Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Taking the cue, I think you mean queue
At least I didn't spell it que.
-
So these are the highlights of the week that were published in print form in the listener a week or so ago, published daily on-line?
Now what will I read in from the listener in supermarket cues?
-
Graeme ... Yes it is.
Yes it is.
-
Perhaps more significantly the upside of consenting to Press Council jurisdiction is that the complainant agrees at the outset not to pursue any other remedies.
I thought they got rid of that. Particularly after the 2007 review by Ian Barker and Lew Evans noted:
The Press Council often requires complainants to sign a waiver against bringing legal proceedings against the publication before a complaint will be considered. In New Zealand, complainants are asked to sign the waiver only if there is a possibility of legal action. Some 59% do not sign. We note that the APC has a similar requirement. We were told by the APC that nobody had ever tried to institute proceedings after having signed such a waiver. We heard impressive legal opinion to the effect that such a waiver would be likely to be held useless because it violates public policy.
It's not listed in their process for complaining, noting the contrast with the process on the site of the Australian Press Council (which is similar in many respects).
If I recall correctly, the National Business Review does not make itself subject to the Press Council.
The Press Council disagrees, while noting The NBR * Accepts jurisdiction but does not contribute financially.
Graeme may be able to nail it down a bit more closely than that - i.e. is a judge able to decide whether a particular journalist should be accredited or not.
It is very much my understanding that it is informal - if you have a business card they'll probably let you (I believe Salient reporters have court reported on occasion) - but I note that DPF has been accredited on a number of occasions - including to the extent of live blogging, etc.
-
It is wrong of me to have found this photograph somewhat, er ... compelling, though?
Charlotte Harrison is 21: the rule of thumb suggests it's wrong for me to find it compelling. But you'll have to ask Fiona.
-
I have never heard a convincing rationale for this inconsistency.
The standard one is that one uses the public airwaves - a limited resource - and the other does not. Historically, there's only been space for a limited number of broadcasters, who get to use frequencies that mean that no-one can; this just doesn't apply to newspapers. This is certainly the reason why the FCC gets to regulate the heck out of broadcast TV in the States, despite what everyone might assume would be the over-riding status of the First Amendment.
-
IIRC, the Law Commission has pondered that one in the past too.
Yep. The new Evidence Act, including the protection for journalists' sources, followed on from an extensive Law Commission report.
-
Yes, clearly it was down to Hadyn to write about the Commonwealth Games, because I can't remember seeing any other coverage in the media lately?
I've realised the problem with that. It turns out we excluded half the population from participating and only sent female athletes. Well, according to the Stuff.co.nz online photo picker guy, anyways.
-
Nope. The proper news media enjoy no special rights in either case there.
Some provisions of the Defamation Act only apply to newspapers and/or news media (although they're not terribly important ones).
Copyright Act too (some of the limited Fair Dealing provisions, for example).
Perhaps more important are the right of an accredited reporter to be present in court during a criminal trial even when the public is excluded, and rights relating to the protection of sources in the Evidence Act.
-
David - in STV elections with multiple candidates elected there are fractions of the vote in the calculations. This is because not only are candidates excluded, but the excess votes of candidates who win are also redistributed.
Assume that 100 votes are needed to get someone elected. One candidate - Bob - gets 125 votes. 25 of those votes aren't needed to elect Bob, and can be used by other candidates, using the voters' preferences. So each of the voters for that person gives 0.8 of their vote to Bob, and 0.2 of their vote to their second preference, trying to help them get to that 100 vote mark to be one of the other candidates elected.