Hard News: Of course it's about the book
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
A quick ( but large) thanks to PA System for being here. It has been fascinating (and a first for me) to watch an NZ event unfold just about "live"
-
One thing I'd like to add here is something Nicky Hager said the other day regarding Don Brash as all this was hitting the head lines. I've paraphrased it as I can't find the exact story on the web
"Sometimes our political system sees good people end up doing bad things, and that's the issue here"
-
So how are the media doing on this? My wholly biased round-up:
NZ Herald - solid coverage today, though Wishart got the front page earlier, and Hager didn't. I couldn't find all the print stories online though.
Dom Post - very full coverage, and Stuff was first off the mark with Raymond Miller's review. First, and so far, the best I've seen, from those who have actually read the book. Though of course everybody could be talking crap - I'm not allowed to make my own mind up yet.
Close-Up - laughable. Prebble was "faxed" some pages, apparently. Not so much biased, more "Oh, it's Friday, don't tax viewers' brains when they're kicking back with a cold one". So Wood didn't bother.
Campbell Live - forensic, specific, bang to rights. Did his job. Had the advantage of reading the book earlier, I guess.
Radio generally - in weekend mode. I haven't heard anything substantial, but of course there could easily be things I've missed. Feel free to point me in the right direction!
Agenda - gone on holiday. Classic case of the "Tsunami Syndrome" - i.e. it doesn't matter how big a story is, even if hundreds of thousands die, nothing interrupts our summer break. So, no real interviews on TVNZ until ... autumn?
Sunday papers ... Deborah Coddington blames Brash's wife.
-
Deborah Coddington blames Brash's wife.
heh
...and Deborah Hill Cone calls her courageous?
-
"He does indeed stand tall in the company of De Cleene, Douglas, and Prebble."
That's impressive company. Are you sure you want him there?
-
The Hollow Men: Initial Impressions.
PLEASE NOTE:
This comment was so good that I've used it to generate a new discussion thread. The original book review has now been migrated to Guest Speaker. Click on the DISCUSS button to view the new thread.-- David Haywood, moderator.
-
I think this is unlikely. I also doubt that the 'six principled conservatives' who Mr Hagar claims collaborated with him have or had any seniority in the party.
Well, Daryl, I even have my doubts the 'Tory Six' even exist, because muckrakers have never, every told porky pies about their sources have they? (Let's think about Andrew Morton's sin-sational bigraphy of Diana - where it turned out he flat out lied about the extent of her co-operation. And am I the only oerson who found a little of the gloss going off the Watergate legend, when Mark Feld 'outed' himself and his own rather tawdry history with the Hoover-era FBI, and his anger at being passed over by the Nixon Administration for director, came out?)
Of course, there's one obvious way to put me in my place: Hagar's sources come forward and explain exactly how they obtained these e-mails. If they did so lawfullyand lelgitimately, then surely there is no need to hide their identities? Why shouldn't the public be able to assress the agendas and motivattion of his sources - as well as their own integrity - for themselves?
And given the nature of the claims he makes in this book, wouldn't Hagar welcome a change to prove how open and free of hidden agendas he is?
-
Of course, there's one obvious way to put me in my place: Hagar's sources come forward and explain exactly how they obtained these e-mails. If they did so lawfullyand lelgitimately, then surely there is no need to hide their identities?
I guess it's natural for National Party apologists to try and take the debate in this direction. What else can they do?
If you want my guess about the origin of the Hagars documentation - and this is purely a guess on my part, not even a rumour - it's that an employee at National Party headquarters simply walked around the National offices copying documents, polling spreadsheets and email archives onto a USB key while everyone else was at the pub. How this information found it's way to Hagar will doubtless remain a mystery.
-
The so called "six" are hardly going to come forward regardless of how they obtained the information because if they do they will be out of a job shortly afterwards.
If I kill somebody but argue that I'm sure other people are killing as well does that mean I should be let off?
Nup.
-
If the damning documents were stolen, perhaps this was an orchestrated larceny of lies ...
-
Hi Danyl,
One of the reasons I still drag my eyes over the comments soup at KiwiBlog is the chance that I'll stumble over one of your LOL comments.
And thanks for this review too - it's great.
A point of (sort of) contention though: while I agree that a trawl through the equivalent closet of today’s Labour party would - no doubt - dredge up skeletons of its own, I think it unlikely that you'd come across something like, 'a small group of wealthy Green/Alliance backers, with views far to the left of the average Labour Party, had surreptitiously campaigned for the party and were now exacting policy concessions...’
I'm stating the obvious, I guess, but my main point is that - in terms of economic policy - Labour Party voters tend to get something either similar or to the centre of what they expect. Nation Party voters would have, had National won last year, been in for a heck of a shock – having just secretly elected Act into power.
-
I think Danyl's review of Hollow Men (which has now been migrated over to Guest Speaker) is worthy of a new thread on this subject. I've started one over here.
-
Daryl wrote:
I guess it's natural for National Party apologists to try and take the debate in this direction. What else can they do?And I guess it's natural you'd rather accuse me of arguing in bad faith, than actually engage with what I wrote. Sorry if the truth hurt, but you've admitted yourself there's something incredible about Hagar's own public statements about his sources - and my guess is that you don't want to ask the obvious questions, because it's politically inconvenient to do so. While it might not affect the accuracy or otherwise of the book, it certainly doesn't help Hagar's credibility if he's flat out lied about the source of these e-mails does it?
Fine, Daryl, but please don't accuse me of being a National Party sock puppet. I am actually capable of coming to my own opinions, and my low opinion of anonymous sourcing is well on the record. It's a basic matter of media (and academic) ethics that you source material and statements so readers can judge for themselves whether those sources are genuinely disinterested parties or perhaps prosecuting some hidden agenda of their own.
-
I thought it was rather common to NOT reveal your sources in the journalistic field if they did not wish to be revealed. If people know you will reveal them then often the information would never come to light surely.
-
Craig,
I'm no great fan of anonymous sourcing and for the same basic reasons that you state. I accept however that sometimes without them a story cannot be written. In such cases I have to make my own judgements about the veracity of the story based on the evidence, discounting for the unverified opinions of the unnamed sources.In this case however the story is not based on the opinions of the sources but the content of documents leaked by them. Unless you are suggesting that the the sources have doctored the documents I can't see what your objection is. It is not as if we are being asked to take a sources word for it as to what is in the documents. We have the documents. That is what the story is based on.
I certainly agree that there is a very interesting story about who the leakers are and what the motives were for leaking. I doubt we will get to hear it however, and I honestly can't see how that story could change the story that we do have.
I in no way think you are arguing in bad faith, but I am confused about what you think knowing the source would add to the story.
-
Weird: "Of a strikingly odd or unusual character; strange".
I would say not owning a television qualifies as weird.
Maybe once or twice every couple of years I'll come across somebody who doesn't own one and more often than not they themselves are weird.
Thanks for the information, Yamis, it's nice to know I'm considered "weird" because I don't possess a TV. Why on earth should I bother with the ads and crap when I can bittorrent everything I want to watch sooner than it's shown here in Oz? The only thing that might be considered time-critical is sport and news - news I get on the web; sport I don't bother with.
Oh, and I'm not religious. At all.
Also, if we're going to split semantic hairs, you might want to consider nuance. If you want to say not having a TV is "unusual", fine. "Weird" has an associated value judgement, and it's not a positive one.
-
I'd be perfectly happy to be called weird. Have you seen what the'mainstream' looks like lately? Zoiks!
-
Thanks for the information, Yamis, it's nice to know I'm considered "weird" because I don't possess a TV. Why on earth should I bother with the ads and crap when I can bittorrent everything I want to watch sooner than it's shown here in Oz? The only thing that might be considered time-critical is sport and news - news I get on the web; sport I don't bother with.
I also find not owning a TV a little unusual, though I wouldn't say that all the people that I've known that have no TV are weird (just most of them!).
I suspect though that technology has outdated the statement. If you download TV shows and watch them on a computer, then I'd say you have a "TV by other means".
-
I know someone at the publisher and asked about this. She said it was the publishers (Craig Potton) who decided to embargo the book because they didn't want anyone to have it ahead of another bookseller whether it was Whitcoulls or Dymocks or a small publisher. My friend got a call from Whitcoulls asking why people thought they were trying to stop the book being released and she reckoned some guy from Whitcoulls phoned you about it. Just wondering what the whole story is.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.