Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Mark Hubbard,
It’s actually about the appalling way they handled an extended interview with a teenage girl who had called to talk about a rape gang operating in her social group, including pressing her to tell them when she lost her virginity.
...
linguistic puritanism
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
stopping people you don’t like from speaking widely doesn’t actually make it easier for you to get your message out there.
Two things. First, it's not about "stopping people you don't like". Very specifically, it is about what those people say, not who they are. That is why a real apology or a different followup would probably have headed this all off. Second, creating highly visible consequences for saying certain things itself is getting a message out there.
-
Another thing which comes to mind about the argument that people might hear other views if only Willie and JT had been allowed to continue -- really? Which guests might they have invited who would try that, after what happened with Matthew Hooton? Which callers would have enlightened them, given the usual dynamic between caller and host on talkback? This idea is just fantasy.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Google reveals the name of only one such bookshop. The book is freely available across the country, as far as I can tell.
-
Graeme's terminological inexactitude aside, one of his main arguments is essesntially prudential: what if this sets a precedent that lets conservative voices shut down progressive ones in a parallel way?
I don't fear this. The reason that Willie and JT, and Paul Henry before them, were successfully shut down, is that the objections to them had wide and deep support. Indeed, those objections weren't primarily about progressive causes so much as they were about notions of decency that people on the left and right share. (Exhibit A, Matthew Hooton). The kinds of culture war censorship that Graeme alludes to don't have parallel support in this country and I doubt they ever will.
The speech recently being denounced as “victim blaming” does not come from people who think they are victim blaming. Much of the advice they give they see as information that would help stop some women and girls from becoming victims of rape or sexual assault.
This is wrong (otherwise we'd be going after Rosemary McLeod and half the panel on Afternoons with Jim Mora for a start). Wille and JT weren't giving disinterested advice on safety to young women listeners. They bullied Amy about her sexual past, quite possibly motiviated by JT's son's connection with the Roastbusters crew. Their behaviour was nasty and indecent, just as Henry's was.
It's possible they didn't think so, but I don't care. And for a nice angle on intent in speech in a related context, I refer you to Morgan Godfery.
-
Hard News: How a thing happens, in reply to Pete Wobh,
My inference is that you do have a somewhat smaller audience, but an engaged one. They like to refresh a lot. Maybe they’re not too hot on following links out to places they don’t usually go.
As far as your aspirations for growth go, on the one hand, as far as I know Stuff and the Herald are both growing still themselves. On the other, any plans they have for paywalls are going to change the picture radically (not least for people who quote and link to their free access content a lot).
The problem the brick and mortar organisations are going to run into is that keeping a decent complement of journalists on to generate the news is too expensive relative to the revenue they get from online ads. How are you planning to equal their appeal without having their costs?
-
Hard News: How a thing happens, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
ranked blog
Yeah, I think this goes right back to the rise of US pol blogs like Daily Kos and Firedoglake and Little Green Footballs, in the last years of the Bush presidency. NZ politics bloggers started seeing these blogs as role models. They began listing other pols bloggers in their sidebars, often grouped by perceived alignment. Then Tim Selwyn IIRC started a blog ranking system on Tumeke. Then there were widgets. And this strange friendly enemy collegiality attitude, where people would write vitriolic flames about other people one day and yet politely link and acknowledge and talk about the community the next.
Anyway, it’s a silly idea whose time has passed, if it ever had one. But it would be nice to consider those early days at more length some time.
-
Hard News: How do you sleep?, in reply to Danielle,
which I know is quite obnoxious and I’m very sorry.
Obnoxious? It's a SUPERPOWER.
-
I don't think the existing "pot lobby" is going to get us across the line. Although I personally prefer a civil rights argument for law reform, I reckon it's going to be groups whose main concern is justice and health that get us there.
-
Hard News: How do you sleep?, in reply to Gaz Tayler,
Not for me.
I gave up coffee for a couple of months earlier this year. Although it improved my general state of mind considerably (many double espressos a day and very strong filter coffee left me agitated and overstimulated), I didn’t notice much improvement in sleep quality, neither have I noticed it getting worse now that I am on a couple of coffees a day again. I never drink coffee after mid-afternoon, though.