Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Oh FFS. Do we *have* to do Being a Woman on the Internet *here*?
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Here is my drift: I'm politely telling you that the personal remarks about Dotcom are tiresome and played.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Tangentially, Jake, I think we're all aware that Kim Dotcom is both fat and German. Neither of those descriptors are insults as far as I'm concerned, but you seem to think they are? Maybe you could give them a rest.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
“I’m pretty certain that innocent people had or have nothing to worry about.”
People trotting this line out and BELIEVING IT - that absolutely boggles the mind.
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Steve Barnes,
That's what "alleged" is for, dude.
-
If there is one thing I have learned from my mere 18 years on the internet, it is this: "you idiots are talking about the wrong thing" discussions don't tend to go very well.
-
Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election, in reply to James Littlewood*,
Yeh, good ol fashioned direct postal mail.
I get mail "from" John Key (he is, unfortunately, also my electorate MP since they redrew the boundaries of Helensville) while my husband, the lucky bugger, gets mail from the Green Party. Don't assume you can sway THIS middle-class mother with all your "family"-oriented keywords, John Key. I'm not as green as I am cabbage-looking.
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to CJM,
There is tons of stuff which is pure PR/Advert, no disclaimers.
I suspect that (there can’t possibly be that many disinterested* journalists making the call on the awesomeness of new types of mascara), but why do some puff pieces give the disclaimer and some don’t? Is that part of the culture of each magazine?
*archaic definition, meaning “unbiased”
ETA It occurs to me that the stated advertorials are "actual money to buy a page of advertising that looks like an article" and the mascara reviews are "using people employed by magazines to promote your product by giving them supplies of free stuff", so there is obviously a difference. But to me it's a bit of a whiffy one.
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
there’s everything wrong about it because it erodes the distinction between editorial and advertising
At least if I'm reading a magazine they do the bare minimum of putting "advertorial" at the top of a page of advertising pretending to be a story. From what I'm reading in this thread it seems as though I should be seeing that word in a lot of other places too.
-
Hard News: 2014: The Meth Election, in reply to Jake Starrow,
his massive appeal and his overwhelming approval really, really gets under your skins and drives you mad
What's interesting to me is that your argument basically boils down to "I admire him because he's popular". That seems a little... self-fulfilling? Tautologous? I'm not sure what the word is.
I've never found him appealing or thought he has the common touch, personally, because what the fuck do I have in common with a rightwing multi-millionaire banker who spends all his holidays in Hawaii? It's like how I was supposed to personally appreciate Dubya for his down-home-ness, when he was just an elitist faking it. But, you know, several elections in a row in two countries have proved me to not know what the hell I'm talking about, so. Shrug.