Posts by Joshua Drummond
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This is the cliche to end all cliches, but only one thing came to mind reading that editorial - "The Victorians called. They want their editorial back".
-
Hard News: Irony Deficient, in reply to Russell Brown,
You're a good man, Mr Brown. Cheers! (Skip to around 2:25 for the appropriate bit.)
-
Hard News: Irony Deficient, in reply to Andre Alessi,
At the risk of analysing a joke, I'd argue that a great deal of an audience's enjoyment of satire is the realisation that they are in on the joke - and that for them to be in on it, other people must not be. I know that I get a (possibly cruel) laugh out of it when someone mistakes satire's Bizarro world for reality. I've got two audiences firmly in mind when I write stuff: those who will get it and those who won't, because both reactions are inevitable. I think wildly misunderstanding satire is as vital a reaction to it as getting it.
-
I write semi-occasional satire for (bless them, for it’s truly good of them to give me the gig) the Waikato Times, including such pieces as this one about Colin Craig and this other one about Colin Craig.
And so it was that I found out that there aren’t many laws in this country that protect the act of giving someone a through and mostly fictitious bollocking, particularly if they are a rich and (allegedly) highly sensitive man like Craig.
Which makes more visible satire all the more necessary, IMO. Russell’s post has it: the internet is the main bastion of satire in NZ, and there is much excellence to choose from, but it’s all essentially self-selecting. People choose to read it. I’m of the belief that satire is more effective if it can prompt a little outrage, and it mostly does that when it’s presented to unsuspecting persons through a mainstream channel. That being said, it’s always good when self-selecting satire does wriggle into the mainstream. See http://literallyunbelievable.org/ for details.
To any TV people reading this, giz me and JJW a show. Please? We’ll be ever so funny. Funnier than Hosking, or Henry, or even Sainsbury. Come to think of it, his slot will soon be available, won't it? We can have that!
-
Oh man, this is SO COOL.
That is all. I'm joining in now.
-
Well, I for one will not miss quality media and news analysis, fascinating and fun home-grown content, and great nature documentaries. I'd much rather watch an inexplicably expensive, overproduced talent quest. What a great addition to our already sterling state TV lineup of Shows About Cooking and Shows About People's Bodies!
Caution: reading this comment may have exposed you to inappropriate levels of sarcasm and/or bitterness.
-
Jeee-zus. What a breathtakingly awful year. Sorry for the general unhelpfulness of this comment, but all the best for Christmas and the New Year, and the new home.
At the risk of speaking for other PA readers, would it be possible to set up some kind of donation affair to help Christmas along a bit for your family?
-
At the risk of stating the obvious (and/or repeating something I might have missed in the comments), and disregarding Keith's reasoned and rather brilliant analysis, I think the decision is easy: Labour should never choose a leader whose surname can be improved by a simple, strategic addition of the letter "T."
Immaturity quotient achieved.
-
A while back we were seeing Republican candidates literally fleeing news cameras every time they were pointed at them, and conducting interviews only with outlets and journalists that were thoroughly vetted and considered "friendly."
I realise it's a long shot, but I'm starting to wonder if we're seeing the same thing here. That is if this media alienation is an actual tactic. I'm starting to wonder if it's just sheer incompetence. It's not as though politicians tend to do much better than journalists in "most trusted" surveys.
-
I have some sympathy for the freedom of association argument. To extend the body corporate analogy, how would it be if a body corporate took your money and took this to mean the could make political statements on your behalf? That's not fair, and you shouldn't have to "opt out" of that sort of thing. I have no problem with being charged, say, a service levy if the services are provided, but to have an organisation claim me as a member and then use my unwitting membership as weight to back up politics I don't agree with is unconscionable.