor,
Likewise Greenwald’s reporting was lost in the jello wrestling bout between Key and Dotcom.
To be fair, Greenwald did bring that result on himself, to some degree. His close alignment with Dotcom wasn't the best judgment call of his career.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Some people seem to object very strongly to to the one-more-playe- in-the-circle thing, but it actually incentivises the taking of wickets as the best way to keep the runs down, which seems like a good thing.
Yes, and McCullum seems to understand the new rules very well. We may not win the World Cup, as strategy is only one factor and won't guarantee a victory, but McCullum has been the best captain of the tournament. And yes the new rules are a good thing; after all, how entertaining has this World Cup been?
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to ,
I could understand the part when the referees where checking to see if the ball had hit the camera wire. Is it not actualy a catch, if the ball touches an obstacle, without exception? what if the ball hits the Tellevision drone?
It did strike me as strange in that if the ball had clipped the wire it would only have been a more difficult catch to take. But I can see a rationale for for ruling it a "dead ball", as Steve H indicated would likely be the case.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Can’t we just be pragmatic about this too?
That’s precisely what I was trying to do.
No, I meant about some prisoners not being able to vote. Your challenge to me was “where do we draw the line?”
Well, why not at a certain length of sentence, or certain types of convictions , or some combination of both?
It’s arbitrary, yes, but it has a rationale, and that rationale is pragmatism…