Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How a thing happens, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Disagree. The system (including its informal, free-market aspects) seems to have worked quite well in this case, hasn't it? State regulation always protects the status quo and hinders reform. See excellent article making the case for hate speech in this month's Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to MrHoward,
I certainly didn’t say I intended to make a “scene”.
On Wed I tweeted friends asking if I should go on the Willie & JT show again, and also discussed the matter with Matt McCarten (who has the same view as me on all this, albeit a more measured radio style).
On balance, Matt and I both decided it would make no sense to give up our opportunity to air our perspectives on politics just because of what Willie & JT had said on the Tuesday, and that we would appear but strongly express our disapproval at them. (Why let, say, Chris Trotter and Cameron Slater be the ones who got to do it?)
I tweeted this accordingly saying Matt and I had decided to appear but that Willie & JT would probably wish we hadn’t.
Willie & JT had seen that tweet, and I also confirmed it before we went live, so they knew in advance what was going to happen. (After my Cunliffe/Fonterra experience, I find it is better to warn hosts if I will be expressing unusually strong opinions.)I expected they would decide to just to take the criticism for half an hour as a way of balancing Tuesday and allow everyone to move on, and then we would have spent the rest of the half hour on the week in politics as usual.
I probably should have recommended that to them (we have been work colleagues of sorts for some years) but I didn’t. I certainly had no intention of doing a Dennis Connor despite some friends recommending I should.
So, I certainly didn’t say I intended to make a “scene” – just gave fair warning of the line I was going to take, and the strength of it.
In retrospect, maybe I was a bit yell-y (some people will know I have that tendency if it gets a bit stressful on air) and Matt probably could have been less passive (IMHO) but you can’t script these things.
Also, I was not drunk as JT claimed later in the programme. Just one glass of wine for Dutch courage (as recommended in both the Brian Edwards/Judy Callingham and Exceltium media training courses.)
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to MrHoward,
I certainly didn't say I intended to make a "scene".
On Wed I tweeted friends asking if I should go on the Willie & JT show again, and also discussed the matter with Matt McCarten (who has the same view as me on all this, albeit a more measured radio style).
On balance, Matt and I both decided it would make no sense to give up our opportunity to air our perspectives on politics just because of what Willie & JT had said on the Tuesday, and that we would appear but strongly express our disapproval at them. (Why let, say, Chris Trotter and Cameron Slater be the ones who get to do it?)
I tweeted this accordingly saying Matt and I had decided to appear but that Willie & JT would probably wish we hadn't.
Willie & JT had seen that tweet and I confirmed it before we went live, so they knew in advance what was going to happen. (After my Cunliffe/Fonterra experience, I find it is better to
-
Yes
-
No, but it is efficient
-
Richard Harman's article is a good model for looking at all this, but like many models it is a bit binary. The Auckland National Party can still be viewed, to some extent, as the Slater faction v the Boag faction, but there are factions within factions and sometimes sub-factions from one side align with sub-factions from the other. Also, it would be very difficult to place reasonably important people like Key, Joyce, Groser or even Collins in either, so the model breaks down.
-
Thanks for the post Graeme and for your quick briefing before Nine to Noon on Monday. However, the law may not be relevant in explaining people's behaviour. It is what people thought the law is. And I suspect that there were those involved in all this who believed the law is as Michelle Boag (mis)explained it, which is why they did what they did.
-
Hard News: Event Season, in reply to George Darroch,
Conspiracy. Of course.
-
OnPoint: Quickfisk: Youth Unemployment, in reply to Andrew C,
So? Most 15-18 year olds and beyond are in school or tertiary education. We are talking unemployment. Look down the page. Go to unemployment rates by age and gender.
-
OnPoint: Quickfisk: Youth Unemployment, in reply to B Jones,
I have quoted both. Keith Ng and Clint Smith criticised me on Twitter for using NEET instead of unemployment whereas Che Tibby and Jean Hughes think NEET is more meaningful than unemployment. Whichever is the better measure, both are heading in the right direction.