Hard News: I've been hybridising for a while now ...
140 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Oh, diddums. :)
I think it was more an amused observation than a complaint.
-
I think it was more an amused observation than a complaint.
It was. I do like the fact that Fran engages, though, even if she's only ever complaining about being criticised.
-
what is it with people freaking out about non de plumes? does not having a target mean that that content of someone's argument is weaker?
let me answer that for you.
no.
-
what is it with people freaking out about non de plumes?
Some people seemed to make a big deal of it with certain members of the exclusive brethren church.
-
what is it with people freaking out about non de plumes? does not having a target mean that that content of someone's argument is weaker?
Anonimity, cowardice, non-verifiable sources, blah blah. It's a very common complaint directed at the people who use the intertubes. Ironically, the practice of the unsigned editorial that most newspapers adopt is designed precisely to highlight the argument, rather than the author.
One of the best political columnists we had back home, probably the best ever, was a guy who operated with a pseudonym, Fortebraccio. Mean bastard, too, I'll transplant one of my favourite lines of his, just to give an idea.
The motorcade came to a stop, the car door opened. Nobody came out. It was Peter Dunne.
-
Some people seemed to make a big deal of it with certain members of the exclusive brethren church.
surely donation scandals and publically stating your views are different things?
-
I think it was more an amused observation than a complaint.
So was I. Really, remember this is someone who bitch-slapped Winston Peters good and hard when he was stupid enough to accuse her of fabricating quotes. And I do find it rather delightful watching the Standard folks carrying on like they're the Salman Rushdies of the Kiwi blogisphere. That's bringing the funny.
what is it with people freaking out about non de plumes? does not having a target mean that that content of someone's argument is weaker?
No, but without presuming to speak for O'Sullivan, I find it rather galling having my integrity questioned by people who don't even have the guts to sign their names at the bottom of their froth.
I've asked you this before, Che, but do you think it's entirely coincidental that some of the most venomous people out there operate behind pseudonyms? I've certainly come across some folks who are sharks on line and absolute pussy cats in person. Funny that.
-
No, but without presuming to speak for O'Sullivan, I find it rather galling having my integrity questioned by people who don't even have the guts to sign their names at the bottom of their froth.
Used to happen to me all the time on Kiwiblog ...
-
Used to happen to me all the time on Kiwiblog ...
Try re-writing in the present tense, and welcome to the club. Though I don't think you've been accused of "supporting a paedophile" by someone whose standard m.o. on being caught out in a blatant lie is to increase the volume, and add some more. So, I think we've even.
-
No, but without presuming to speak for O'Sullivan, I find it rather galling having my integrity questioned by people who don't even have the guts to sign their names at the bottom of their froth.
Used to happen to me all the time on Kiwiblog ...
Invective ain't the same thing as argument, though. I think it's perfectly okay for a political blogger to operate under a pseudonym, even advisable in some circumstances, then s/he will be judged on the merits of the arguments and the evidence. Anonymous posters who vent various brands of hate in forum discussions are a rather different breed. O'Sullivan's complaint is misdirected because The Standard stands behind its arguments, it just happens to be an author collective (think Wu Ming), it's not as if they couldn't be sued, among other things.
-
certainly come across some folks who are sharks on line and absolute pussy cats in person. Funny that.
i think they also get a rush from seeing their non de plume in 'print', hence the frequency of posting.
but a troll is a troll, and an argument is an argument.
-
but a troll is a troll, and an argument is an argument.
And a hypocrite is a hypocrite, whether pseudonymous or not. Look, in the end we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, but I think folks who want to lecture others on professional or personal integrity don't get to do so while hiding behind pseudonyms. Because (among other things) my code of ethics says if you're not willing to bitch someone to their face (and do so openly and honestly) you can just STFU.
-
giovanni tiso:
The Standard stands behind its arguments, it just happens to be an author collective
There've been some recent cracks in that facade though. First when I called "Steve Pierson" and (IIRC) "John A" on their toadying excuse-manufacturing on behalf of their new best friend Winston Peters and his band of thugs. Long story short I asked whether regardless of the donations issues they felt NZF worth supporting on its own merits or whether they were just propping up a discredited bunch of low achievers because they were propping up Labour. In other words, could The Standard really look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me they admired Ron Mark?
The only one who emerged to reply was Lynn Prentice, who took a "poster's opinions are their own, we're a collective but it's not anyone else's fault" line.
Then more recently there was the pass-the-bucket post by "Tillerman" on the topic of the PM's mountain misadventures which had "Tane" and other Standardistas basically apologising to the vast cross-section of commenters who'd hurled on their keyboards. Some Standardistas were even thinking aloud in the comments section about some sort of editorial policy-making being necessary.
Personally, I ted to automatically imbue a piece of writing with a real name attached with greater credibility than that written under a pseudonym. There may be a good reason for using one (you're a public servant, perhaps) but unless there is - and you state why - I have to wonder why you're so shy about standing by your work.
I think the fact that Russell et al are happy to use their names on PA and the fact that the quality of both posts and comments is uniformly high are not unconnected.
-
I think the fact that Russell et al are happy to use their names on PA and the fact that the quality of both posts and comments is uniformly high are not unconnected.
None of them are political activists. The fact that the gentlefolk who belong to a certain racist organisation happen to know who I am does not fill me me with dread but neither it fills me with joy, quite frankly.
-
The only one who emerged to reply was Lynn Prentice, who took a "poster's opinions are their own, we're a collective but it's not anyone else's fault" line.
And I don't want to jack this into another bash Kiwiblog thread, but I rather doubt anyone at The Standard would take that line from David Farrar -- who I've certainly criticised, both publicly and privately, for not keeping the more toxic commentators on a short leash (or a choke chain).
Hey, if The Standard, Kiwiblog and the MSM can't -- or won't -- keep the toxic waste down, then that's their call and they accept the consequences. But what they can't credibly do is pull a editorial Pontius Pilate routine where they wash their hands and move on.
I think the fact that Russell et al are happy to use their names on PA and the fact that the quality of both posts and comments is uniformly high are not unconnected.
Certainly, and while I don't want to sound like an arse-kisser Russell was also very clear about the kind of community he wanted to see on PAS and that he was willing to make sure it happened. Just because the editorial hand isn't a iron fist in a black leather gauntlet doesn't mean it's not there.
-
Rob Hosking's comparison of blogs with the 18th and 19th century grub street/pamphleteering culture is absolutely spot on (I've done academic research into the field, don't you know..). Indeed, both the Spectator and the Tatler both came out of the same culture, which tells you all you need to know about the divide between the smut and literate. (Actually, it wasn't so much a divide as a blur, but anyway...).
And speaking of poo-flinging, the rise of Grub Street inspired Alexander Pope's homeric parody the Dunciad, which is essentially a 100-page poem dedicated to accusing the grub street "hacks" of all sorts of deviant scatology (one part of the poem actually has them literally wade through shit to achieve their prize).
The more things change...
But on a serious point, it is an interesting time, and I've enjoyed this discussion a lot, being the media junkie that I am. I do wonder the main problem is the sheer hegemony of ownership, rather than any "partisanship" of the papers themselves. Laugh at the regional dailies all you want (and believe me, I'll join you), but the more "centralised" the media becomes, the less opinion and chance for new voices it allows. Fairfax's proposed centralised subbing could well be diabolical.
-
Rob Hosking's comparison of blogs with the 18th and 19th century grub street/pamphleteering culture is absolutely spot on (I've done academic research into the field, don't you know..).
I've drooled over the pamphlet collection at the Turnbull Library (part of the original Turnbull bequest, and shipped to Britain to be bound in hard covers and shipped back out) if that counts.
There are thousands of them, and many seemed to me to be on economics. Clearly, anyone could have a crack at pronouncing on the world's problems.
Matthew, if you ever wanted to use that academic research (crazy, I know) in a guest post here tracing the links to the blogosphere, consider this an invitation. I find the topic very interesting.
I do love small books ...
But on a serious point, it is an interesting time, and I've enjoyed this discussion a lot, being the media junkie that I am. I do wonder the main problem is the sheer hegemony of ownership, rather than any "partisanship" of the papers themselves. Laugh at the regional dailies all you want (and believe me, I'll join you), but the more "centralised" the media becomes, the less opinion and chance for new voices it allows. Fairfax's proposed centralised subbing could well be diabolical.
Do I have a TV show for you!
Tonight's Media7 looks at the portents of APN's conversion of the Levin Daily Chonicle to a bi-weekly freesheet. It's the PANPA 2007 small newspaper of the year, the APN newspaper of the year, it has increased its (admittedly modest) circulation and it's not losing money. If it were independently-owned, it would probably still be a real newspaper.
One issue: these small papers pay a chargeback to APN for accounting services -- and it's several times what those papers would have to pay to just employ an accountant. It seems that APN corporate taps the small assets hard to try and recoup more group costs.
When you note that there's a strong implication (by a councillor and defeated mayoral candidate) that the Levin council helped get rid of its feisty problem paper by withdrawing $60,000 pa in advertising and giving it to a docile freesheet, it casts an interesting light on APN's chest-beating about a free press.
Anyway, there's a list of the remaining independently-owned dailies in New Zealand in the Media7 blog.
Yes, I'm herding.
-
Wine glass refreshed ...
When I said this:
One issue: these small papers pay a chargeback to APN for accounting services -- and it's several times what those papers would have to pay to just employ an accountant. It seems that APN corporate taps the small assets hard to try and recoup more group costs.
I should have noted that the smaller Fairfax papers probably face similar fish hooks. It's a corporate media fact of life, especially when your national newspaper market is essentially an offshore-owned duopoly.
We're losing family proprietors, who used to play a strong role in the free press, but I'd hope that "trust media", in the mould of the Guardian, will begin to fill the gap. David Geffen and his mates should just have bought the LA Times back from the Tribune group when people were talking about it. Perhaps they're waiting till it's been completely sucked dry.
-
Interesting that 5 of those papers are South Island-based (and I subscribe/buy 4.) The ODT, especially, is a daily (6 days a week) newspaper worth anyone's money-
-
Who is a journalist?
Who is an artist?
Who is a musician?
Who is a scientist?
These are different questions from "who is an architect", "who is a doctor", and "who is a lawyer."
As far as the Guardian and its funding go: l pledge $100 this year and every year that I am employed, towards any trust or non-profit body that will employ journalists, in any medium, to research, and write or produce really good New Zealand stories.
I bet if a few other PA posters and lurkers did the same, we could get an article or two out of it at rates that would be better than the current freelance ones.
-
PS: if you would kindly die and leave your vast estate to said trust, that would speed things up. Thank you.
-
I've drooled over the pamphlet collection at the Turnbull Library (part of the original Turnbull bequest, and shipped to Britain to be bound in hard covers and shipped back out) if that counts.
There are thousands of them, and many seemed to me to be on economics. Clearly, anyone could have a crack at pronouncing on the world's problems.
Matthew, if you ever wanted to use that academic research (crazy, I know) in a guest post here tracing the links to the blogosphere, consider this an invitation. I find the topic very interesting.
Ha! Perhaps I was overselling myself slightly- it was a 4th year honours 4,000 word research essay. But I collected a lot of stuff from it, actually, although most of it by its very nature deals with the "then" rather than the "now." But the Turnbull Library's collection of those journals is awesome- I'm amazed at some of the stuff they were able to get away with. It's also interesting to note that what became known as "new" journalism in the 1960s and 1970s wasn't very new at all- it was just the context which changed.
It's a fascinating field, partly because it's such a secret history, much like blogging to a degree. I mean, a lot of the stuff was ephemeral by its very nature, and yet it gives as much an insight into the time as any contemporary literature (and the "parliamentary reports" in the Spectator were fascinating because they weren't allowed to name people, so you'd have to have a strong knowledge of 18th and 19th Century British politics. Which I don't, regrettably).
Interesting that Islander pointed out that 4 of the 5 "independants" are based in the South Island. As for the ODT, there are many less than nice things I could say about it, but it knows exactly what its audience is, and keeps a very close eye on its community. It's a ragbag at times, but it's the readers' ragbag, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. And personally I thought Murray Kirkness putting the editorial on the "stadium issue" on the Front Page a few months ago was a brave move, too. And necessary.I can't say the same thing about some of the other Fairfax/APN owned newspapers, but that's mainly because, through no fault of the editorial staff, their resources get squeezed. It's sad, actually. To me, that's a far greater concern than supposed "partisanship," really.
I'm certainly gonna check out your Media 7 show, too- what a great topic.But right now, I'm gonna swot for the exams I've got tomorrow.
-
Apropos West Coast & Otago independent papers - my take is precisely what Matthew said - local audience. I have family and places in both areas: we are passionate about those areas, and they loom - in the national sense of coverage - like a flea in a blanket. Itches occaisionally...
-
Also, Fran's flaming The Standard.
That's quite remarkable. How long has The Standard been going for? A year maybe. And all this MSM attention. If that doesn't help drive their readership up nothing will. One reason they get this attention is because, however partisan they are, their articles are so well researched. The speed with which they are able to comment on a refute positions that the MSM has glibly reported must be quite worrying for those on the other side of the fence.
They must be very pleased with themselves.
The Standard's Achilles heel is still the anonymity thing. That being said, the Exclusive Brethren they are *not* (sorry Graeme, the EBs were liars and probably still are, huge difference).
-
but the day the Herald website led with the news that Peters had -- gasp! -- turned his back on journalists was a silly one. The fact that Peters has been rude to some reporters is not the lead.
That would be the infamous "step" story. I take it?
For the record I was one of the two journalists Mr Peters objected to regarding our position on the Parliamentary staircase (the other was Guyon Espiner). And yes I did file a story on it.
If a politician, be he Winston Peters or anyone else, is going to walk away from questions (quite valid ones in Winston's case), simply because they're not happy where I'm standing then I'm going to mention it in dispatches. It gives people an idea of what's happening and how someone is responding - answers are important. But so too are the manner in which they answer them (or not answer them as the case may be).
I note what I wrote was picked up and used by the Herald. Given the relationship between the Herald and ZB that's to be expected. But it was their choice to make it the lead, not mine.
Also bear in mind what I wrote was aimed at a radio audience and was written around a piece of audio. In this case the verbal exchange as Winston Peters walked away from the gathered reporters. Now I'm not sure how others would go about describing that exchange but I felt the phrase I used low summed it up adequately given the context of recent events.
Did what I wrote translate to print? Well I'll let others be the judge of that. However the piece I filed on that was one of several I wrote on the Peters' issue that day and was designed to form part of a bigger picture.
After all that's how radio news works. We can't put all the angles/information into one story as we only have 30-45 seconds at our disposal. What you get are a series of elements run individually in a sustained narrative over a news cycle. The exchange with Winston Peters was just part of that narrative.
I hope that answers a few questions as I have noted a number of people took issue with that story. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that as it's not exactly uncommon in this line of work. People are entitled to their opinions and, believe it or not, some journalists don't mind the criticism.
But ....
If a politician refuses to answer legitimate questions and behaves in an unusual or abrasive manner in doing so I'll report that every time and I make no apology for doing so.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.