Hard News: The Wall and the Paper
297 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
Argh!
(Would be if I could remember where my pubes were)
PUBLICALLY
for other people than dense geoffs who might be confused- -
So if Steve Braunias lost his contract because he wrote a rude email to a reader, and now Laws has written an even ruder and more offensive email to another reader, doesn’t that automatically mean that the company (since it seems to be higher than the editor) will terminate him? Should I email the editor to check?
My impression from the interview is that the decision to fire Laws would be well above Kemeys' pay grade.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
My impression from the interview is that the decision to fire Laws would be well above Kemeys' pay grade.
Most things seem to happen when he's out of the office anyway.
-
So who is the deputy editor who actually does select and edit pieces for the op ed section?
-
So who is the deputy editor who actually does select and edit pieces for the op ed section?
I don't think there's any selection regarding Laws. They publish what he gives them, because they're afraid of upsetting him and his radio audience if they don't.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The show is here on demand, for those of you who didn’t catch the broadcast
Thanks for that, good interview - your barely restrained fury was delightful to watch and certainly discomforted Kemeys. Good call on his blame-shifting.
And I echo Hilary - if Braunias was acting as an agent of and therefore representing the SST when he wrote that email, how much more and agent and representative is Lhaws when actually writing in the published paper?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
being an editor of a newspaper means having responsibility for all that goes in it.
He looked like most of the senior administrators I've come across - all too happy to take the title and pay package but completely unwilling to either do the actual job properly or take the responsibility that goes along with the title.
"Being on holiday" is not an excuse unless he suspends his pay when he's on holiday - even then it's not an excuse if you have a spine.
I don't really mind senior management getting paid well to take responsibility but that means they F'ing well have to take it when shit hits the fan. That includes being the person who gets fired sometimes.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
they’re afraid of upsetting him and his radio audience if they don’t.
This is the problem, isn’t it? Laws has a constituency.
We don’t have enough national-scale papers in this country and they can’t differentiate into different niches – there’s no Daily Mail or Daily Star for low brow right wing nut jobs – so the SST graciously recognises its inclusive role and gives space for them too.
-
Who ever thought we'd be bemoaning the fall of Truth ...
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
“Being on holiday” is not an excuse unless he suspends his pay when he’s on holiday – even then it’s not an excuse if you have a spine.
Either he took part in the decision to send the nastygram to Edwards, or he wasn't even consulted. Neither option reflects particularly well.
-
Robert Urquhart, in reply to
The show is here on demand, for those of you who didn’t catch the broadcast.
Thank you for the reminder about the Swiftpoint Russell, I've been looking for something local to retail-therapy on. Order placed.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Neither option reflects particularly well.
But he was hands on - and standing behind it - in the Braunias case. Apparently what Steve did was sackworthy and he was representing the paper whilst doing it in spite of being a contractor. Whereas Laws can accuse a reader of having caused her son's Asperger's because... why?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
they’re afraid of upsetting him and his radio audience if they don’t.
This is the problem, isn’t it? Laws has a constituency.
So did Paul Henry. And Slime is still slime. Still, (out on a limb here I imagine) he should have the freedom to write his vomit for a paper who is prepared to employ him. Just that letters to the Editor should follow every crap piece complaining as I think RB just showed David Kemeys.He got the message loud and clear.Good show.
coat,getting....
-
Sacha, in reply to
he should have the freedom to write his vomit for a paper who is prepared to employ him
Not without the paper meeting their obligations as a responsible publisher. There is no license to say whatever you like about groups of people without facing consequences.
Laws is perfectly free to spread his vomit in person to whoever will listen. Just not necessarily to broadcast that same.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
Just that letters to the Editor should follow every crap piece complaining as I think RB just showed David Kemeys.
just got the reply back to my complaint.
Kearney's is pretty reasonable about it. preci: don't necessarily like what he's says, but defend his right to do so [in my paper].
NOTE: this is better than the Minister of Corrections, who is yet to front any kind of reply.
-
Sacha, in reply to
defend his right to do so [in my paper]
Press Council, then
-
Michael Laws
17 Mar 2011 4:48p.m.Actually Dan Satherley (TV3 News) ... you are a liar. I said I didn't care what the abusive email correspondent said/thought ... again, your basic journo dysfunction ... and I repeat: you have deliberately misrepresented my reply email to the lady.
can't even spell Journalist LOL (Lawhs out loud)
Has a lot to say for one who doesn't care. -
he should have the freedom to write his vomit for a paper who is prepared to employ him
Just as the public has the right to contact companies that advertise in Kemeys' newspaper and tell them they'll boycott their products so long as they advertise in a medium in which Laws is published - which is, I think, the next logical step to take.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
My impression from the interview is that the decision to fire Laws would be well above Kemeys' pay grade.
If Danyl's right about this, can we at least dispense with the title "Editor" as it is a term that implies a set of skills and responsibilities clearly not part of Kemey's performance.
Sacha said:
Not without the paper meeting their obligations as a responsible publisher. There is no license to say whatever you like about groups of people without facing consequences.
Which is why Rex's complaint, even if it doesn't succeed, is important. I'm all for boycotting, but I'd also like to the legal issues to be explored.
-
I've finally figured it out. Lhaws is on the Pipe.
-
I just got a personal reply from the editor. Apparently there will be some right of reply published on Sunday. (The column still heads the editor's picks on the website though.)
-
enough already!...
I second Danyl's suggestion upthread and call for a boycott of Fairfax and Mediaworks
and anyone who advertises with them.
Write letters to those advertisers and tell them that sadly you won't be buying their products
as long as they continue to fund the enablers of Laws' soapboxes... ie: Fairfax (Sunday Star Times especially) and Mediaworks (Radio live, TV3, etc)...in fact I no longer want to watch any TV3 or engage with any mediaworks outlets - having just given up watching the travesty they are making of their coverage of the memorial event in Chch ...
Why, during the video of the damage to Chch were we subjected to shots of Mike McRoberts and John Campbell ad-libbing incredibly mawkishly and uncomfortably? When all any of us at home (here in Chch) wanted to see were the images from our shattered city - their painful voiceover could then have been tolerated - this cult of the personality presenters just added insult to injury! - perhaps Campbell Live could play it in its entirety for those still watching the channel... -
Just cancelled my SST sub.
SST subs guy: "Can I ask why you're cancelling?"
Me: "Why do you think?"
SST SG: silence
Me: "Okay, Michael Laws"I got that "fair enough" feeling from the other end.
Now (sorry Ian) we''ll have to rely on the Saturday DomPost - I need something for those non-news tasks that newspapers are so good for. And there's the Property section. And David Burton.
-
philipmatthews, in reply to
…in fact I no longer want to watch any TV3 or engage with any mediaworks outlets – having just given up watching the travesty they are making of their coverage of the memorial event in Chch …
I'm not watching it. I feel that while the majority of us are still unable to comprehend or experience the damage done to the CBD, and while there are still buildings we know and maybe love that will be demolished, it is far too soon to be memorialising the event. Surely six months would be more appropriate? I'm not cynical about the political will behind it but if I was, I would say that the Pike River Memorial worked so well for Key and the Mayor of Greymouth that Key and the Mayor of Chch wanted a sequel.
Thousands of people are there but yet everyone I know in Chch feels it's too soon. I feel like I'm still in the immediate aftermath, within a day after that has lasted almost a month. As though the event has only just happened.
As for boycotts, I would urge you not to boycott all Fairfax products! Speaking personally, and not as a Fairfax employee, I cancelled my (partly discounted) SST subscription about three weeks ago, when I realised that the only things I really enjoyed each Sunday were the columns by Finlay and Braunias, both dropped. Grant Smithies alone was not worth it to me, nor were Barney McDonald's film reviews (I think Barney's gone too). I discovered I can get a sub to the London Review of Books for exactly the same price as my partly-discounted SST sub. So one sub replaces another.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Which is why Rex's complaint, even if it doesn't succeed, is important. I'm all for boycotting, but I'd also like to the legal issues to be explored.
But there are already established grounds (and channels) for complaint without testing a new one which might take some time to work through.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.