Hard News: That Buzzing Sound
757 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Russell: No, what I don't accept is that there was any legitimate public interest in McAuley's "friends and family" turning that woman's death into a freakshow. They're not responsible for that, there are editors who should have that sheeted home to them.
How about rather than hurling around harsh words like "prig", "Victorian" and "freakshow", you take a moment to put yourself in their position?
If your close friend had been deceived in the worst way by her husband and her friend and then taken her own life, leaving them twin suicide notes, wouldn't you feel quite strongly about that?
You can certainly say that they should have kept it to themselves, or that they had no right to comment publicly on Rankin's appointment, but does that also apply to McAuley's family? Should they have refused to give a statement to Close Up?
Perhaps you could acknowledge that there are strong emotions here and ease up on the castigation of people you've never met.
-
How about rather than hurling around harsh words like "prig", "Victorian" and "freakshow", you take a moment to put yourself in their position?
Oh, wow, Russell, you mean someone close to me had committed suicide? Mental illness? There's been a very nasty marriage breakup? Someone doesn't actually conduct their life in a way that meets the approval of the family?
All of the above, because I'm not actually a clone who was raised in a bubble. You'll pardon me if I don't go into much more detail, because I think my family -- even the members I don't actually like very much -- don't deserve to have their privacy flushed so I can score some debating point.
I'm actually trying not to bag the family or friends, because the simple fact is it wasn't their decision to run a canting, hypocritical, priggish neo-Victorian CHRISTINE RANKIN: SCARLET WOMAN! front page. And I'll stop being "harsh" on news-free alleged journalism when you do.
-
Perhaps you could acknowledge that there are strong emotions here and ease up on the castigation of people you've never met.
Planning to extend Rankin and her husband (who, as far as I know, isn't a public figure) the same courtesy any time soon?
Should they have refused to give a statement to Close Up?
What obligation were they under to do so? I wonder if it would have done any good, as Close Up would probably have gone ahead with the story anyway. It's not beyond plausibility that whoever Close Up talked to did so reluctantly, but if McAuley was going to be turned into tabloid fodder they might as well have their two cents worth. Misguided, in my view, but understandable.
-
I hereby nominate Craig to act as my representative in the rest of this conversation. I'll have that notarised as soon as practicable.
-
Neither the family or friends would have felt it necessary to air their feelings, or the press had a field day, if the Select Committee hadn't been so foolish as to appoint Rankin in the first place.
Again: there are many more worthy people to be on the Families Commission. There was no need to go here at all.
-
John Key has said the only sensible thing on Rankins personal issues. That being a polite "STFU Christine", but of course only after Christine spoke on TV.
If her ego doesn't sabotage it, she'll serve the minimum time & Bennetts decisions will be vetted from here on in. -
Planning to extend Rankin and her husband (who, as far as I know, isn't a public figure) the same courtesy any time soon?
Fine by me. I just think some of your language about those close to the deceased has been really over the top. You can say they should not have talked to journalists, but they clearly feel strongly about what happened, and I think they deserve better than to be called "prigs" by someone they don't know.
-
Something I'm still grappling with. What right has John key got, to tell Christen Rankin to not talk about her privet life in public. He's not that in-charge of peoples lives, is he?
No, but I think he's got a reasonable expectation that after all this drama she really should stay focused on the job. Not sure that the tabs are interested in letting that happen, but he had to try. :)
If your close friend had been deceived in the worst way by her husband and her friend and then taken her own life, leaving them twin suicide notes, wouldn't you feel quite strongly about that?
I probably would, Russell. Don't think any newspaper would find it a matter of public interest or worth printing, do you?
By the way, and please treat this question as entirely rhetorical, we've both been in committed relationships for a long time. But back in the Jurassic mists, did you have a relationship break up unpleasantly and (if you're totally honest) you didn't act as well as you could have? I sure did.
I also have an ex- who committed suicide after he was diagnosed HIV-positive, and I sure had it made perfectly clear whose fault that was by certain members of his family. With some distance, I now get that there were a lot of "strong emotions" in play, but I hope you can understand why I'd not much like having all that dragged out in the light for strangers to leer over over their Sunday brunch.
-
Neither the family or friends would have felt it necessary to air their feelings, or the press had a field day, if the Select Committee hadn't been so foolish as to appoint Rankin in the first place.
That's right, Kerry, bitch asked for it!
And if Helen Clark had stayed in academe, she and her family wouldn't have had to put up with the vile shit she's had flung in her face over the last thirty odd years. Except its not her responsibility to take ownership for every tabloid douche who talks smack about her.
Once more, I'm rather amused that journalists apparently have no volition about what they publish -- the spirits make them do it!
-
On who's authority is Rankin an expert. She does have friends on the right side
-
I hope you can understand why I'd not much like having all that dragged out in the light for strangers to leer over over their Sunday brunch.
And yet here you are, telling us all about it. No disrespect intended, Craig, I'm a believer in talking out these things and have done so myself on here. I feel much compassion for you and respect your open-ness. But you're not running for public office in a sensitive area.
Bennett is Key's protegee, he had to stick up for her. But someone wants her out - maybe Key isn't doing so well at keeping the power-hungry freaks at bay.
-
I probably would, Russell. Don't think any newspaper would find it a matter of public interest or worth printing, do you?
I'm just saying they're separate questions -- the right to strong feelings, and talking to journalists -- and if those close to the deceased shouldn't presume to speak on her behalf or speculate on what she'd think, then perhaps those who didn't know her should do the same.
By the way, and please treat this question as entirely rhetorical, we've both been in committed relationships for a long time. But back in the Jurassic mists, did you have a relationship break up unpleasantly and (if you're totally honest) you didn't act as well as you could have? I sure did.
Um, no. Honest!
OTOH, I have seen a situation where a friend had an affair, got caught, and was eventually forgiven by her partner -- but not by one of their mutual friends, who went to war about it. That was bizarre.
-
On who's authority is Rankin an expert
Exactly, what does she bring to the role apart from a history of bigoted screaming on abuse issues and that she is a poster lady for the nostalgic newstalk generation who pine for a time when you could hit small children and smoke anywhere.
-
But you're not running for public office in a sensitive area.
No, and you bet your sweet arse this well-fucked, alkie faggot never would, since only saints need apply.
And I'm still not buying the "public office in a sensitive area" line, because I've said up thread that I've no intention of retailing very unpleasant goss I've heard about the circumstances of Trevor Mallard's divorce. He's in public office -- is a senior Labour Party strategist, shadow leader of the House, was recently restored to the front bench (as education spokesman), and if it wasn't for his biffo with Tau would probably be the favourite for Finance Minister in the next Labour-lead government. I know what I'd rather focus on, thanks.
-
Many of my family scared me with their anti-Barnett statements. These were of course the 1970s Feminists totally opposed to legal prostitution. Taking an initial open approach to age didn't help matters either.
In other words, the Dworkinite school of feminism. It's been theorised that such people have more in common with theo-cons than the feminist movement.
-
OTOH, I have seen a situation where a friend had an affair, got caught, and was eventually forgiven by her partner -- but not by one of their mutual friends, who went to war about it. That was bizarre.
Certainly, and I guess your friend and her partner were thankful that it wasn't the subject of a typically vile Your Views out-gassing or the fatuous burblings of Messers Laws and Holmes (who really should STFU about other people's marriages, if you want to talk about public hypocrisy).
-
In other words, the Dworkinite school of feminism. It's been theorised that such people have more in common with theo-cons than the feminist movement.
That would be a harsh generalisation, but Dworkin herself certainly got on with the theocons later in life.
-
… I also believe that CUs should not be confined to two individuals
Agreed. There’s no reason the legal arrangements can’t be extended to whomever wishes to participate.
…the tax regime in the US, where spouses get a fat rebate by virtue of the fact they've stood up in stupid outfits and signed a piece of paper makes no sense to me. Sure, get something knocked if you have kids, or you have someone in your care, but that shouldn't be contingent on your relationship status.
Agree with that as well.
-
In other words, the Dworkinite school of feminism. It's been theorised that such people have more in common with theo-cons than the feminist movement.
Andrea Dworkin -- eww, that's a blast from the past. Sorry, but anyone who equates a negative review or critical ananlysis to gang rape is someone I can't take seriously.
That would be a harsh generalisation, but Dworkin herself certainly got on with the theocons later in life.
And I don't think she ever got the irony of a Jewish lesbian allying herself with people who regarded her as, to be a little harsh about it, nothing more than a useful idiot.
-
OTOH, I have seen a situation where a friend had an affair, got caught, and was eventually forgiven by her partner -- but not by one of their mutual friends, who went to war about it. That was bizarre.
*cough*
It may be bizarre, but it's apparently not all that uncommon.
-
Oh, and Kerry: Absolutely no disrespect taken. You put forward a contrary POV, and while I wasn't convinced it was thoughtful and cogently put.
-
the fatuous burblings of Messers Laws and Holmes (who really should STFU about other people's marriages, if you want to talk about public hypocrisy).
Indeed - and this one key problem with doing it for "exposing hypocrisy" reasons. It becomes a pretty quick race to the bottom.
-
Should Macintyre have stayed in that marriage because her wife had mental health issues? Is developing feelings for somebody you're not married to wrong? I don't know what this lurid story is supposed to even mean.
That's my feelings on it as well. For all I know Rankin and MacIntyre fell in love and didn't know what to do given that he was married. I don't know if they had an affair or not. Maybe they made the decision that they had to do something and that might have affected his wife enough that she did commit suicide. How horrible if that's the case.
I don't know that it tells us enough of any certainty about him or her. I doubt it relates in any way to her new job. It's just sex and blood and gossip and suicide all over the front pages of newspapers. Sure it sells, but what else?
This distinction is lost on members of our community, I've observed, and so we find ourselves bogged down in 'gay rights' (meaning special rights), not equal civil rights for LGBTT citizens - which is much harder to deny.
That's an interesting point Christopher, I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Which came first - the mental health issues or the divorce? Which caused which?
I took Giovanni's point to be that anyone that commits suicide has mental health issues, which seemed fairly straightforward to me. Whether or not she had them pre-breakup is irrelevant to his point.
-
Indeed - and this one key problem with doing it for "exposing hypocrisy" reasons. It becomes a pretty quick race to the bottom.
Perhaps I'm totally wrong, given that the only time I look at a Sunday paper nowadays is if we're out for brunch and someone left it on our table, but Laws' marital malfunction hasn't had anywhere near as much ink as his daughter's illness has it? Funny that.
-
This just in in scandal news: Peter Verschaffelt's meth manufacture charge finally gets to court.
He's also charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and is representing himself.
Now there's a fall from grace.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.