Losing the shine? Maybe. We’ll see.

Post mortems don’t always render a conclusive or even useful diagnosis, especially when tackling multi-faceted puzzles like an election campaign, but I nodded as I read TV3 political editor Duncan Garner’s round up of the political year … in which he shares some of the same conclusions I expressed in my pre-election post Teflon John Key under pressure over tape. Specifically, about how the furore over the ‘teapot tapes’ turned into Opportunity Knocks for National’s rival Winston Peters.

Key’s 47.3 percent is just short of what the party wanted. But Winston Peters wanted a scandal and Key handed him one. The shine came off Key in the campaign for the first time. He looked vulnerable.

Yes and yes. I don’t write off Mr Key, nor his political management team — not by any means (nor does Garner as I read him). But there‘s no question that he looked spooked in the campaign. Watching the normally affable politician reacting to Winston Peters’ relentless and artful exploitation of the teapot tapes fiasco, I perceived a sharp loss of composure and confidence … or ‘vulnerability’ in Garner’s language.

Press Gallery journalists like Garner know John Key is a far more political animal than his ‘regular bloke drinking beer from the bottle’ persona belies. I’m not calling him two-faced (no more than any other politician) but it seems clear he’s benefitted from a public image as a kind of ‘anti-politician’. As Garner indicates, that image slipped a little during the ‘white heat’ of the election campaign.

It seems to me that partly due to an own goal with the cynical cup of tea stunt — and their posture towards the rise and rise of Peters/NZFirst — National snatched the narrowest of governing majorities from historically high and long-time levels of popularity and pre-election public support.

After literally years of talk about the abundance of John Key’s political capital it’ll be interesting to watch how much will need to be spent.

– P

Stop asking

Excellent article on the blogger claiming rights of a journalist controversy by Rebecca J. Rosen at The Atlantic

The Atlantic - click

Perceiving attack, the Internet’s collective fur shot up on its back: Do bloggers not merit the same protections as journalists?
Many people have argued that the medium in which you publish should have no bearing as to whether you receive the protection of a state’s shield law (something 39 states and the District of Columbia now have). But this argument answers the wrong question, because we’re not asking the right ones about how we protect the free flow of information — and balance that free flow with other values such as a right to defend oneself in court — in a day when anyone can publish online.

The problem is often framed — wrongly — this way: Do bloggers count as journalists? For example, the New York Times “Room for Debate” feature is titled “Are All Bloggers Journalists?” The description of the online forum asks, “How should judges decide who is protected and who isn’t?” Kelli L. Sager, a First Amendment lawyer participating in the debate, writes, “Because most laws were written before the Internet existed,” she explains, “they often refer to then-existing media — newspapers, magazines and the like — or simply to ‘journalists,’ without defining who is a journalist.” The central framing is always “who is a journalist” — who, who, who. The question of protection always rests on the question of who the person is that is committing the act of journalism. Is this person a journalist?

Seriously, click through and read the article. It’s good.

And so is Russell Brown’s review of some of the issues in the, um, issues paper on new media from the Law Commission: News media meets new media: Privileges and accountabilities

– P

Think like a man?

Huh? (image perfectionisnthappy.com - click)

 

I spotted this on a friend’s tumblr. Does it make sense?

Blogger Cactus Kate wrote a little while back that she thinks like a man, as part of  a serious and worthwhile exploration of the single female’s social scene but somehow I don’t think she meant this:

Look like a girl
Act like a lady
Think like a man
Work like a boss

What on earth does it mean? I don’t get it.

– P

PS Emily’s blog post at perfectionisnthappy.com didn’t help.

Law Commission issues paper on new media

Download the issues paper or a summary here at the NZ Law Commission website.

The News Media meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age
Published 12 Dec 2011

The Law Commission is seeking New Zealander’s views on the standards and accountabilities which should apply to the news media and citizen publishers in the digital age. The Commission’s latest Issues Paper, The news media meets ‘new media’: rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age, published today, contains a number of preliminary proposals for amendments to speech laws and changes to the regulatory systems for news media.

The paper is divided into two parts: Part 1 deals with the first two legs of the Commission’s terms of reference which focus on the news media and how news media should be defined for legal purposes, and how they might be regulated in the era of convergence. Chapter 4 of the paper sets out the principles underpinning the Commission’s preliminary proposals with respect to the news media. Chapter 6 details preliminary proposal for a new independent news media regulator.

Part 2 of the paper deals with the larger legal framework which governs all speech / communication , irrespective of the medium or who is communicating. It looks at the type of problems which are emerging within the web environment, including issues like cyber-bullying, harassment and defamation in social media, and asks whether the law can be better adapted to this new publishing environment and whether the courts are the best forum for resolving these sorts of disputes between free speech and rights to privacy, reputation etc. Chapters 7 and 8 are the relevant chapters.

It is important to stress that this is a preliminary paper designed to garner wide public debate and feedback on the scope of the problem and best solutions. We welcome submissions and comments on the questions and proposals contained in the paper. These can be made online or by mail up until March 12 2011. The Commission will also be hosting online forums on the paper in February 2012.

The paper will be followed by a Final Report and recommendations to government in late 2012.

‘YOU don’t say who or who isn’t a journalist’

Image: John Ryan (click)

Here’s an article worth reading, which relates in a peripheral manner to our recent discussion about definitions of ‘news media’ vis-à-vis bloggers.

I Was Arrested at Occupy Bronx—for Writing About It

– Carla Murphy, The Daily Beast 10 Dec

…While the four protesters left, I stayed behind to complain to Captain Garcia. His flank, as always, stood close. I made some good points but so did he. Unless I carried a press pass from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Public Information—which I didn’t and which no officer had asked to see, either—then I’d be treated like a protester, he said.

“You don’t say who or who isn’t a journalist,” I said. He seemed to concede the point but also fell back on the policeman’s answer, “It’s the law.” Our “discourse”—his word, not mine—was over. I was way too angry anyway, both at being treated like a criminal and at myself for feeling afraid, to remain professional.
 …

Is that it? Hmm.

Carla Murphy’s article reminds me of some of my Wellington experiences.

‘It’s all just writing’

I spotted this recently, and concurred in large part:

I still shun the term Blogging just as I shun the term Tweeting. It’s all just writing. It’s like trying to subdivide Novelist, Columnist, Blogger, Tweeter. Words are words. It’s not really interesting to keep slicing and dicing and sub-categorizing to me. I just write some stuff or share some stuff. Distinguishing between ‘Journalist’ and ‘Blogger’ is a waste of time. I’m all of those things and none of them.

— Rob Malda Founder of slashdot — interviewed by Matt Haughey

The distinction I can’t let go of, for now, is the accountability for the accuracy of one’s words, if they can be seen to purport to be ‘factual’. Or if you claim, even implicitly, or by context, that what you say is ‘true‘. That’s what caught out self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ Crystal Cox. It’s what catches out partisan attack bloggers.

As I said (whoop, whoop, self-quote alert!) in Storm the barricades, brothers and sisters!

I think the distinctions between ‘new media’ and whatever you want to call what existed before, are transitory. All-encompassing MEDIA will roll over and absorb it all. The divisions and barricades on which people in both ‘camps’ are spilling blood (metaphorically) will be a fly-spot on the wallpaper that is the history of civilization.

– P

Wishful thinking about MMP. From both sides of the debate.

NOT the anti-MMP Jordan Williams. (click)

Predictable comments after the MMP referendum result, I guess. What caught my eye about this piece from Radio New Zealand is that it’s basically a platform for Jordan Williams to kvetch about how unfair it all was.

His point, shared by his rabbit shooting buddies, appears to be that the anti-MMP debate was ‘lost’ because there wasn’t enough ‘intelligent discussion’ about it. (Yeah, I sometimes think that when my wife’s point of view prevails in an argument discussion.) And he almost blames the gummint.

MMP advocates say changes needed to better suit NZ

The pro-MMP campaign says the proportional voting system needs to be tweaked to make it fit the New Zealand situation.
The results of the referendum undertaken on election day show 58% of voters want to keep MMP.
Of the 42% who did not want MMP, most wanted to go back to First Past the Post.
The Government will now carry out a review of the MMP system.

A spokesperson for the Keep MMP campaign, Sandra Grey, says one of the main issues that should be looked at is the ability for candidates to stand for both a party list and an electorate.
She says it is likely MMP will remain for at least 50 years and the system will get better as politicians and voters grow accustomed to it.

However, the anti-MMP campaign says the debate about a possible change to the voting system was undercooked as none of the political parties wanted to engage in it.
Jordan Williams from Vote for Change says the referendum result is a strategic victory for the left, with unions and both Labour and the Green parties backing MMP.
He says it is a shame the National Party did not ensure intelligent discussion about the options, as the only systems people knew about were MMP and First Past the Post.
Mr Williams says the debate about the merits of MMP will not go away if current problems with the sytem (sic) are not seriously addressed.

Copyright © 2011, Radio New Zealand

No doubt the subject of electoral law reform will continue to be a political football, as it has been since I was a schoolboy, like Jordan.

– P

Gonzo

I’m reading this oral history-style biography of one of my heroes, Hunter S. Thompson which I picked up at Real Groovy in Queen Street last weekend. Good book.

I’ve been reading Thompson since being astonished by Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in the late1970s. I always found his writing worthwhile, particularly his political reportage — he shared insight and acute observation, laced with personal invective, diatribe and condemnation that I could never hope to, or want to, emulate … although my recent comments juxtaposing a local politician’s apparent loss of let’s say ‘composure’ with preparation for a medical procedure may have mildly approached Thompson-esque imagery, unintentionally. Apparently.

I read cartoonist/collaborator/co-conspirator Ralph Steadman’s wonderful tribute/memoir about his time with Thompson The Joke’s Over, when it came out after the Doc’s suicide, with sadness. Of course, Gary Trudeau’s Doonesbury character Duke has kept those of us who’ve cared to be reminded of a slice of Hunter S. Thompson’s special talent.

Here, from his 1994 Rolling Stone obituary of Richard Nixon — a must-read for any political journalist or student of writing (read it here at The Atlantic archive) — is a slice of what I call Thompson’s reason-behind-the-rage:

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon’s funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin. ….

Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.

We’ve discussed the failure of the ‘master narrative’ of news journalism before — what’s optimistically labelled ‘Objectivity’. It’s an illusion to pretend to be objective ‘uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices’ or without opinion, but one can/must/should be (and be seen to be) FAIR — see my posts The new breed of journalist-commentator and Do your opinions invalidate your reporting? from last year, prompted by issues around Michael Hastings and David Weigel and New media – it’s not about being impartial from earlier this year.

Those prior discussions, in my view, recognise the reality (yeah, that’s a loaded way of saying it, I know) of this guidance Journalism prof Jay Rosen quoted from Voice of San Diego‘s guide for reporters:

There is no such thing as objectivity. There is such a thing as fairness. But everyone sees everything through their own filter. Acknowledge that, let it liberate you. Let it regulate you. … If someone calls you biased, don’t be scared. Don’t dismiss it either. Reflect on it and answer with conviction.

Indulging in distortion or misstatement — whatever platform you use — are actions. They are challengeable, as I reflected here:

If I publish or say something ridiculous or patently false, I should anticipate ridicule and my false information to be pointed out.

Holding an opinion based on your observations, thoughts and experience — and stating it — well, that’s different.

I’ll have more to say on this, and the related subject of ‘media bias’ later. What do you think?

– P

Europe: the ‘you have to act quickly’ sales pitch?

People who work in sales are familiar with the use of the ‘urgency’ or ‘impending event’ ploy to try to achieve a purchase decision.

The sound of ‘I want to think about it’ is like finger nails on a blackboard to a salesman. Potential buyers use that statement or similar to put some distance between themselves and the perceived pressure of the sales situation. Often, if you watch for it, you’ll see salesmen deploy any of a number of strategies to handle the ‘I need more time to make my decision’ objection.

The salesman’s aim is to convince the potential buyer that the situation is (sometimes artificially) urgent and that rather than go and think about it, the punter needs to ‘sign here now’. The pitch, as Margaret Thatcher used to say, becomes: ‘There Is No Alternative‘.

With that in mind look at the language French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are using to prepare Europeans for some buying decisions …

France’s Sarkozy warns Europe risks disintegration — BBC

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned that “never has the risk of disintegration been greater” for Europe in a speech in Marseille.

He was addressing a gathering of European leaders of the centre right.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it would take years to overcome the crisis but “we need to have more Europe”.

EU leaders are preparing for a key summit in Brussels, where they will be trying to clinch a deal on how to tackle the eurozone debt crisis.

The key proposal on the agenda of the gathering in the Belgian capital later on Thursday is how to enforce budgetary discipline with automatic penalties for those eurozone nations that overspend.

Germany and France are pushing for new European Union treaties, saying stricter fiscal rules should be enshrined there.

Mr Sarkozy said Europe was in much danger.

“Never has Europe been so necessary. Never has it been in so much danger,” he said.

“Never have so many countries wanted to join Europe. Never has the risk of a disintegration of Europe been so great. Europe is facing an extraordinarily dangerous situation.” …


Analysis
Christian Fraser
BBC News, Marseille
In the closing remarks to the EPP conference, Mr Sarkozy spelt out exactly what is expected of Europe in the coming 48 hours. If there’s a time for speaking frankly he said, it’s now. We have only a few weeks to save the euro.

The tone suggested the German and French leaders are not altogether optimistic of finding an agreement among the wider 27 nations of the EU, but if those negotiations break down he said, then we will have a treaty for the 17 members of the eurozone. Coherence isn’t everything, said Mr Sarkozy, but in political life it counts.

The German chancellor said it was time to put aside national egos and national interest. That sounds a worthy argument but in recent days the smaller nations have complained they’re being forced to follow the agenda of Germany and France with very little room for discussion.

Extraordinary use of language by politicians. They could be absolutely right. The current ‘debt crisis’ may be the biggest threat to the world economy we’ve ever faced. The “danger” may be imminent and the time for bold action, to “enforce budgetary discipline with automatic penalties” may be here, NOW — unavoidable — and there may be ‘no alternative’.

Or it could be a sales pitch.

– P

Bloggers v journalists

The blogosphere has been atwitter about a blogger who wanted her un-sourced ‘comments’ and denigration of a businessman to be protected under Oregon’s ‘shield laws’ — designed to stop legitimate news media from being compelled to reveal their sources.

You need more than the hat. Image: zazzle.co.nz - (click)

By far the best comment I’ve read about it was from Forbes’ Kashmir Hill in her article: Why An Investment Firm Was Awarded $2.5 Million After Being Defamed By Blogger: “This is not the work of a journalist, but the work of someone intent on destroying reputations.”

Hill does what I try to do: go to the source. In this case, arguing the question of whether blogger = journalist, she talks to the plaintiff/defamee, and directs us to the judge’s legal opinion which spells out his thinking and his reasons for discounting hyperbolic blogger Crystal Cox’s claim to be ‘a journalist’. (You can download it here as a PDF and read it for yourself.)

Here’s what Kashmir Hill highlights as the key section from US District Judge Marco A. Hernandez’s opinion. It does it for me:

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.
For example, there is no evidence of
(1) any education in journalism;
(2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity;
(3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest;
(4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted;
(5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources;
(6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or
(7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.
Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not “media.”

Sounds reasonable.

#3  ‘proof of adherence to journalistic standards’ is a real pitfall for some of those bloggers whose self-regard knows few limitations.

– P

Also worth a read on the issues:  Mathew Ingam at GigOm: If we are all journalists, should we all be protected?
Suffice to say I don’t buy the idea that “New media tools like blogs and social networks … allow anyone with a smartphone or Twitter account to become a journalist — whether they think of themselves as one or not.”
Oh no they don’t. Refer to Hernandez’s 7 points above.

Scrutiny and criticism starts at home

It is my belief that the writer, the free-lance author, should be and must be a critic of the society in which he lives. It is easy enough, and always profitable, to rail away at national enemies beyond the sea, at foreign powers beyond our borders who question the prevailing order. But the moral duty of the free writer is to begin his work at home; to be a critic of his own community, his own country, his own culture. If the writer is unwilling to fill this part, then the writer should abandon pretense and find another line of work: become a shoe repairman, a brain surgeon, a janitor, a cowboy, a nuclear physicist, a bus driver. — Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)

Oh Patrick Gower!

Well worth watching … 50 seconds of … well, of … Patrick Gower.

You know, the [allegedly] ‘deceitful bastard’ ACT leader-on-the-skids Don Brash wouldn’t talk to — three times.

Good on him.

 

From TV3’s Firstline (full clip). Look how he cracks up Rachel Smalley … who sometimes indulges in a wee bit of humour herself.

And on a completely unrelated issue:

 

Grumpies’ solution for the economy

This was emailed to me. Here it is, without endorsement or criticism, warts and all (although I think it’s a cut-and-paste. What ‘motor industry’?):

==START QUOTE==

Dear John Key and Bill English,

Please find below our suggestion for fixing New Zealand’s economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to the banks, Iwi’s and others to be squandered on unearned bonuses and extravagant overseas trips, use the following plan. You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 1 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations: Continue reading →

Poor Siri caught up in an argument

A little swearing, but I had to chuckle at the tagline…

via stumbleupon.com

National’s desperados get perfervid about Peters

What a difference a few percentage points in the polls makes.

I’ve talked before about the intense, irrational personal hatred and enmity evinced by some in the National Party ‘family’ towards their former star MP Winston Peters. It is breathtaking to observe its vehemence. They bear grudges. Intensely.

Scratch some outwardly civilized, even quite-reasonable-on-other-issues Nats about Peters and you trigger an outpouring of hot yellow purulent contempt for the former Tauranga MP. In some cases, the reaction seems close to some sort of Pentecostal frenzy, or an epileptic fit.

They HATE him.

"It should be noted that Mr Slater deliberately published on his blog the details giving rise to these charges. It was part of his campaign to disclose publicly the names of people in whose favour suppression orders had been made in criminal proceedings in the District Court. His general modus operandi was to disclose information which would lead to a defendant’s identification. In sentencing Mr Slater, Judge David Harvey said this: Your {activity}, in terms of publishing the names of people who were subject to non-publication orders, was carefully calculated, carefully thought out and deliberate ... ." — Justice Harrison from Court of Appeal Judgement 9 November 2011 dismissing Cameron John Slater's application for special leave to appeal his convictions for eight charges of breaching judicial orders made under s 140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (CJA) and one charge of breaching a statutory prohibition on publication under s 139 of the CJA.

And now, with Peters’ star rising in the pre-election opinion polls, some indicating his NZ First Party on the cusp of possibly returning to Parliament, National’s attack dogs, trojans and sympathizers in branches of the media (talkback radio particularly) are squawking for all they’re worth: desperately spouting personal denigration, abuse and pointedly raising ‘questions’ about this controversial politician. Timing is everything.

I’m all for free and open debate, and ‘savvy’ observers letting us know what they think and relating issues from the past (gosh, it’s what I aim to do here at ThePaepae.com) but some of what passes for ‘commentary’ about Winston Peters is nothing more than deliberate, fixated sledging of an experienced politician, former cabinet minister and deputy prime minister, a man who, any way you look at it, speaks for thousands of New Zealanders. His critics may have no personal respect for Winston Peters, but in my opinion they owe a duty of fairness to him and to those he represents.

National Party re-animated zombie and convicted criminal Cameron Slater has, in the space of a few days, gone from a position of ‘we do not speak of evil’ (meaning Peters) to micturating a stream of arguably defamatory ‘blog posts’ directing the foulest of personal abuse at Peters — just as he’s done with other National Party ‘enemies’ with whom he becomes fixated. (Cameron looks to me like someone with a little too much time on their hands. Perhaps he could sweep some leaves, trim some trees or water-blast his deck … now that he doesn’t have to train to lose a bike race.)

Continue reading →

Is NZ’s international reputation as a democracy taking a pasting?

I started to reply to a comment by Craig, who suggested that if Bradley Ambrose is successful in his call for the High Court to declare the ‘cup of tea’ conversation “not a private communication” that that (in Craig’s view) would be “a sad day for privacy in this country”

Oh yes? I thought. What about Democracy in this country, Craig? Or Law? … as noted yesterday in Bradley Ambrose takes the initiative:

I welcome the involvement of the courts in this fiasco

I personally think the country’s international reputation has been damaged by actions involving the police in media suppression just before a general election.

Following his complaint, apparently laid when he summoned police officers to his Beehive office (does that make it at his orders?) the police at first took the extremely unusual step (*never* in my experience) of ringing around news media organizations and overtly ‘warning’ them of the consequences of letting details of the conversation slip out — specifically pointing to big fines and jail time.

Threats? That kinda sounds like something more at home in post-coup Fiji. Or the Kingdom of Tonga.
You think I’m kidding?… Continue reading →