Posts by Lew Stoddart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Huawei Question, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Both Shanghai Pengxin and Huawei are privately owned. They are Chinese companies, but they are not the Chinese government’s companies.
But that’s just the thing: the nature of the Chinese government-industrial complex means you really can’t say this with any great certainty.
James George,
I can think of more examples of USuk IT sabotage than I can Chinese IT sabotage yet the old media has never jumped up and down about NZ allowing US defense contractors to build its network infrastructure.
Of course you can think of more. The US/UK, other Anglo nations and the EU have pervasive media and independent, reasonably transparent courts and tribunals dedicated to uncovering, litigating and punishing this sort of thing in the open. The Chinese don’t. That’s the fundamental difference, and why drawing equivalence between authoritarian and democratic regimes, however flawed the latter might be, is ludicrous.
L
-
Hard News: The Huawei Question, in reply to George Darroch,
Well, to be fair, that was usually Keith Locke’s job, and he was pretty consistent about it.
Ae, just so.
If he was fronting this issue with Norman it would probably sound more reasonable.
More reasonable, or less reasonable? Norman sounds a great deal more reasonable to me than Locke ever did, but I suspect that's down to political preference.
L
-
Hard News: The Huawei Question, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
I would like to reserve the right to express concerns about the Chinese government (or one or another of their companies) and their actions without being called a Yellow Peril-shouting racist.
Just like I would like to be able to criticise the Israeli government without being called a Jew-hater.
Hells yes. Not that it’s a particularly strong aspect of the discussion here, but it’s a Tory commonplace at present. Watch for a record count of the X word from Matthew Hooton on Nine To Noon next Monday.
And while we’re on the topic, that Russel Norman is inclined to believe an Australian government intelligence agency (or even an American one) over the Chinese government or a private Chinese for-profit company should come as no surprise. The Greens might distrust New Zealand and Australian governments of both flavours, and they might fear the American government, but they hate and fear the Chinese government more than almost any other. To an extent that’s fair enough – they’re a pretty far cry worse than anyone in the Anglosphere. Norman’s position seems fairly consistent except inasmuch as he’s failed to articulate previous levels of disdain for the NZ, Aussie and US security apparatus.
The only thing about it that’s surprising is that it’s the Greens taking point, not Labour. Though that’s also becoming less surprising.
L
Edit to add: Hah, crossed over with Steve Barnes’ comment. I’ll take the devil we kind-of, sort-of know who is subject to kind-of, sort-of democratic imperatives and the rule of law over the one-party authoritarian law-unto-itself devil any day.
-
Hard News: Notes in My Pocket, in reply to BenWilson,
It seems a universal law that, in such cases, advantage goes to the team in possession.
L
-
Handses ... knife ... string, or nothing!
L
-
Hard News: This Is Not A Complicated Issue, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
I used to work making closed captions for the telly. Live captioning is complicated, especially when there’s no script available (like there is with most of a news broadcast).
Are the live-captioned broadcasts you’re talking about really live, like UN-speech-earpiece live?
How difficult would it be to produce a slightly-delayed broadcast with captions – a few minutes off-live, for instance? I have some experience with rapid transcription (though not for broadcast) and while it’s personnel-intensive that seems like something that would be pretty doable.
Stretch the delay out to 10 minutes and while it wouldn’t be much use to those actually IN the house, it would be quite easily done and an invaluable resource for the rest of us. And a dual-stream Parliament TV Live and Parliament TV+10 with captions sounds like the exact sort of thing Freeview was intended for.
L
-
Hard News: This Is Not A Complicated Issue, in reply to nzlemming,
Edit: It has been pleasing, however, to see that most commenters are seeing the issue along the "how unfair" and "how ridiculous" lines
Danyl's observation that journalists like to use the word "Mojo" in headlines was pretty good. This has meant a framing advantage to Mojo and the Greens' perspective, rather than that of the Speaker.
I give it 48 hours.
L
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Sacha,
question for parliamentary junkies: why do Questions always say “if not, why not” rather than this positive construction?
Framing advantage. Propose a positive -- preferably something no reasonable person could disagree with -- and then ask your foes to explain why they didn't do it (no matter how impossible or unreasonable or ridiculous the proposition actually is). It forces your opponent into a defensive discourse, arguing on negative grounds generally not of their own choosing.
L
-
It should be a news story, but the fundamental trouble here is that the decision to defund public service broadcasting doesn't hinge on the data -- the actual real figures are irrelevant to the Minister's position, which is ideological rather than utilitarian.
So I predict the attitude will be "pfft, what matters a few hundred thou?"
L
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
What the frig is “Inter-Faith Dialogue”?
Ask Arthur Skinner and/or Glynn Cardy.
L