Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Josh Petyt,
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Russell Brown,
From a pretty quick look at both versions, I don't think there is anything significant missing from Frank's writing. What is different is that the NBR story was written by Nick Grant and starts off talking about Jordan Williams, who then apparently referred the NBR back to Franks & Ogilvie
on the basis that the alleged emails appeared to be sent from hos old law firm and involve one of its clients.
Perhaps most amusing are the comments posted by Jordan Williams arguing about whether he hung up on Nick Grant or not. Poor thing.
-
So it depends on what you mean by the "election result".
It could mean either
(a) who forms the next government; or
(b) the specific voting behaviour of the NZ electorate.I'm sure Hager would have liked to draw support away from National (b) but I doubt he was so optimistic as to expect (a).
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Tinakori,
Quite clearly its timing was intended to affect the election result
If you had stopped at "election", I would agree with you. But the result? As you point out, Hager didn't believe the outcome would be changed radically. What I believe he intended is that people would start demanding accountability for the behaviour of various people - all connected to the National Party (be they Ministers or staffers). The fact that it has had a significant impact on media (MSM, social and otherwise) coverage of the election cannot be denied. Reading between the lines, you seem to suggest that Hager intended for there to be a massive shift in support for some party other than National, NZF and the Conservatives. I certainly never got that impression from the book or any of his comments subsequent to its release.
When you talk about the unintended consequence of support for NZF or the Conservatives, I doubt Hager even thought about the shifting of votes in any specific way. I would have expected some loss of support for National but beyond that is really just speculation rather than an "intended" consequence.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Tinakori,
Surely the timing of the release of Nicky Hager's book at the beginning of the election campaign means it was intended to affect the election?
To which , I say, "Why not?" This is the point in the cycle where people are most receptive to politics. The book doesn't barrack for any party but it does focus on the misdeeds undertaken by National. By your logic, you would rather not hear about the misbehaviour of the government until after the election. Says it all really....
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Kumara Republic,
There were a little over 2 years between the Watergate break-ins and the resignation of Tricky Dick. How much faster would the Internet make things happen?
I'm pretty sure the vast bulk of people are aware of Dirty Politics and it's probably safe bet that news of it has disseminated a lot faster than would have occurred 40 years ago.
But from my reading of Watergate history, it was the tapes that provided the proof that made Nixon's erstwhile supporters jump ship and thus forcing his resignation. These were the trigger.
If there is proof that Key has been complicit in the OIA debacle that could be the trigger here. That may depend entirely on what the IG-IS investigation discovers and releases.
So yeah I think this may come to a head a lot sooner than 2 years but I'm not sure that the Internet's existence would be the driving force.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to nzlemming,
Oops. my bad. I was confusing them with TVNZ for some reason.
-
Justice Fogarty's interim ruling has been released (here).
Not quite sure what to make of Stuff's headline
given that Fairfax was not named in the action. Is this some kind of perverse crowing over the fact that APN was named?
Anyhoo, obviously there was sufficient grounds for Fogarty to believe that Slater's privacy had been breached. But from my reading of the judgment, he highlighted two other issues which seem equally important. First the extent to which remedies can be made given the information was public already and second that the public interest in information already in the public sphere.
[8] The case for injunction against the hacker on an interim basis is
overwhelming. The common law knows no justification for breaking the law. There is, however, a distinction between illegal conduct to obtain information which is released into the community, and subsequent orders by the courts as to the use of that information once it is in wider circulation. In the latter case, the courts balance the breach of law in the acquisition of the information, against the public interest in examining the information once it is in the public sphere.Yeah Stuff do mention this but you would be forgiven for thinking these were of secondary importance to the wrong done to Slater. In one sense, all the information from the judgment is there but am I the only one to feel that the article underplayed the importance of the information?
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to nzlemming,
Also RadioNZ has a page
Whoever is in charge of their website is doing some good stuff. I liked this.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
Life imitating art?
Tragi-comic? Definitely. Newsworthy? Not so sure.