Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken
394 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Advertisers are naturally safe and if they all choose to only advertise in concordance with something they like – everything will end up very bland and boring.
If anything, the commercial radio landscape is already vapid enough as it is, even without advertiser boycotts.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
maybe have a think about why that is.
But that's just research. Two sides to every argument, and how dare we privilege the fact-based one over the one that's Total Fucking Bullshit?
-
Good thread, people (*school chaplain's voice*).
Here's my take ...
When somebody writes an opinion piece that starts a row, then we on PA or anywhere else on the net can just link to the source, and discuss the evidence that is in front of our eyes. We may have different views, but we can all see what we're talking about. It's an informed debate.
But when it comes to commercial talkback radio, often we don't know what we're talking about. Because - and please correct me if I'm wrong - most of us, most of the time, aren't listening. And so it remains, unheard, unlinked, and unknown.
Discussions about this medium - and its consequences - are long on principles and short on evidence. It's amazing how many people have defended Jackson & Tamihere on this, and then admitted they never bothered with Exhibit A. Or their years of previous offending (you think this sorry story came out of nowhere?).
Blessed with insomnia and masochistic tendencies, I have witnessed such levels of misogyny, bigotry and general idiocy on talkback most days or nights of the week. You could call it freedom, or you could call it slow-acting poison, the kind of toxin that makes Allan Titford a hero for decades before the truth comes out (and incidentally, comes out not thanks to our "free" commercial media, but our independent courts, happily unsponsored).
So here's my suggestion. Those who invoke "freedom" before returning to Kim Hill and their downloaded documenaries and other civilised privileges, should take some time to discover what they are talking about.
Prescription: 12 hours of talkback daily, for a year. Discover your real tolerance for what you call "freedom". How many days till you phone up in anger? How long before you realize that doesn't work? And then? Action? Like Giovanni Tiso's? Or something else? Why not?
Because you have the off switch, that's why. Because you value your freedom to put your hands over your ears, to turn a blind eye. I respect that freedom. But please don't pretend it leaves you better informed about the issues at stake.
1 a.m, people. Turn on, tune in, give up. Or - respond. Which is better?
-
And further to Simon's point, if you were surprised by the woman-loathing expressed a few pages back: don't be. Those guys are resentfully there on the internet all the time, waiting to pounce on women speaking.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I think Graeme is wrong in this instance, but one of the reasons for engaging with him and his argument on this thread is that he’s built up a long history of careful engaged thoughtful argument.
That's certainly been true when he's spoken from his considerable expertise. To me it's not simply a case of being wrong in this instance, but of having moved beyond his area of competence.
-
Danielle, in reply to
Yes. It's pretty ahistorical and really fails to address systemic power imbalances. Cultural studies stuff.
-
Chuck Bird, in reply to
Hey, Giovanni what do you think of Cunliffe calling Judith Collins a trout?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Hey, Giovanni what do you think of Cunliffe calling Judith Collins a trout?
What, you think my name is Petronius all of a sudden? Why are you asking me?
But since you are, and without being fully aware of the connotations of the term in NZE, I'd have to say it was a demeaning and stupid word to use. I could revise downwards once somebody explains to me what it was even supposed to mean.
-
Danielle, in reply to
As gendered insults go, it's a pretty dated one.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Thank you, Jackie. I've learnt a hell of a lot by listening to the women who hang out here, and I really appreciate it, not least because I'm trying to raise a daughter.
And in light of your comment.... Graeme went and wrote something that pushed me from irritated to pissed off, but last night I couldn't respond coherently. I think I'll go do my shouting somewhere else, like perhaps my own much neglected blog. I have no desire to add to the noise here.
Oh, and Lilith:
I want to mention how many women have told me that they’ve been reading here but didn’t feel they could comment.
Ouch. I'm definitely going to go elsewhere to do my shouting.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Oh, and Lilith:
I want to mention how many women have told me that they’ve been reading here but didn’t feel they could comment.
Ouch. I’m definitely going to go elsewhere to do my shouting.
Chris, please don’t take that personally! I always value your input, along with that of PAS’s other gentlemen. It’s the abusers and misogynists and the lack of moderation around them that’s the problem here.
-
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I’ve learnt a hell of a lot by listening to the women who hang out here, and I really appreciate it, not least because I’m trying to raise a daughter.
+1
-
stephen clover, in reply to
Very cogent points, Anne. Also: thanks heaps for linking to your great post on Scoop -- I think it should be a must-read for anyone following this issue/thread.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Oh sorry Megan, didn't see you'd already posted that link.
-
Chuck Bird, in reply to
Danielle, that sounds like you are say because it is dated it is not so bad. Would cow then be acceptable or would that depend on who is saying it and who is on the receiving end.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Would cow then be acceptable or would that depend on who is saying it and who is on the receiving end.
Chuck, some of us are talking about rape and the systematic silencing of women. Perhaps this isn't the place for debating trouts vs. cows?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Some of you should go read WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW WE TALK ABOUT RAPE
Brilliant (though long and hard to read).
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
oh but then how else will Chuck be able to complete his script? if he can't use wilful misunderstanding and false equivalence to make an irrelevant point about imagined hypocrisy, he might lose at internet!
-
Lilith __, in reply to
+1 to that. Anyone who hasn't read Anne's brilliant roundup of issues related to the Roastbusters case, here's another link .
And the video Anne posts:
-
Danielle, in reply to
No, I'm saying that because it's so dated it's fairly difficult for non-native speakers to work out what it means. I'm not really even sure *I* know what it means. It's the kind of word you see in Agatha Christie novels.
I'm not quite sure what your point is either - or if you even have one, beyond being weirdly niggly - but I don't consider trout or cow acceptable descriptions of women in public life.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
It bears repeating. :)
-
Danielle, in reply to
Oh, is THAT what he's trying to do? It's such a weird, ineffective sort of zinger that I couldn't work it out. Still, go on with your bad self, Chuck. Maybe at some point we'll have a moment of clarity where we think "we got TOLD!" when reading your posts. Stranger things have happened.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Stranger things have happened.
No, they haven't.
-
Incidentally, Chuck is one of those aforementioned talkback callers in the wee small hours, when his obsession is unmoderated by the hosts and is even worse than it is on here. Although not as bad as "Owen", a caller who explicitly described the violence he would like to do to homosexuals and got ... a chuckle from the host (on Newstalk ZB).
Now I'd suggest that talkback radio could BOTH uphold freedom of speech AND employ hosts who robustly challenge that speech ... but by asking for such minimum standards I'd be interfering with free speech or something (according to people like Graeme who never actually listen to the speech).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.