Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A 10-day trial in May. Was not expecting that length.
-
I have already nominated meta, but Madiba is a word I learned of this year (how long have others here known of it?) which has some importance.
-
Hard News: Mandela, in reply to Russell Brown,
grown-ups who should know better intoning about how those kids couldn’t just assume they’d have been anti-Tour if they’d been around at the time. Sheesh.
I think this is a really good and important point. The number of people who look back at history, and think they'd have resisted some oppression vs the numbers at the time who actually resisted it are almost invariably different.
One thing I took from watching Roots a year or so ago was to look at slavery as something that is so obviously wrong, but that lots of people supported, or didn't greatly oppose. How can something so awful have seemed so normal to so many? But it did. It also made me ask: well, if I'd lived in the United States in the early-mid 19th century, would I have opposed slavery? Obviously, I think I would, but can never really know; would I have been an active abolitionist? Much more doubtful. I'd like to think so, of course, but there's still slavery now, and the most I've ever done about it is write "there's still slavery now, and the most I've every done about it is write..."
We look on slavery and apartheid and other horrors, with horror. But we do it today because we grow up in a world where those things are accepted as such. Injustice hasn't ended. Injustice that is accepted as just fine by a lot of people hasn't ended, What is it that we accept today that people in 50 or 100 years will look upon with horror? Will the people too young to remember it just assume that they would have been opposed?
-
I think I called “meta” quite some time ago (in a comments thread, I think) for word of the year nomination (may have been on the twitter), but I'll re-up it now, as it hasn't gone yet.
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Thrash Cardiom,
Snowdenning – the act of whistleblowing.
Google literally has one result for this form of the word. Probably not WotW :-)
edit: oh wait, that was just a typo. Still don't think it's word of the year, but qualifies for nomination.
-
Legal Beagle: John Banks: what next?, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Read the questions asked in the survey. They’re not just about subjective “Do you think your country is corrupt?” measures. “Have you bribed an official to move things along?” “Have you used contacts to move things along?” (both paraphrased) Those are objective questions.
I thought they were two different survey, leading to two different reports. May be wrong.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Russell Brown,
Perhaps you can find some way to construe that as “here’s a great new razor!” but I really don’t have time to further entertain your silly fit of contrarianism.
I'm sorry you feel that way. All I was saying was that when I saw the Media3 interview with Whale, I read it a different way. I didn't think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting. That's all.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Russell Brown,
Can you actually point to any likely advertorial content on Whaleoil?
How about the series of posts on the Azor?
He says he asked for one. They gave him one and then he blogged on it. They even gave him some to give away. I got one of them. I quite like it. Not saying he was paid - I very much suspect he wasn't - but if he was, why not?
Also, the reason I asked the question was because I had in fact seen correspondence in which Slater demanded money to take a certain line on a current news story.
Publish it. I'd be interested in seeing it. All I'm going on is what he said on Media 3. And I did not see the claim as starkly as you did. That you had additional information provides a proper basis for our differing interpretations of what was said. I do not think that, based on what was said on your show, that there was an admission that Whale has sought money to run lines on a political story. Indeed, it's possible you agree. The reason you think Whale has sought money to run lines on a news story is not really what he said on your show, but because you've seen correspondence where he sought money.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to Russell Brown,
On Media3 …
Me: “Have you ever demanded money from PR companies on the blog in return for running certain lines?”
Cameron Slater: “Absolutely.”
Me: “You have? How often does this happen?”
Slater: “I’ll tell you why. They get paid.They’re getting paid to put a message out.
Mostly, I took that to mean advertorial stuff. Whale has been asked by a company to say something nice about a product, and essentially to give them free advertising. He replies that he'll do it if they pay him. The PR companies doing the asking are being paid, so why shouldn't he?
It may be more than that - in the Colin Craig sense, I have no idea - but I don't think you can point to what Whale said on Media 3 and conclude that it is more than that.
-
Hard News: The judge is not helping, in reply to BenWilson,
Even if the source could not be compelled, the absence of any information about the source means that the evidence is useless, and his truth defense would fail.
no. Truth is about the claim. If I claim, based on something XYZ told me, that BenWilson is also Redbaiter, it doesn't matter how credible XYZ is if I can prove that BenWilson is also Redbaiter.
That claims here are basically that someone is a crook. If Whale can prove that that someone is a crook, it doesn't matter whether the person who provided that information to Whale initially was credible and informed, or just really lucky.