Another good graphic

Another in my series of ‘graphics that communicate‘ … this poster design for an upcoming event in Leigh next month really appeals to me:

Dam Native poster (click to enlarge)

Now the funny things is, I found the poster because this morning Facebook recommended I ‘friend’ Tame Iti (since we have four friends in common) and I wandered over to his FB wall to see he’d been tagged in a photo = this Dam Native poster. Voila.

So if the new proactive Facebook sharing was enabled, my other Facebook friends might have seen I’d viewed Tame’s wall … without my deliberately sharing that … and what business is it of theirs?

Actually, the few times I’ve met Tame he was very good company. He’s a thoughtful and articulate person. I bought my son a beautiful pounamu (greenstone) pendant from him which we still treasure like the taonga it is.

– P

Facebook. Brought to you by the letters ‘F’ and ‘O’.

Read it and weep (or adjust your behaviour?)

I first ‘made’ and used the graphic to the right (FACEBOOK MEANS NO PRIVACY) for a post called Facebook — leaks like a sieve in April 2010, and we’ve discussed the treacherous descent of the social media behemoth down the slippery slope several more times since.
Lesson: treat whatever you put there as PUBLIC.

But it gets worse. Recent changes to Facebook can give them (and their partners) a proactive spin on ‘sharing’ … Dave Winer says in Facebook is scaring me:

They [Facebook] are seeking out information to report about you. That’s different from showing people a picture that you posted yourself.

Further, according to Nik Cubrilovic, even logging out of Facebook won’t stop it tracking you …

Dave Winer wrote a timely piece this morning about how Facebook is scaring him [Comment: Dave’s article is worth reading] since the new API allows applications to post status items to your Facebook timeline without a user’s intervention. It is an extension of Facebook Instant and they call it frictionless sharing. The privacy concern here is that because you no longer have to explicitly opt-in to share an item, you may accidentally share a page or an event that you did not intend others to see.

The advice is to log out of Facebook. But logging out of Facebook only de-authorizes your browser from the web application, a number of cookies (including your account number) are still sent along to all requests to facebook.com. Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit. The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate browser for Facebook interactions.

Bleurgh!

As I said in my comment about Facebook posts now featuring in legal agreements around matrimonial splits Facebook’s tentacles now part of divorce settlements! and court injunctions Welcome to the mainstream, social media (like, again) … Don’t let anybody tell you Facebook doesn’t matter.

– P

How to piss off an All Blacks supporter

Crikey!

20110926-081134.jpg

My expat Kiwi friend on the Gold Coast emailed me this charming little number. It certainly lessens my sympathy for the rarking up Aussie supporters have copped in New Zealand.

UPDATE: Apparently the Queenslanders are buying them from a South African T-shirt maker:

I made this one off t-shirt for a rugby union mad friend as laugh for his day out with his kiwi mates to the rugby just after the 2007 RWC. To my surprise, four years later, his photo has gone viral across the interweb. After a few days and some amazing detective work using Facebook recognition software and Google image search I was tracked down by some very clever Queenslanders and ordered to print more choker t-shirts. After 10 phone calls from customers around the world we have decided to do a limited edition print of the famous All Black choker t-shirts.
My Kiwi mates are spewing but hey after all the choker digs I get about the Proteas choking in the cricket WC its only fair to return the vollley. Sorry Kiwidave but until the monkey is off your back you have to kop it sweet mate.
— Kevin Rack.

Saffers! Even worse!

– P

New media – it’s not about being impartial

There’s a sad, kid-with-his-nose-pressed-up-against-the-glass yearning in much of the whiny ‘commentary’ about how social media has ‘attacked’ mainstream media, and how MSM ‘hates’ or doesn’t ‘get’ social media. Bloggers from Cameron Slater to Martyn Bradbury agree on the sad state of MSM compared to … er, … their blogs.

A lot of it is, as I see it, just a Generation gap style adolescent longing to be regarded as significant and different. People who see themselves as a ‘new generation’ of media pine and hanker to be acknowledged for their talent, (in some cases) hard work and dedication to their social media spinning jenny, and express frustration at a lack of doors swiftly opening for them.

As part of discussion on such matters over at Cameron Slater’s WhaleOil blog, I mentioned

I know plenty of bloggers who itch and yearn to be part of the MSM. Gawd, Martyn Bradbury even apparently advocates forced retirement of baby boomers in his latest frustrated effort to get them out of senior media jobs so dipwits like him can pleeeeeeeeeeeeesse get a proper job/enter the palace. (Groan.)

Blogs, Facebook, Twitter whatever’s next are simply part of the ever-expanding, ever-adaptive MEDIA — in the widest sense.

But like an individuating teenager, some with ‘I’m a blogger not a journalist’ intrinsically wound into their self-image seem to try to make themselves as repellant as possible to show they’re not their parents. (This ‘defining yourself by non-membership of other groups’ schtick is as old as the hills.)

Strategies include spraying about bilious slander, abuse and untruths — possessed by the seemingly ardent belief that these are ‘opinions’ and they’re entitled to free expression on the internet without accountability.

They seek to be untrammeled by laws and conventions concerning silly, fussy things like defamation, privacy and name suppression legislation … or, indeed, by the ‘journalistic’ (hoik!) standards of fact-checking, accuracy and truthfulness that apply to broadcasters and publishers. (Oh yeah, we’re bad! We’re mavericks! We’re rebels. Roar! … Puh-lease.)

In my experience, a moderating voice pointing to ‘old’ media values that might be useful is accused of ‘not getting it’. Blogs are different to journalism, the ‘teenager’ snivels, dodging the issues while name-calling their critics or characterising them as stupid.

Cam says

Witness now the large number of stories that the MSM picks up off Twitter or blogs.

So what does that prove? Not much. Witness instead the ongoing large number of blog posts that reactively refer or quote from MSM articles and broadcast programmes. Virtually every post on his website, on mine, and on many others. Parasitic, I call it. Own it.

In comments like Cam’s “The MSM hated blogs, and in New Zealand they have tried to slag blog gers off…” I detect the bitter taste of rejection laced with a hint of inferiority. According to the ‘I’m a blogger not a journalist’ psyche, the MSM is ‘wrong’ whatever it does … whether ignoring social media or embracing it … simply because they’re not you. It reminds me of Mark Twain’s wisdom.

An unpleasant, reactive ‘us and them’ partisanship permeates a lot of the so-called commentary about media e.g. Cam’s fact-free assertion that the Press Gallery is bound by some cosy set of rules to prevent them criticising parliamentarians. That might sound good in a blog post but it’s pure fantasy. (I worked there, so I feel I can comment. Does that make me ‘pompous’? Who cares?) Now, seriously, is bias and ‘provider capture’ present in the media? Do ‘access’ issues concern or constrain some journalists? Yeah, sure, sometimes. But it’s not a monolithic conspiracy — ‘old’ versus ‘new’ media.

Absorbing the ‘revolution’ — honey, it’s what we do

The media, like language, is adept at incorporating new expressions of media (outliers, if you like) into the ‘broad church’. The best and most insightful writers in the blogosphere will, I predict, find an audience in MSM. As writers always have. Ideas are powerful and attract the audience they deserve, eventually. No free lunches.

The MSM will welcome or include passionate expression by ‘reasonable’ people … as I discussed in David Farrar showing WhaleOil how it’s done … but concerns about audience reaction to those whose personas are written off as monochrome, sometimes deceptive (sorry, Cam) militant attack dogs may see them have to wait a bit longer.

– P

Objectivity vs Fairness

I quoted this, from Voice of San Diego, which journalism/media critic Jay Rosen describes as ‘one of the best born-on-the-web news sites to have emerged in the last few years’.

It’s from that news organisation‘s no-doubt-about-it aspirational primer for journalists…

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.
• We are not guided by political identification, by ideology or dogma. But every decision we make, from what to cover to how to cover it, is made through our own subjective judgments.
• We are guided by an ability to be transparent and independent, to clearly assess what’s going on in our community and have the courage to plainly state the truth.
Tell the truth.
• This means not being mealy mouthed and not being bias-bullied.
• Stand up to bias bullies. Tell them why you did something. Let them challenge you on it.
• If someone calls you biased, don’t be scared. Don’t dismiss it either. Reflect on it and answer with conviction.
• Don’t go quote-hunting for something you know to be true and can say yourself. Don’t hide your opinion in the last quote of a story.
• Take a stand when you know something to be true or wrong.

Authentic use of a following …

Brooke Fraser - great use of a popular following by a role model. She has my respect.

Brooke Fraser gets the value of using her ‘brand’ … and putting her body in the space to support good causes. Here’s what she says about the poverty of Africa, on her way to Ethiopia:

“This is my eighth visit to the continent but my first to Ethiopia and I’m expecting it to be a pretty weighty experience, especially in light of what is unfolding in east Africa.
“Yet at the same time you often find that people with the least in material terms, often have this deep and infectious joy which is sorely lacking in so many ‘wealthy’ cultures. I always leave inspired and challenged.”

via stuff.co.nz

Doing the anti-MMP campaign’s dirty work

Now why would I put a picture of Cameron Slater here, when I can use this one of Cameron Diaz? Mmm-much nicer. (cameron-diaz-online.com – click)

I’ve been critical of partisan attack blogging (which I called “fixated, credibility-eviscerating attack blogging“).

I am troubled (but not ‘shocked‘ or ‘outraged‘) by a demonstrated lack of what I called ‘fair-mindedness’ and the occasional deployment of untruthfulness (I regard that as a far more serious breach) I observe in some political blogs, some of whom really fancy themselves as opinion shapers.

the way I see it, a reasoned, fair-minded discussion is easier to listen to, and more effective communication than tone-deaf, one-speed-only, reflexive attack blogging. Being ‘fair’ builds a reputation for credibility … and is far more likely to open mainstream media doors. (Which was my point in the footnote here.)

What I also notice is the dubious machinations of some parasitic* bloggers are frequently accompanied by a stream of gibes and criticisms aimed at ‘mainsteam media’.
Those working in MSM make an easy target because the professional journalism model — with its adherence to professional standards, its coverage demands, priority setting, editorial process and legal obligation to be truthful — is inevitably slower than some dork in his or her pyjamas spraying bilious vitriol at those on their ‘enemies list’.
[*Parasitic bloggers (and that’s most of us) take far more content and ‘inspiration’ from MSM than the reverse, in my observation. Some of us have the grace to admit our debts, some don’t.]

The doctrine of fairness is an important one, despite the overt disavowal by enraged ‘partisan bloggers’.

Are state employees entitled to ‘campaign’ for an upcoming referendum on their own time? Photo of Jordan King with placard in Wellington – adapted from an image made by anti-MMP activist Jordan Williams and secretly supplied to right wing proxy and attack blogger Cameron Slater for use in his ongoing smear campaign against supporters of KeepMMP.org.nz (click)

One of my ‘targets’ (in the nicest possible way) right wing proxy and attack blogger ‘WhaleOil’ Cameron Slater denies being a journalist — preferring to run barefoot and naked through the lush grass of the social media jungle as a ‘partisan blogger’.

Here’s Cam’s response to my challenging him about selectively omitting relevant facts from a seedy little smear on a public servant waving a placard around in Wellington [allegedly] in his lunch hour.

Peter, FFS, I’m not a jour­nal­ist, I’m a par­ti­san blog­ger, when will you fuck­ing under­stand that?

Well, sorry, but that seems like bullshit when Cameron, in fine Armchair Quarterback style, frequently deigns to criticize and castigate MSM (mainstream media) for [allegedly] ‘following’ bloggers and generally doing a poorer job of covering news that he cares about than he does, questioning their ethics(!), intelligence and competence…

I’ve lost count of the num­ber of times that I have bro­ken sto­ries and the repeaters ahve (sic) foll­woed (sic) along one, two (sic) or even a week later. It would be nice of them to insert a line acknowl­edg­ing where they heard about it from.
The thing is I know they heard about it from me first, because they all fol­low my Twit­ter account and read my Face­book wall. I’m sure as hell not fol­low­ing them on Twitter.
When blog­gers use news sto­ries to high­light their opin­ion they politely pro­vide a link to the source story, it would nice if chur­nal­ists and repeaters did the same.
I might have to start billing I think. Either that or the various schools of churnalism start teaching these chumps about ethics, [Comment: See?] how to google, how to link to sources and other useful topics instead of them sit­ting on Face­book and Twit­ter hop­ing a story will land in their lap.)

Good grief. Cam I’m-not-a-journalist Slater has even (FFS) developed his own rating system for journalists. I’m not kidding. See:

Click to enlarge

So what we’re dealing with is a bloke who sees the standards of ‘ethics’ and ‘truthfulness’ don’t apply to his online alter ego because he’s ‘not a journalist’, he’s a ‘partisan blogger’ … but he’ll happily judge them on some twisted model of his own design about their ethics and competence. Yes. Inconsistent to say the least. Or fruitcake levels of self-deception.

Towards a Code of Ethics for bloggers

So, what about these guidelines developed earlier this year among middle eastern bloggers and others? This Code of Ethics for Citizen Journalists was created by bloggers operating in the blood-soaked crucibles of the Arab Spring and elsewhere, fighting bigger battles than ours.
I’ve reproduced them in full because I think they’re worthwhile.

Guidelines for Good Citizen Journalistic Practices:

  • Be accurate.
  • Be transparent about who you are/your role in the story, your methodology, any conflicts of interest.
  • Be fair.
  • Disclose any funding.
  • Be careful posting developments that have not been confirmed or that you have not witnessed yourself.
  • Do not distribute copyrighted material or plagiarize.
  • Always link to original sources.
  • Do not post anything that will endanger someone’s life.
  • Do not sell information about your subscribers or followers’ list.
  • Do not fabricate stories, or digitally alter pictures or video.
  • Avoid profanity.
  • Put a disclaimer before especially disturbing post.

This code was established by young citizen journalists from the MENA region and Iran, with the help of traditional journalists namely Kelli Arena, Magda Abu-Fadil, and Digital Strategy Consultant Ayman Itani, during the last session of a workshop on “Citizen Journalism, Professionalism, and Ethics”. The workshop was organized by the National Democratic Institute and ASWAT in Beirut from July, 25, 2011 to 27.
It is highly recommended for this code to be shared in order to “increase the professional standards of journalistic reporting for citizen journalists”.

Perhaps bloggers in less contentious parts of the world, dealing with far less contentious issues (like, gee, our upcoming referendum on our Mixed Member Proportional Representation electoral system — which the Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, Yemenis, etc would die for) might benefit from adopting some of these ethical standards? What do you think?

Why would a propagandist use a slogan like ‘Keeping the buggers honest’ then dissemble and mislead about his and his friends’ enemies? Whacky.

Taking the high ground

It’s ludicrous for Cameron Slater to try to hold himself out as some sort of political-moral-media monitor and enforcer, castigating his enemies and even using a slogan like ‘Keeping the buggers honest’ … and then act in an unfair, dodgy way.

For instance, like not revealing that he’s doing anti-MMP Vote For Change spokesman Jordan Williams’ dirty work, then, when confronted about it, saying ‘journalistic’ standards of ethics and honesty don’t apply to him — nor is he bound to Vote For Change‘s pledges to act with ‘integrity in the campaign’ (cough), ‘Play the ball not the man’ (hack) and refrain from negative personal attacks. (splutter) because he’s not formally a member. (No, he’s just a PR conduit.)

Unlike some of Cameron’s critics such as Andrew Geddis (‘Cameron Slater’s slighty wonky jihad‘), I have had the pleasure of his company and find him interesting, informed and insightful. I look forward to our next meeting. Cameron is entitled to his political opinions, of course, about MMP and any other matters like our name suppression laws & legal conventions, and, if he so chooses, to attempt to persuade and proselytize on behalf of the sleazy Vote For Change propagandists seeking to reduce representation in our electoral system. I guess. (See what I did there? Irony.)

But it would be better if he was honest about it.

– P

Sad saga of co-operation breaking down

Oh boy. Nick Davies (not that Nick Davies) explains a relationship breakdown (The Guardian - click)

Best line:

Julian’s ghostwriter delivered a brilliant first draft of the book, bang on schedule, at the end of March. We read it and loved it. Julian didn’t. He didn’t love it. We’re not even sure how much he actually read. It was an extraordinary reaction to a manuscript he should have been grateful for and immensely proud of.

Says it all for me.

The publishers say they ran out of time and the ‘author’ ran out of … well, not sure.
Looks like a cash-in to me.

– P

Formative experiences

Reflecting on why I oppose the National government’s proposed rushed legislation to retrospectively sanctify unlawful police surveillance actions, I found myself remembering back to when I was a sixth-former in Wellington and got a holiday job at the Supreme Court — coincidentally just as an appeal was being heard against the double murder conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas.

The unjust trials of Arthur Allan Thomas produced a loss of innocence for us as a country and enraged my 16 year old sense of ‘right’.

The New Zealand public were confronted with the grotesque, unpalatable but inescapable realisation that it appeared the investigating police officers had planted evidence — and lied — to gain Thomas’s conviction of the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe.

Defence lawyers have always known cops and prosecutors can bend the facts and ‘selectively’ present evidence to build their case. (They’re only human after all, and ours is an adversarial justice system.)

But the manufacture of evidence against a defendant is, most fair people would agree, a step too far, even if we at times accept the police contention, “He’s a bad bugger that one.”

So in that context, I am uneasy with another Supreme Court decision being sidestepped with rushed legislation, crammed through under urgency in the final few days of a parliamentary term.

I just don’t buy the “50 investigations and 40 court cases in jeopardy” rationale — not without more and substantial evidence … more than a glib PM stand up media statement. Sorry, too important. That’s probably what the Opposition parties being asked to support the fast-track legislation are asking for too.

I think any change to the Bill of Rights Act should require the full democratic process including public submissions … rather than a half-baked fast-track push through the House.

Labour, surely, must oppose it. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, more reasoned public pleadings from goodfella Greg O’Conner, Police union boss, as he continues to spin. I heard him offering a homily in justification this afternoon to NewstalkZB’s Danny Watson involving trout licences and whitebait licences Hint: there’s nowhere you can go to get a whitebait license — you’re just allowed to catch them in the season. Geddit?

Sorry Greg, I’m not soothed by your homespun don’t you worry your pretty little head about that whitebait fritter entrée with the “We’ve got to crack down on the P-labs and criminal gangs” cheeseboard and cigars.

As I see it, the covert cameras weren’t authorised. Change the law by all means, but do it properly, Mr Key.

-P

Coming up: My experience photographing the Wellington Team Policing Unit in action at Flanagan’s Hotel.

The gods will offer you chances … for inspiration

OK, I can see I’m the three-million, thirty-seven thousandth (plus) viewer of this Levis ad on Youtube, and sure, it’s corporate propaganda/advertising dressed up in a call to self-expression, inspiration (and, if you’re a paranoid conservative Glenn Beck, a message ‘glorifying revolution’) … but, hey, it works for me.

Reminds me of Apple’s ‘Here’s to the crazy ones …‘ ads.

The Levis ad narration is from a poem The Laughing Heart by Charles Bukowski

your life is your life
don’t let it be clubbed into dank submission.
be on the watch.
there are ways out.
there is a light somewhere.
it may not be much light but
it beats the darkness.
be on the watch.
the gods will offer you chances.
know them.
take them.
you can’t beat death but
you can beat death in life, sometimes.
and the more often you learn to do it,
the more light there will be.
your life is your life.
know it while you have it.
you are marvelous
the gods wait to delight
in you.

@Charles Bukowski

Laura Norder a surprise election issue?

The Supreme Court’s decision last Friday to declare covert police surveillance videos unlawful unless properly authorized by a court had big implications. Under this country’s Bill of Rights Act, citizens have a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure by the forces of the state. It seems some aspects of the police’s search warrant applications for covert video surveillance were dodgy with a capital D. The Chief Justice stated:

In circumstances where the police officer in charge of the inquiry knew that there was no authority to be obtained for such filmed surveillance, the deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming, maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months, is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice.

Clearly, according to the Supreme Court, the NZ Police have routinely breached that citzens’ right to freedom from unreasonable surveillance. They acted unlawfully, and probably deliberately so, according to Justice Tipping:

I do not consider there is any escape from the view that the police deliberately breached the appellants’ rights. Detective Sergeant Pascoe acknowledged that he knew there was no legislative authority to install surveillance cameras. This, no doubt, is why he did not seek a warrant to do so. The Detective Sergeant did not profess to have authority from any other source. … If the breach was not deliberate it was undoubtedly reckless because, at best, the position in law was decidedly unclear and, in the very difficult and unusual circumstances facing them, the police, extraordinary as it may seem, did not obtain any legal advice. It is difficult to resist the inference that formal legal advice was not sought because the police knew or strongly suspected what the advice would be and that it would make it more difficult for them to proceed as they intended.

I saw Police Association (Union) boss Greg O’Connor’s press statement on Friday and parsed it down to a news story: ‘Police response to Supreme Court finding they acted unlawfully = Change the law!’

Now, it seems our prime minister has bought the ‘change the law’ programme, judging by this (forgive me) shallowly expressed alarmist spin:

“I think New Zealanders would be horrified if a large number of criminals weren’t made to pay their debt to society because some political parties don’t recognise the law needs to be clarified.” [Comment: Further, he credulously peddles somebody’s claim  (the Police’s?): ‘The ruling in the Urewera case jeopardises 50 investigations currently underway and 40 cases before the courts.’ [Comment: Oh really?]

I heard barrister Grant Ilingworth in National Radio this morning, plausibly describing the ’50 investigations’ spin as an exaggeration (cough): “Does that mean that police are going onto private property on a routine basis, installing cameras on private property and taking photos there? I don’t think so.”

Like the ‘right to silence’ which the National Justice minister Simon Power earlier proposed to do away with by a majority of one or two, any [retrospective] changes to the effects of the Bill of Rights should be taken with full Parliamentary procedure — not passed in Urgency in the last six sitting days before a General Election and using clichéd rhetoric like John Keys’ above.

Better minds than mine (and er, John Key’s, if you ask me) have considered the government’s proposal to use Urgency to rush through retrospective legislation (ding ding ding — alarm bells) to undo the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgement.

Here’s Andrew Geddis, writing at pundit: Once upon a time in te Urewera …

[The Government] seems to be proposing to set just aside the Supreme Court’s view that gathering such evidence in and of itself constitutes an unreasonable search and thus is unlawful under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And if it is not unlawful, then there’s nothing to stop the Police from gathering evidence in this manner … whenever and however they want.

So this isn’t really about giving specific legal power to the Police to conduct video and photo surveillance under set legal limits. It rather is about removing a bar on the Police carrying out these actions … and then leaving it up to the Police to decide when it is appropriate or necessary to do so.

Second, even if the ability to gather this form of evidence is believed to be necessary in the modern world – a point the Police seem very strong on, so I guess I’ll believe them – it isn’t clear why the Government is proposing to retrospectively validate the use of video and photo surveillance. The argument is, I guess, that the Police have used this technique in good faith to gather evidence against a bunch of criminals, and they shouldn’t walk free just because the Supreme Court now has changed the rules.

Putting to one side whether the Supreme Court really has changed the rules here, the fact that such evidence may have been unlawfully obtained does not mean that it cannot be used in court. Remember the Evidence Act 2006, s. 30? That allows the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to let such evidence in. And if the affected cases really are as serious as the Prime Minister suggests, you can be pretty sure the courts will allow it in.

So what the Government really seems to want to do here is short-circuit the courts’ role in deciding if the Police’s unauthorised (and, according to the Supreme Court, unlawful) use of video and photo surveillance should be allowed to stand as evidence. Instead, it will require such evidence to be let in – irrespective of whether or not it was obtained unlawfully in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (which it wasn’t … because Parliament will deem that it wasn’t).

Me? I’m all for considered, democratically debated changes to the law, if it makes sense. I’m against knee-jerk reactions leading to half-cocked legislative change being crammed through Parliament using Urgency — especially to our Bill of Rights Act! — without a proper debate and submissions.

I know Greg O’Connor and I like him. He does speak for the police force and represents their interests with ability. He is also an able and effective spin doctor, in my view. I’ll never forget then PM David Lange being asked in sober terms about an historic mass assembly of police officers — in uniform — on the forecourt of Parliament Buildings as part of some industrial protest. Ex-defence lawyer Lange chuckled and said, ‘These people twist arms for a living!

Indeed they do.

– P

See also Victoria University Law lecturer Dean Knight’s thorough examination of the issues: Covert video surveillance and the (c)overt erosion of the Rule of Law (Quotes from the Supreme Court judgement above were lifted from him.)

Hunting for a word

Help me out ...

I mentioned in my earlier post about ‘Black hat’ techniques that

What I need is a better word for spin doctor. It seems too passive for the propaganda campaign aspect. ‘Spuiker’ is close in spirit, but not quite right. … Any ideas?

The definition I quoted in the tweet above is from wisegeek.com … whose entry is instructive:

The term spin doctor became a common addition to our language in the 1980s. Its exact origin is uncertain, but spin doctor is often used to describe public relations experts as well as political or corporate representatives whose job it is to put a ‘positive spin’ on events or situations. The verb spin doctoring is also commonly used to describe the work of a spin doctor.

If we control the spin, or direction, of an object, we are showing sides of it we want to show while not shedding light on the rest. A spin doctor uses spin control to emphasize or exaggerate the most positive aspect of something. For example, cigarette companies sell products known to be harmful, which can make them look bad. However, if they also provide funding for charitable events, or build community playgrounds, this can make them look good. Such examples of ‘corporate social responsibility’ give corporate spin doctors positive aspects of the cigarette company to promote to the public through the media.

Some public relations firms list spindoctoring outright as one of the services they offer, while others use terms such as “transformation strategy” or “image transformation.” This is comparable to the “rebranding” that is done with products that are not selling well in order to sell them. Companies and political organizations also need a spin doctor to ‘sell’ their mission and ideas to the public. For example, when the US Department of Homeland Security, which was created after the events of 11 September 2001, was not receiving as much positive public reaction as originally hoped, the same corporate branders behind the FedEx name were hired to revamp the department.

Spin doctoring is not propaganda. Propaganda campaigns do not simply seek to convince through rebranding by a spin doctor, but add the deceptive element of “psychological warfare.” Black propaganda is propaganda that is made to look like it came from the enemy and so protects its sources if and when the lie ever becomes exposed. Grey propaganda occurs when the true source is omitted as in the example of Radio Free Europe. Radio Free Europe was introduced to the public as a platform run by free democratic voices against communist propaganda and people believed that. New Jersey senator Clifford P. Case later admitted Radio Free Europe was actually a propaganda program run by the CIA.

A spin doctor must keep track of all publicity, such as newspaper articles, of the organization he or she is representing. Information about public trends and perceptions is helpful to a spin doctor in assessing potential public reaction to an event. Time management is absolutely crucial to a spin doctor as an event must be publicized in a positive way before someone else can get to it first and report any information that the public could consider negative.

All good, but I want something else … in the context of the anti-MMP campaign’s slanted attack ads, I want a word which denotes a negative maligning PR effort, an attempt to frame debate on terms that denigrate the opposing ‘players’ or position.

I’m looking for a label (pejortaive, I don’t care) for the spin equivalent of the ‘politics of personal destruction’ …. like the Karl Rove-esque political attack-ad campaigns, smearing people using ‘guilt by association’ or repeated implications that they’re untrustworthy, incompetent or even treasonous etc.

WHAT do we call that?

– P

UPDATE: Mentioning Karl Rove reminded me of this awesome US political ad.

Black hat – the (shudder) ethics of spin

We’ve discussed ‘Black hat’ web ‘marketing‘ tactics before, in the context of so-called experts selling punters hyped-up snake oil like the Shaun Stenning-fronted Geekversity and, once that had collapsed, the Twalk and Snipr equally hyped and ill-fated enterprises that the Stenning performing troupe hawked around Asia like a cargo cult until the wheels fell off that too.

Ambiguous ethics dressed up as spin? (Rob Cottingham, Read Write Web - click)

I guess at the root of things, my criticisms of the marketing hyperbole and the apparent misleading claims made by those claiming to be instant internet experts were based on a (negative) judgement of the ethics of those involved.

Ethics, like integrity, is a word I try to use very sparingly, knowing as I do that such swordy words are two-edged and, as my conversation about a sometime blogosphere propaganda channel showed, even an implied use can open a critic to being labelled ‘gay‘ for suggesting truthfulness and playing fair have a place.

So, it was with interest I spotted this cartoon and brief article by Rob Cottingham today, which puts a discussion about marketing deceit and what in politics we call ‘spin’ into a different, but related context. On the peripheral but interesting.

What I need is a better word for spin doctor. It seems too passive for the propaganda campaign aspect. ‘Spuiker’ is close in spirit, but not quite right. … Any ideas?

– P

Against expectations

Brian O'Driscoll of Ireland drives on past Kurtley Beale of the Wallabies. Photo: Getty Images via Sydney Morning Herald

Watching the Wallabies go down to Ireland in their Rugby World Cup pool match last night one couldn’t help thinking, Oops, that’s not what the Australians expected.

Full credit to the Irish, and the inspirational, courageous Brian O’Driscoll.

– P

Is eavesdropping on Twitter really news?

Oh dear. Here’s a snap from the NZ Herald online this morning:

But is it news? He said, she said, shock horror.

Don’t bother reading them. So some people are having a Twitter conversation about an encounter between a rugby player and a (shock: blonde!) woman in a pub, and three days ago a comedian cracked a joke on Twitter about German transport efficiency which, when pressed, some people have expressed, what?, discomfort about. Big deal.

Don’t misunderstand, some stuff on Twitter is ‘newsworthy’, of course. Like Auckland mayor Len Brown tweeting that his train arrived on time at Eden Park last night… as part of a bigger story about Auckland transport passing the stress test.

‘Twitter reaction’ is a legitimate part of reporting on a bigger story, in my view. But when a story starts and finishes with an overheard ‘Twitter frenzy’ or ‘Twitter spat’ or ‘feud’ or ‘zing!’ … well, that’s pretty lame. Slow news day, NZ Herald?

– P

An apology should cost you something

Wow. Things have been going off the rails for Johann Hari since he got ‘busted’ massaging quotes in his interviews. Now he’s issued an apology and given an explanation (again) for his lack of truthfulness, and touches on some of the points I try to make here now and then about the generalised loss of credibility that results from bending or parsing the truth — being inauthentic. Worth reading.

Johann Hari: A personal apology

Thursday, 15 September 2011

I’ve written so many articles over the years laying bare and polemicising against the errors and idiocies of other people. This time, I am writing an article laying bare and polemicising against the errors and idiocies of myself. If you give it out, you have to take it. If you demand high standards of others, you have to be just as damning when you fail to uphold them yourself. …

In my work, I’ve spent a lot of time dragging other people’s flaws into the light. I did it because I believe that every time you point out that somebody is going wrong, you give them a chance to get it right next time and so reduce the amount of wrongdoing in the world. …

Read the full article at The Independent