Lyndon Hood - Eliminuhlator, Lower Hutt
Monday, October 31, 2005
When the Eradicator Becomes the Eradicated
I want to stop flogging him, but he won't lie down.
First up, a correction of my last post: according to Mapp's official press release, the job title is not "Political Correctness Eradication Spokesman" but "Political Correctness Eradicator ". As in, "Roar! Fear me, for I am called the Eradicator!"
It would be an interesting test of anti-PC internal coherence if Mapp were to leave this position and it was handed on to, say, Katherine Rich. If she were not then called the "Political Correctness Eradicatrix", I would be sorely disappointed.
As it happens, though, it's Mapp. This may turn out to be the best thing ever to happen for Political Correctness. I'm reminded of my parents telling me about Patricia Bartlett for the Society for the Protection of Community Standards, or that one maoist guy. Whenever the relevant issue cropped up in the news, they'd be dragged out to say the same thing they always did, and everyone would be all be, like, mocking them derisively.
It might be a windfall for Labour too, if Mapp keeps taking such an all-embracing brief. He'll end up National's Everything Spokesman. Which would be a bit sad, really.
I was hoping Mapp would stick to the party line on the disabled people/human right commission thing - one standard of citizenship. Whether the benefits of those standards are actually accessible to all the actual citizens need not concern able-bodied white folk; no extra assistance just because you're paraplegic or something. He didn't say that in the end.
But I'm not going to have time to go into specifics every time he pipes up, so I won't start now.
Not going on also saves me the trouble of giving qudos to Rodney Hide and Messers Antartic and Adolf from Sir Humphrey's for - while deploring PC in all its forms - admitting the actual appointment in question was pretty dumb. And passing up an obvious opportunity to deliberately miss the point.
Unlike someone else whose contribution to the debate was, rather than addressing the whole Mapp/Brash/Being-a-Dick question, to list some PC things he didn't like. And I've got to say that, if those really are the ten most egregious examples of political correctness internationally, well, the world is not ending. Maybe we should talk, but call off the crusade, huh?
Oh hang on. This is a bit more like it.
I have seen some of that genuine rational discussion of the whole PC thing that I was asking for, too, which is nice. And in order for a debate to start, I suppose someone has to have a challenging point of view.
So it's a bit like the tone Bill English is bringing to treaty issues. Y'know - after the election. Expect Mapp isn't as good at pretending to be reasonable.
New-from-Friday Hood: Suggestions for More 'Innovative' ReshufflingIt's been pointed out to me that Saturday's Dom Post Editorial shares some of my steez. I'm not saying anyone's done a Maxim or anything. Probably just a case of minds thinking alike.
Speaking of Maxim - you need to go read the Fundy Post now.
Update - A caring reader has pointed out that, again and again, I put 'Eliminator' when he is, of course, the 'Eradicator'. I obviously had some subconscious urge to make the job sound fractionally less bizarre. This problem is now fixed.
I want to stop flogging him, but he won't lie down.
First up, a correction of my last post: according to Mapp's official press release, the job title is not "Political Correctness Eradication Spokesman" but "Political Correctness Eradicator ". As in, "Roar! Fear me, for I am called the Eradicator!"
It would be an interesting test of anti-PC internal coherence if Mapp were to leave this position and it was handed on to, say, Katherine Rich. If she were not then called the "Political Correctness Eradicatrix", I would be sorely disappointed.
As it happens, though, it's Mapp. This may turn out to be the best thing ever to happen for Political Correctness. I'm reminded of my parents telling me about Patricia Bartlett for the Society for the Protection of Community Standards, or that one maoist guy. Whenever the relevant issue cropped up in the news, they'd be dragged out to say the same thing they always did, and everyone would be all be, like, mocking them derisively.
It might be a windfall for Labour too, if Mapp keeps taking such an all-embracing brief. He'll end up National's Everything Spokesman. Which would be a bit sad, really.
I was hoping Mapp would stick to the party line on the disabled people/human right commission thing - one standard of citizenship. Whether the benefits of those standards are actually accessible to all the actual citizens need not concern able-bodied white folk; no extra assistance just because you're paraplegic or something. He didn't say that in the end.
But I'm not going to have time to go into specifics every time he pipes up, so I won't start now.
Not going on also saves me the trouble of giving qudos to Rodney Hide and Messers Antartic and Adolf from Sir Humphrey's for - while deploring PC in all its forms - admitting the actual appointment in question was pretty dumb. And passing up an obvious opportunity to deliberately miss the point.
Unlike someone else whose contribution to the debate was, rather than addressing the whole Mapp/Brash/Being-a-Dick question, to list some PC things he didn't like. And I've got to say that, if those really are the ten most egregious examples of political correctness internationally, well, the world is not ending. Maybe we should talk, but call off the crusade, huh?
Oh hang on. This is a bit more like it.
I have seen some of that genuine rational discussion of the whole PC thing that I was asking for, too, which is nice. And in order for a debate to start, I suppose someone has to have a challenging point of view.
So it's a bit like the tone Bill English is bringing to treaty issues. Y'know - after the election. Expect Mapp isn't as good at pretending to be reasonable.
New-from-Friday Hood: Suggestions for More 'Innovative' ReshufflingIt's been pointed out to me that Saturday's Dom Post Editorial shares some of my steez. I'm not saying anyone's done a Maxim or anything. Probably just a case of minds thinking alike.
Speaking of Maxim - you need to go read the Fundy Post now.
Update - A caring reader has pointed out that, again and again, I put 'Eliminator' when he is, of course, the 'Eradicator'. I obviously had some subconscious urge to make the job sound fractionally less bizarre. This problem is now fixed.
Holly Walker - PC pinko liberal, Dunedin
Thursday, October 27, 2005
PC gone Mapp
I would just like to second Lyndon in saying: WT actual, physical F?
It was interesting to wake up this morning to the sound of Wayne Mapp on the Eradication of Political Correctness (don’t forget those capitals), and I wish I had been more alert for it. I tried to listen to the interview again on the new Radio New Zealand website, but wasn’t able to open the file (a Mac thing?), but what I did absorb in my sleepy state was disturbingly funny indeed.
According to Mapp, “Political Correctness” is any attitude divorced from mainstream values. Just what those are is still unclear, although if we are to believe Don Brash pre-election, mainstream society is anyone who doesn’t vote Labour. So, to extrapolate, Mapp is going to try to eradicate the legitimately held views and values of all of his opponents. As others have noted, it sounds a little bit totalitarian, doesn’t it?
In fact, “Political Correctness” is one of those heated terms that are bandied around for political capital despite the fact that there’s no clear consensus on what it actually means. Ryan Brown-Haysom, Critic’s Features Reporter, wrote an excellent piece about this earlier in the year, which you can read here.
Practically, if Mapp were in power, it seems we would be looking at such things as removing references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation and requirements that public servants demonstrate a knowledge of the principles of the Treaty, the disestablishment of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and maybe even the Human Rights Commission (yeah, those pesky rights are soooo divorced from our mainstream values).
Scary stuff. Despite my alarm when the government arrangements were announced last week, if having Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Peter Dunne with far more power than he is electorally entitled to is the alternative to a government which is prepared to disestablish Ministries and Commissions on the basis of a loaded term like "Political Correctness" - well, I can see where Helen Clark was coming from.
I would just like to second Lyndon in saying: WT actual, physical F?
It was interesting to wake up this morning to the sound of Wayne Mapp on the Eradication of Political Correctness (don’t forget those capitals), and I wish I had been more alert for it. I tried to listen to the interview again on the new Radio New Zealand website, but wasn’t able to open the file (a Mac thing?), but what I did absorb in my sleepy state was disturbingly funny indeed.
According to Mapp, “Political Correctness” is any attitude divorced from mainstream values. Just what those are is still unclear, although if we are to believe Don Brash pre-election, mainstream society is anyone who doesn’t vote Labour. So, to extrapolate, Mapp is going to try to eradicate the legitimately held views and values of all of his opponents. As others have noted, it sounds a little bit totalitarian, doesn’t it?
In fact, “Political Correctness” is one of those heated terms that are bandied around for political capital despite the fact that there’s no clear consensus on what it actually means. Ryan Brown-Haysom, Critic’s Features Reporter, wrote an excellent piece about this earlier in the year, which you can read here.
Practically, if Mapp were in power, it seems we would be looking at such things as removing references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation and requirements that public servants demonstrate a knowledge of the principles of the Treaty, the disestablishment of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and maybe even the Human Rights Commission (yeah, those pesky rights are soooo divorced from our mainstream values).
Scary stuff. Despite my alarm when the government arrangements were announced last week, if having Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Peter Dunne with far more power than he is electorally entitled to is the alternative to a government which is prepared to disestablish Ministries and Commissions on the basis of a loaded term like "Political Correctness" - well, I can see where Helen Clark was coming from.
Lyndon Hood - First Up Against the Wall, Lower Hutt.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Wayne Mapp: Opposition spokesman for Political Correctness Eradication.
W - as they say - TF?
Had National been elected, we would presumably be forming a Department (surely not a Ministry) of Political Correctness Eradication.
This raises the usual question: what the hell is that supposed to mean? As a rule I find reading "bad stuff" for "political correctness" does not detract from the information conveyed or sentiment expressed in any way. Is that the case here?
I couldn't face the idea of trawling through his old columns for examples. But from a June speech ("The Problem with Political Correctness" - the inaugural Ralph Hannan lecture, which he open rather ironically by praising the titular gentleman for his "reforming zeal") we can gather some idea of what he's on about. Though not enough, I would have thought, to fill out a useful ministerial job description.
PC category one: obviously silly stuff done by the State. Twilight golf. Bovine homeopathy (which a farmer I met reckoned had saved him tens of thousands). Apparently merely calling such things 'bad' might lead to wasteful expenditure of resources to confirm the evaluation. Just call it PC, and out it goes.
Two: Treaty-principle references in legislation. Like a lot of Maori-related issues, I would actually like to see a debate about this involving real arguments not done in sound bites. The problem would seem to be that the Government, while not prepared to abandon those troublesome references, is electorally nervous of conducting a thorough defense.
Three: Special treatment for specific groups. I imagine he means "integrated" religious schools, the institution of marriage and the Brethren's exemption to employment legislation.
Four: Social advocacy by Government agencies, like the Waitangi Tribunal and the Human Right Commission. And, presumably, the commissioners for children and for families, the Department of Women's Affairs. If tinkering with the curriculum had any role in the renaissance of Maori culture, if the State has had any leadership role in make difference acceptable - well that kind of thing stops now.
So the putative Department would presumably be charge with rooting out such things, as well as encouraging agents of the state not to have any regard for what people who are different to us might consider polite or whether the fact that we're mostly hiring white men might somehow be our fault.
Oh, and probably stopping "social engineering" as well. It just struck that, if you look at the meaning of the words, "social engineering" is exactly what the Government always does. It's practically a job description.
I can't help imagine some kind of flying squad, jumping out and eradication political correctness with extreme prejudice.
As it happens the items listed above do have something common, apart from just being things the gummint does that Wayne doesn't like. The principles I'm seeing are that the law and the offices of state should not discriminate between groups of people. Operating with the default assumption is that any change in the relative treatment of two groups since, oh, about nine years ago is away from equality.
I think that assumption is wrong. And I'm increasingly agnostic about whether the principle is universally practical and how we would be able to tell when we were following it. It's a bit like "Justice", which is treating people "Fairly": that is, treating everyone equally except for whatever considerations you happen to think are relevant.
One man's equality is another man's discrimination. One woman's blatant special treatment is another woman's inching toward inclusion. Perhaps - here's an idea - we can let the democratic process sort it out.
But all this we've heard before. What's new is the job title. And that's ridiculous.
Calling something 'politically correct' is, at least in the mind of the speaker, as much the end of the debate as accusing something of being - I don't know - 'culturally insensitive' might be for someone else.
But whether some practice should be gotten rid of should always be decided on a case-by-case basis. And the question to ask is not "Is this politically correct or not?" or "Is the culturally sensitive or not?" but "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"
Particularly considering that Dr Mapp's principles of what is PC may not stand universal application, that question is surely best answered by the Minister who has responsibility for whatever the policy being questioned is.
You may as well have a Minister of Being Right. Or - perhaps this is more to the point - a Shadow Minister of Berating the Government.
We'll se, I suppose. In the meantime, I consider the creation of a Shadow Political Correctness Eradication office a gimmicky, politically correct sop.
Don't get me wrong - some of the questions raised above do need to be constantly re-examined. The go to the heart of democracy. I think they do get examined: when Mapp says debate has been shut down I think he's wrong.
Remember that, as in any MMP Parliament, every bill the last government passed was supported by the representatives of a majority of New Zealanders. The Civil Union Act was a private member's bill that passed by members free to vote according to their conscience. How can there not be debate? It's just that one of the things that happen in a free and open debate is that people don't listen to each other and they complain that they don't know what the other's problem is.
Anyway, tyranny of the minority it isn't.
W - as they say - TF?
Had National been elected, we would presumably be forming a Department (surely not a Ministry) of Political Correctness Eradication.
This raises the usual question: what the hell is that supposed to mean? As a rule I find reading "bad stuff" for "political correctness" does not detract from the information conveyed or sentiment expressed in any way. Is that the case here?
I couldn't face the idea of trawling through his old columns for examples. But from a June speech ("The Problem with Political Correctness" - the inaugural Ralph Hannan lecture, which he open rather ironically by praising the titular gentleman for his "reforming zeal") we can gather some idea of what he's on about. Though not enough, I would have thought, to fill out a useful ministerial job description.
PC category one: obviously silly stuff done by the State. Twilight golf. Bovine homeopathy (which a farmer I met reckoned had saved him tens of thousands). Apparently merely calling such things 'bad' might lead to wasteful expenditure of resources to confirm the evaluation. Just call it PC, and out it goes.
Two: Treaty-principle references in legislation. Like a lot of Maori-related issues, I would actually like to see a debate about this involving real arguments not done in sound bites. The problem would seem to be that the Government, while not prepared to abandon those troublesome references, is electorally nervous of conducting a thorough defense.
Three: Special treatment for specific groups. I imagine he means "integrated" religious schools, the institution of marriage and the Brethren's exemption to employment legislation.
Four: Social advocacy by Government agencies, like the Waitangi Tribunal and the Human Right Commission. And, presumably, the commissioners for children and for families, the Department of Women's Affairs. If tinkering with the curriculum had any role in the renaissance of Maori culture, if the State has had any leadership role in make difference acceptable - well that kind of thing stops now.
So the putative Department would presumably be charge with rooting out such things, as well as encouraging agents of the state not to have any regard for what people who are different to us might consider polite or whether the fact that we're mostly hiring white men might somehow be our fault.
Oh, and probably stopping "social engineering" as well. It just struck that, if you look at the meaning of the words, "social engineering" is exactly what the Government always does. It's practically a job description.
I can't help imagine some kind of flying squad, jumping out and eradication political correctness with extreme prejudice.
As it happens the items listed above do have something common, apart from just being things the gummint does that Wayne doesn't like. The principles I'm seeing are that the law and the offices of state should not discriminate between groups of people. Operating with the default assumption is that any change in the relative treatment of two groups since, oh, about nine years ago is away from equality.
I think that assumption is wrong. And I'm increasingly agnostic about whether the principle is universally practical and how we would be able to tell when we were following it. It's a bit like "Justice", which is treating people "Fairly": that is, treating everyone equally except for whatever considerations you happen to think are relevant.
One man's equality is another man's discrimination. One woman's blatant special treatment is another woman's inching toward inclusion. Perhaps - here's an idea - we can let the democratic process sort it out.
But all this we've heard before. What's new is the job title. And that's ridiculous.
Calling something 'politically correct' is, at least in the mind of the speaker, as much the end of the debate as accusing something of being - I don't know - 'culturally insensitive' might be for someone else.
But whether some practice should be gotten rid of should always be decided on a case-by-case basis. And the question to ask is not "Is this politically correct or not?" or "Is the culturally sensitive or not?" but "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"
Particularly considering that Dr Mapp's principles of what is PC may not stand universal application, that question is surely best answered by the Minister who has responsibility for whatever the policy being questioned is.
You may as well have a Minister of Being Right. Or - perhaps this is more to the point - a Shadow Minister of Berating the Government.
We'll se, I suppose. In the meantime, I consider the creation of a Shadow Political Correctness Eradication office a gimmicky, politically correct sop.
Don't get me wrong - some of the questions raised above do need to be constantly re-examined. The go to the heart of democracy. I think they do get examined: when Mapp says debate has been shut down I think he's wrong.
Remember that, as in any MMP Parliament, every bill the last government passed was supported by the representatives of a majority of New Zealanders. The Civil Union Act was a private member's bill that passed by members free to vote according to their conscience. How can there not be debate? It's just that one of the things that happen in a free and open debate is that people don't listen to each other and they complain that they don't know what the other's problem is.
Anyway, tyranny of the minority it isn't.
Hamish McKenzie - so hot right now, London, Ont.
Vote for me
A good-humoured friend from my j-school class has posted this hilarious image on our class blog in an earnest effort to decide, once and for all, who is the hottest guy in j-school. I am more than a little flattered to be given odds of 10-1. My vote for sure would be with the ochre dude though. He was given odds of 437-1. A bit sad considering there are only 15 dudes in our class. But you can read his blog to cheer him up.
A good-humoured friend from my j-school class has posted this hilarious image on our class blog in an earnest effort to decide, once and for all, who is the hottest guy in j-school. I am more than a little flattered to be given odds of 10-1. My vote for sure would be with the ochre dude though. He was given odds of 437-1. A bit sad considering there are only 15 dudes in our class. But you can read his blog to cheer him up.
Holly Walker - Title stealer, Dunedin
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Done Eden
I live in Dunedin. Today, lunching like the lady of leisure that I am now that my Critic gig is over, I got sunburnt. Nothing serious, mind, but enough to signify that the seasons have changed. Yes, Dunedinites are currently enjoying the customary two weeks of glorious weather that the city turns on every year without fail during the University exam period.
It's pretty clever, really. During the first two weeks of the first semester, and the last two weeks of the second, Dunedin is sunny and idyllic, full of scantily-clad first year students frolicking happily. It's cruel for those trying to study, but it serves an important purpose: it ensures that generations of Otago graduates will remember Dunedin as being, sure a little chilly at times, but pretty darn great, because, as we all know, it's the first and last impressions that count. Nevermind that it's cold as all shit all year - give us some sun and we'll forgive all, break out the mini-skirts, jandals, crates in the front yard, and make happy memories of Dunedin to take forth into the world and impart to our friends and family.
It's marketing not even the University could buy - although with all the money they do have, I can't believe they still haven't ditched the ridiculous "Get over it" campaign. It was new when I was a fresher (and, I might add, was almost enough to convince me not to move here) five years ago. When your initial target audience has graduated, it's time to invest in a new campaign. Just don't hire the same marketing guys as the DCC. If I'm over "Get over it", I'm frankly apalled at whatever that "Move to Dunedin" ad set at the airport is supposed to be about. If anyone has any idea what they were getting at, please do let me know. Interestingly, a little bird told me that the DCC actually realised their folly and tried to have the ad pulled, but it was too late. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I just want to know how it ever got as far as it did.
My point? Well, I've been musing on this fair city and its attributes of late, since at the end of the year I am to depart its green pastures (in the footsteps all three other FT bloggers. Coincidence? I think not) for the windy charms of Wellington. And, in weather like this, I know I really will miss it, and will happily perpetrate the idyllic myth to all and sundry. Plus, I saw that I had already been welcomed (in superlative style) by Hamish, and I couldn't think of anything else to blog about.
I live in Dunedin. Today, lunching like the lady of leisure that I am now that my Critic gig is over, I got sunburnt. Nothing serious, mind, but enough to signify that the seasons have changed. Yes, Dunedinites are currently enjoying the customary two weeks of glorious weather that the city turns on every year without fail during the University exam period.
It's pretty clever, really. During the first two weeks of the first semester, and the last two weeks of the second, Dunedin is sunny and idyllic, full of scantily-clad first year students frolicking happily. It's cruel for those trying to study, but it serves an important purpose: it ensures that generations of Otago graduates will remember Dunedin as being, sure a little chilly at times, but pretty darn great, because, as we all know, it's the first and last impressions that count. Nevermind that it's cold as all shit all year - give us some sun and we'll forgive all, break out the mini-skirts, jandals, crates in the front yard, and make happy memories of Dunedin to take forth into the world and impart to our friends and family.
It's marketing not even the University could buy - although with all the money they do have, I can't believe they still haven't ditched the ridiculous "Get over it" campaign. It was new when I was a fresher (and, I might add, was almost enough to convince me not to move here) five years ago. When your initial target audience has graduated, it's time to invest in a new campaign. Just don't hire the same marketing guys as the DCC. If I'm over "Get over it", I'm frankly apalled at whatever that "Move to Dunedin" ad set at the airport is supposed to be about. If anyone has any idea what they were getting at, please do let me know. Interestingly, a little bird told me that the DCC actually realised their folly and tried to have the ad pulled, but it was too late. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I just want to know how it ever got as far as it did.
My point? Well, I've been musing on this fair city and its attributes of late, since at the end of the year I am to depart its green pastures (in the footsteps all three other FT bloggers. Coincidence? I think not) for the windy charms of Wellington. And, in weather like this, I know I really will miss it, and will happily perpetrate the idyllic myth to all and sundry. Plus, I saw that I had already been welcomed (in superlative style) by Hamish, and I couldn't think of anything else to blog about.
Kelly Pendergrast - blogging infrequently, San Diego
Hi Holly!
Thank jeebus we've got another lady on board - more of the XX goodness, more media drama, 1/3 (or is it 1/4) more bloggers than yesterday, and, well, just someone to pick up the slack. My slack.
But I've been busy!
(Ok, actually I just spent the last hour downloading five different cover versions of The Smiths' "Please Let Me Get What I Want").
You know us art students - it's just work work work and no blog.
So I'm breaking the silence with another "I live in America now" style rant, but hell! at least it's not a Gun's 'n' Roses song...
So, since arriving here, I've been revisiting some books that I read as a younger person - things like On the Road and Generation X. These are things I loved reading at the time, but now I can hardly believe they ever meant anything to me, being as totally embedded in American landscapes as they are.
For me, though, all these writings existed before America did. On the Road existed before Route 6 was a reality - Sal Paradise could have been traveling around Timbuktu for all I was concerned. Palm Springs existed because that'’s where they lived in Generation X, New Orleans was invented so A Confederacy of Dunces could have a suitably sticky setting, and Vermont was only there because Captain Beefheart put it in a song.
Of course, when I first read On the Road, I WAS indeed on the road; but trapped with my family in one of an endless succession of muddy campsites, holding the book in one hand, pumping up my parents velour air mattress with the other, creating an imagined geography of America in my head. I was a little bit right and a little bit wrong.
But now I'm here. And I guess it's a real place. Fortunately (if somewhat embarrassingly) I had never read any Joan Didion (another writer of American places) before now, so now I'm reading Play it as it Lays and I get to really feel what she means when she's crazy evangelising about the LA and SoCal freeways. I'’ve been on those freeways too! I've seen the exits and the on-ramps, and I know that those 7-11s are actual places where I could stop and buy soda if the desire struck.
Also, it is now evident to me that California is the most hilarious place in the world - because it seems like a state that was invented in a delirious haze, ecstatic about cars and straining towards some half-arsed idea of utopia. LA to San Diego is a procession of privatised utopias separated by a sea of roadway: Disneyland, Hollywood, Scientology, Sea World, Mormon Temple, Beach, Beach, Beach. The best thing about it is that there's so much space which isn'’t really anywhere - it's the grey in-between of the freeway.
I never thought I'd like like it, but I do.
PS All this and I'm going to a Q and A with David Lynch next week!
Thank jeebus we've got another lady on board - more of the XX goodness, more media drama, 1/3 (or is it 1/4) more bloggers than yesterday, and, well, just someone to pick up the slack. My slack.
But I've been busy!
(Ok, actually I just spent the last hour downloading five different cover versions of The Smiths' "Please Let Me Get What I Want").
You know us art students - it's just work work work and no blog.
So I'm breaking the silence with another "I live in America now" style rant, but hell! at least it's not a Gun's 'n' Roses song...
So, since arriving here, I've been revisiting some books that I read as a younger person - things like On the Road and Generation X. These are things I loved reading at the time, but now I can hardly believe they ever meant anything to me, being as totally embedded in American landscapes as they are.
For me, though, all these writings existed before America did. On the Road existed before Route 6 was a reality - Sal Paradise could have been traveling around Timbuktu for all I was concerned. Palm Springs existed because that'’s where they lived in Generation X, New Orleans was invented so A Confederacy of Dunces could have a suitably sticky setting, and Vermont was only there because Captain Beefheart put it in a song.
Of course, when I first read On the Road, I WAS indeed on the road; but trapped with my family in one of an endless succession of muddy campsites, holding the book in one hand, pumping up my parents velour air mattress with the other, creating an imagined geography of America in my head. I was a little bit right and a little bit wrong.
But now I'm here. And I guess it's a real place. Fortunately (if somewhat embarrassingly) I had never read any Joan Didion (another writer of American places) before now, so now I'm reading Play it as it Lays and I get to really feel what she means when she's crazy evangelising about the LA and SoCal freeways. I'’ve been on those freeways too! I've seen the exits and the on-ramps, and I know that those 7-11s are actual places where I could stop and buy soda if the desire struck.
Also, it is now evident to me that California is the most hilarious place in the world - because it seems like a state that was invented in a delirious haze, ecstatic about cars and straining towards some half-arsed idea of utopia. LA to San Diego is a procession of privatised utopias separated by a sea of roadway: Disneyland, Hollywood, Scientology, Sea World, Mormon Temple, Beach, Beach, Beach. The best thing about it is that there's so much space which isn'’t really anywhere - it's the grey in-between of the freeway.
I never thought I'd like like it, but I do.
PS All this and I'm going to a Q and A with David Lynch next week!
Lyndon Hood - Also Been Ill, Wellington
Recent Hoods:
14 Oct - Coalition Briefs
21 Oct - Election Predictions as of Wednesday, 14 Sept
14 Oct - Coalition Briefs
- Caretakers Applaud Extension of Caretaker Government
- United Future supports stable government by avoiding being in government
- Prebble Actually Being Sarcastic
- Starving feral media packs roaming halls of Parliament
- Brash in surprise coalition with Brethren, Roundtable, Bush
21 Oct - Election Predictions as of Wednesday, 14 Sept
Anonymous poster - not really here
Friday, October 21, 2005
Nobody Home
Fighting Talk is taking a temporary hiatus following some very busy weeks of work.
Sources cited "post-coalition-deal stress" as one reason for the break. There was also speculation that Hamish "couldn't be fucked" posting because he couldn't find time between school assignments, and that Lyndon had found himself a real job. Kelly was rumoured to be in the hurricane-ravaged United States of America and therefore distant from functional technology.
Normal services are expected to resume after the weekend.
Hamish would have been prepared to offer comment, but he wasn't approached.
Fighting Talk is taking a temporary hiatus following some very busy weeks of work.
Sources cited "post-coalition-deal stress" as one reason for the break. There was also speculation that Hamish "couldn't be fucked" posting because he couldn't find time between school assignments, and that Lyndon had found himself a real job. Kelly was rumoured to be in the hurricane-ravaged United States of America and therefore distant from functional technology.
Normal services are expected to resume after the weekend.
Hamish would have been prepared to offer comment, but he wasn't approached.
Hamish McKenzie - updater, London, Ont.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Quick everybody, watch this video. It's a neat compendium of 10 coincidences of bad news for the Bush administration and much-publicised terror alerts. It's the work of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who is apparently one of those rare creatures: an American journalist with a spine. The coincidences raise questions, he says, "questions about what is prudence, and what is fearmongering".
Then, on MSNBC's blog, Olbermann adds three more coincidences, excluded from the television piece for timing reasons.
Then, on MSNBC's blog, Olbermann adds three more coincidences, excluded from the television piece for timing reasons.
Hamish McKenzie - tired, London, Ont.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Insert witty title here
Today I've been to a morning court session, conducted two interviews, written a court report after cobbling together several versions of fellow students' notes, eaten potatoes with cream cheese and sweet chilli sauce for dinner, and written a 1,000-word story from scratch. I was up at 7.30am, and it's now 2.14am.
This is my first breather.
I'd love to post at length about why I think United Future is about to go down the gurgler (they were practically invisible when they supported the government; they'll be even more obscure and less relevant as a three-MP opposition), but that will have to wait for another time. That other time, of course, being never.
I'd also love to speculate on that very queer letter from Lewis Libby to Judy Miller, but I'm going to favour sleep just this once.
And it would delight me no end to finally offer former Fighting Talker and ex-Salient writer Matt Nippert a proper welcome back to the blogosphere he so ignominously shunned back in April. But I'll have to do that later, or settle for this half-arsed effort. I suspect I will favour the latter. Welcome back, Matt. Link to us once in a while?
Finally, a warning to everyone using the Internet: Don't use your credit card online unless you're sure your spyware removers and antivirus software can detect and remove key-stroke recording trojans. It was a mistake that cost me $3,500. Just hoping MasterCard will tell me I don't have to pay it back. Meanwhile, some lucky fucker in Australia is treating himself to a cruise on my credit card debt.
Today I've been to a morning court session, conducted two interviews, written a court report after cobbling together several versions of fellow students' notes, eaten potatoes with cream cheese and sweet chilli sauce for dinner, and written a 1,000-word story from scratch. I was up at 7.30am, and it's now 2.14am.
This is my first breather.
I'd love to post at length about why I think United Future is about to go down the gurgler (they were practically invisible when they supported the government; they'll be even more obscure and less relevant as a three-MP opposition), but that will have to wait for another time. That other time, of course, being never.
I'd also love to speculate on that very queer letter from Lewis Libby to Judy Miller, but I'm going to favour sleep just this once.
And it would delight me no end to finally offer former Fighting Talker and ex-Salient writer Matt Nippert a proper welcome back to the blogosphere he so ignominously shunned back in April. But I'll have to do that later, or settle for this half-arsed effort. I suspect I will favour the latter. Welcome back, Matt. Link to us once in a while?
Finally, a warning to everyone using the Internet: Don't use your credit card online unless you're sure your spyware removers and antivirus software can detect and remove key-stroke recording trojans. It was a mistake that cost me $3,500. Just hoping MasterCard will tell me I don't have to pay it back. Meanwhile, some lucky fucker in Australia is treating himself to a cruise on my credit card debt.
Lyndon Hood - Leeker, Wellington
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
New Hood: New Zealand Conspirators Association Praises Victoria University
If you prefer a piss-take of National's environment policy try this (stop me if you've heard this one): Shane Ardern's solution to Didymo - we should have killed the rivers immediately - hilarious, eh?
This has more wrong with it than I can be assed writing about. Not least, I didn't find anything to suggest it would actually work. I know everything bad is always the government's fault, but is that the best he can come up with?
Presumably his solution to a foot and mouth outbreak would be a nuclear strike. Rather than his leader's suggestion of not telling anyone.
Oh and : While Canterbury celebrates it's Nobel-winning visitor, Massey's exploding trouser man nets New Zealand's first Ig Nobel prize!
If you prefer a piss-take of National's environment policy try this (stop me if you've heard this one): Shane Ardern's solution to Didymo - we should have killed the rivers immediately - hilarious, eh?
This has more wrong with it than I can be assed writing about. Not least, I didn't find anything to suggest it would actually work. I know everything bad is always the government's fault, but is that the best he can come up with?
Presumably his solution to a foot and mouth outbreak would be a nuclear strike. Rather than his leader's suggestion of not telling anyone.
Oh and : While Canterbury celebrates it's Nobel-winning visitor, Massey's exploding trouser man nets New Zealand's first Ig Nobel prize!
Hamish McKenzie - pissing all over the place, London, Ontario
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Another leak from VUW
Just in case you need any more convincing that the outcome of the Salient versus Victoria University case was an out-an-out victory for Salient and a huge embarrassment for the university, take a look at this memo to staff from Vic's Chancellor of Vice.
MEMO STARTS
The following message is dispatched on behalf of the
Vice-Chancellor,
Professor Pat Walsh:
Further to my email on Monday afternoon, the University has now reached an agreement with VUWSA and Salient that will see the return of the documents Salient was not entitled to have, the release of the October 3 issue of Salient, and undertakings as to no further production or use of the material.
I know that many of you will have wondered at the action taken by the University. Although we will not be hearing this matter in court, I wish to explain some of the background to this action.
Victoria University operates in a very open information culture. We rarely use provisions to exclude the public from our meetings, whether that be at Academic Board or University Council. When we do so, the reasons are always provided and are within our legal right to do so.
In the vast majority of cases, exclusion or withholding of information is temporary and disclosure takes place once our governance processes have moved to the next step, or our legal or relationship obligations have been met.
We have a duty to ensure that we can function effectively. If we are placed in the position where a Vice-Chancellor, due to fear of publication, feels unable to provide Council with full information, sound out options or even just float an idea with the
governance body, then we would have a serious question as to whether the University can operate effectively. Protecting the integrity of our governance process is vital. What this court action has demonstrated is the cavalier disregard with which influential members of the student body hold the governance processes of this university, and indeed, the processes of the Court.
For the rest of the memo -- all 669 words -- email hjlmckenzie@yahoo.co.nz.
Just in case you need any more convincing that the outcome of the Salient versus Victoria University case was an out-an-out victory for Salient and a huge embarrassment for the university, take a look at this memo to staff from Vic's Chancellor of Vice.
MEMO STARTS
The following message is dispatched on behalf of the
Vice-Chancellor,
Professor Pat Walsh:
Further to my email on Monday afternoon, the University has now reached an agreement with VUWSA and Salient that will see the return of the documents Salient was not entitled to have, the release of the October 3 issue of Salient, and undertakings as to no further production or use of the material.
I know that many of you will have wondered at the action taken by the University. Although we will not be hearing this matter in court, I wish to explain some of the background to this action.
Victoria University operates in a very open information culture. We rarely use provisions to exclude the public from our meetings, whether that be at Academic Board or University Council. When we do so, the reasons are always provided and are within our legal right to do so.
In the vast majority of cases, exclusion or withholding of information is temporary and disclosure takes place once our governance processes have moved to the next step, or our legal or relationship obligations have been met.
We have a duty to ensure that we can function effectively. If we are placed in the position where a Vice-Chancellor, due to fear of publication, feels unable to provide Council with full information, sound out options or even just float an idea with the
governance body, then we would have a serious question as to whether the University can operate effectively. Protecting the integrity of our governance process is vital. What this court action has demonstrated is the cavalier disregard with which influential members of the student body hold the governance processes of this university, and indeed, the processes of the Court.
For the rest of the memo -- all 669 words -- email hjlmckenzie@yahoo.co.nz.
Lyndon Hood - Happy End, Wellington
Sorces indicate that Salient will be released by about now - they are required to return their leaked document. And, no doubt, to forgive Vic for kidnapping their magazines.
The question of whether the media is only legally allowed to tell you what They Want You To Hear will remain unresolved for the time being.
I was holding off mentioning this, but the documents 'removed' from the web were actually still somewhere. Critic had taken their article down from the archive but it was still available in their technically wizardish 'virtual critic'.
And then there's the wonders of Google's cache, where they were this morning but seem to have gone now.
Also, the ever thoughtful No Right Turn has been providing a kind of clearing house.
Celebrity media lawyer Stephen Price was on Linda Clark's show and helped clarify what Vic thought it was on about. Apparently the media do have to be able to justify it in terms of "legitimate public concern" if they break other people's confidences. This is probably news to journalists.
The risk of bullying via injunction, even by institutions which have a social duty written into their charters, remains.
Oh, and I note that the url for the Critic story had made it as far as today's Capital Times (bit sad it doesn't work anyomre), as well as the relevant pre-injunction-released facts featuring on the TV and radio news and a Bill English press release.
Update: Or maybe not. Apparently, as of the mid-afternoon, all the people who might know where the magazines actually are had gone to ground. What this means is that Vic have effectively lost the magazines they stole. DICKHEADS! UTTER GORMLESS MALICIOUS DICKHEADS! This lapse of collective memory on Vic's part was apparently cured about 5:15 by the application of two TV crews and a Dom Post cameraman. Keep an eye on the news this evening.
One Last Update: Mr Nippert has What They Didn't Want You To Read. He's allowed now. Highlights: Salient knew legal action may have been coming when the put their shit on the ASPA wire. Cheeky without being contemptuous. Also, headlines aside, they cover every option under discussion without sensationalism. And gave truckloads of time to the objection (which effectively qualify the importance of the leak) from the administration. Good journalism, frankly, if about an obscure phase of a dull issue that only students normally care about.
(Oh, and apparently the delay with getting the magazine was at least partly due to them being stored off-site.)
Now, I'm not going to link to Hamish's new post, cos he's a bit of a larrikin to. You find it yourself. If it stays there. Even without it, there's ample evidence some Vice-Chancellors still don't understand where the stable door is.
The question of whether the media is only legally allowed to tell you what They Want You To Hear will remain unresolved for the time being.
I was holding off mentioning this, but the documents 'removed' from the web were actually still somewhere. Critic had taken their article down from the archive but it was still available in their technically wizardish 'virtual critic'.
And then there's the wonders of Google's cache, where they were this morning but seem to have gone now.
Also, the ever thoughtful No Right Turn has been providing a kind of clearing house.
Celebrity media lawyer Stephen Price was on Linda Clark's show and helped clarify what Vic thought it was on about. Apparently the media do have to be able to justify it in terms of "legitimate public concern" if they break other people's confidences. This is probably news to journalists.
The risk of bullying via injunction, even by institutions which have a social duty written into their charters, remains.
Oh, and I note that the url for the Critic story had made it as far as today's Capital Times (bit sad it doesn't work anyomre), as well as the relevant pre-injunction-released facts featuring on the TV and radio news and a Bill English press release.
Update: Or maybe not. Apparently, as of the mid-afternoon, all the people who might know where the magazines actually are had gone to ground. What this means is that Vic have effectively lost the magazines they stole. DICKHEADS! UTTER GORMLESS MALICIOUS DICKHEADS! This lapse of collective memory on Vic's part was apparently cured about 5:15 by the application of two TV crews and a Dom Post cameraman. Keep an eye on the news this evening.
One Last Update: Mr Nippert has What They Didn't Want You To Read. He's allowed now. Highlights: Salient knew legal action may have been coming when the put their shit on the ASPA wire. Cheeky without being contemptuous. Also, headlines aside, they cover every option under discussion without sensationalism. And gave truckloads of time to the objection (which effectively qualify the importance of the leak) from the administration. Good journalism, frankly, if about an obscure phase of a dull issue that only students normally care about.
(Oh, and apparently the delay with getting the magazine was at least partly due to them being stored off-site.)
Now, I'm not going to link to Hamish's new post, cos he's a bit of a larrikin to. You find it yourself. If it stays there. Even without it, there's ample evidence some Vice-Chancellors still don't understand where the stable door is.
Kelly Pendergrast - vagrant, San Diego
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
As the leaders of my abandoned homeland stumble towards some kind of governmental formation, I hear a whispery sigh of relief from antipodean artists, musicians, bums, and Oliver Driver. Because, whether or not spending $500 000 to send et al's installation to Venice was A Good Idea, I am still glad that having Labour back at (or near) the helm will mean some of The Arts will continue to receive some kind of funding.
However imperfect and occasionally ridiculous New Zealand politics and policies may be, the American version is infinitely more ridiculous. I mean, really, who's the governor of California? How much do teachers get paid? How much does rent cost around here? How does the federal government handle a massive crisis?
?
Ok, ok, I know you know all this.
Funny thing is, though, so many of the Americans I meet (even the smart ones) tell me that, despite the badness, they still know how lucky they are to be living in America.
I mean, sure, it's definitely better, or at least easier, than living in Iraq at the moment. But I don't know if I'd consider myself lucky. There's certainly not much in the way of arts funding, that's for sure.
I tell people here that the government gave me money last year to help make my film, and they don't believe me.
Last week I attended a function at the house of an exceedingly rich patron of the arts. This woman has a garage which is actually a gallery full of esteemed contemporary Japanese photograph, and a projector in her guest bathroom that screens Metropolis while you pee. She invites art students from the university to mingle with visiting academics, listen to artist talks, and eat Mexican food and drink liquor served my innumerable waiters. She also has been known to buy artworks off the students. It all made me feel EXCEEDINGLY UNCOMFORTABLE.
Is this how things work in lieu of a government handout? Sucking up to the monied, hoping they'll take a shine to you or your work and fork out some dollars so you can pay rent? I suppose so.
Once again: while the PACE scheme and the workings of Creative New Zealand will always be contentious, at least they don't involve nodding and smiling and eating free enchiladas and drinking free imported beer.
It's a hard life in the US of Aaaaye.
However imperfect and occasionally ridiculous New Zealand politics and policies may be, the American version is infinitely more ridiculous. I mean, really, who's the governor of California? How much do teachers get paid? How much does rent cost around here? How does the federal government handle a massive crisis?
?
Ok, ok, I know you know all this.
Funny thing is, though, so many of the Americans I meet (even the smart ones) tell me that, despite the badness, they still know how lucky they are to be living in America.
I mean, sure, it's definitely better, or at least easier, than living in Iraq at the moment. But I don't know if I'd consider myself lucky. There's certainly not much in the way of arts funding, that's for sure.
I tell people here that the government gave me money last year to help make my film, and they don't believe me.
Last week I attended a function at the house of an exceedingly rich patron of the arts. This woman has a garage which is actually a gallery full of esteemed contemporary Japanese photograph, and a projector in her guest bathroom that screens Metropolis while you pee. She invites art students from the university to mingle with visiting academics, listen to artist talks, and eat Mexican food and drink liquor served my innumerable waiters. She also has been known to buy artworks off the students. It all made me feel EXCEEDINGLY UNCOMFORTABLE.
Is this how things work in lieu of a government handout? Sucking up to the monied, hoping they'll take a shine to you or your work and fork out some dollars so you can pay rent? I suppose so.
Once again: while the PACE scheme and the workings of Creative New Zealand will always be contentious, at least they don't involve nodding and smiling and eating free enchiladas and drinking free imported beer.
It's a hard life in the US of Aaaaye.
Lyndon Hood - Ex-Technical Editor, Lower Hutt
Monday, October 03, 2005
[UPDATE (5:30 4 Oct): 1) The Critic story and Salient's press release seem to be gone from the web. 2) On the bright side, Keith Ng's original post is stil there, along with the story of what happened when Victoria found out about ASPA, involving a pre-expired ultimatum threatening action against all the other ASPA papers. 1) may or may not have something to do with 2). If this is negotiation, I'm sure as hell ain't breaking out the free-speech champagne.
{UPDATE UPDATE (7:30): For those of you who - still - don't know what it says, Mr Matt Nippert, who is not in New Zealand, had the forsight to save his own copy of the Critic piece here. My regular hard copy arrived in the mail this arvo. Pics, anyone?
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE (8am, 5 Oct): Or not. Nippert has a certain level of explaination. So far, the "lull in hostilities" seems to consist of the good guys caving. You know, if Vic hadn't physically abducted Salient's magazine, they could have torn out the offending pages by now.} ]
[ENDS (4:15, 5 Oct): The story more or less concludes...]
The full results for the student media awards are available on Scoop. I suspect I could have used my admin access to put this directly into Hamish's post, but that would have set an alarming precident.
Speaking of which...
Poor dears. Straight after coming second to Critic, there's this.
Victoria has and will continue to embarrass itself by trying to silence Salient. Even if they win. Particularly given the circumstances, it's just drawing about a gagillion percent extra attention onto the facts it was trying to hide.
Critic and conscience indeed.
What gets me is that their (still only interim) injuction against publication has been upheld. Never mind that the university has also taken it upon itself to enforce the order by basically stealing Salient's magazines. I can't understand how they got the injunction in the first place.
I mean, I know that if the the article were released it's not like it could be taken back. But surely before a judge does something like holding back a magazine for almost the whole of its production cycle, the complainant has to show they have a leg to stand on?
What I'm hoping is that it was because the case actually is unprecidented. That nobody has before has the combination of opportunity and gall to try to stop a media organisation publishing leaked material. I'm hoping this because that would make all this more likely to be a one-off, and because the other possiblity is that judge sees some merit in their case.
All I've seen from Vic's side was on Stuff:
As for being "not entitled" to have documents: what her argument - and any argument in Vic case - must surely boil down to is that it is illegal for media to publish leaked information.
Because if ever there was a leak with a right to be published it's this one.
If it's a question of weighing public interest against damage done: we have information that is of keen personal interest to Salient's readership and some significance to the entire country - tertiary policy was an election issue, after all. What damage does the release of this information do to Victoria? It embarrasses them.
And it's not all that secret. Universities (and presumably the TEC) come under the Official Information Act, so all this stuff is in principle public information. Victoria might be expected to claim commercial sensitivity at this point, but if the did that they would be talking ass.
And if Salient shouldn't have it, that's not Salient's problem. Salient, I'm guessing, never signed any confidentiality agreements with the University. Even if it were supposed to be secret, Salient has no duty to conceal it. The person who leaked it may have done, and if they're caught they will no doubt be punished. But if it's news, and it's true, and it's important, Salient has a positive duty to run it. Leaks should be plugged at the source, not at the media level.
I'm pretty sure the above is fundimentally a freedom of expression issue.
And of course, by the time the actual case swings around everyone will know that Vic is proposing 5 to 10 per cent across the board fee increases. Because before Salient was injuncted, Salient told the Aotearoa Student Press Association a number of those magazines also ran the story. To choose a random example, Critic's version is online. It seems Vic's lawyers left this contingency out of their injunction. Someone just needs a URL and a photocopier to render the whole case moot.
The leaking of confidential documents is - at least in a real democracy - an accepted and vital part of the media process. It is one of the last defenses society has against corrupt, duplicitous or merely sneaky practise. And if the media can't use this leak, there is no leak the media can use.
Big media might do well to offer Salient support if they need it, because if this stands - if even the likehood similar injunctions remains, it will be bad for what's good about the media.
I don't think it will stand. But then, I didn't think the injunction would stand. And I didn't think TV3 would lose over who they put on their own election debate. What that judge is generally though to have been getting at was that the media, in some specific and significant circumstances, has particular obligations that the court can enforce. And kind of fair and quite satisfying it was at the time too.
What that also amounts to is the assertion that the media is not free. But we knew that already; there's plenty of stuff - defamation for example - that it's illegal to say. It also suggested that the media was actually less free than the average person, and was restricted in a new way nobody had previously thought of.
I wasn't rejoicing to hard at the time, pleased as I was in fact but not in principle. It's characteristic of the thin end of wedges that they are thin.
So given that that judge is the same chappie who is presiding over Salient's case, I worry.
In other student media news, Critic's offensive issue is now before the Censor's office. The article in question does seem to have done more of drink spiking awareness than practically anything ever, which should support the Critic crew's argument.
Anyhow, in the event that the censor finds against them - there's about three tests in the law, I forget the details - I think it's a fine and/or jail, plus - just take a moment to imagine this - everyone with a copy of Critic 23, 2005 could be charged with posessing an objectionable publication.
Those top-flight student magazines. Larikins both.
{UPDATE UPDATE (7:30): For those of you who - still - don't know what it says, Mr Matt Nippert, who is not in New Zealand, had the forsight to save his own copy of the Critic piece here. My regular hard copy arrived in the mail this arvo. Pics, anyone?
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE (8am, 5 Oct): Or not. Nippert has a certain level of explaination. So far, the "lull in hostilities" seems to consist of the good guys caving. You know, if Vic hadn't physically abducted Salient's magazine, they could have torn out the offending pages by now.} ]
[ENDS (4:15, 5 Oct): The story more or less concludes...]
The full results for the student media awards are available on Scoop. I suspect I could have used my admin access to put this directly into Hamish's post, but that would have set an alarming precident.
Speaking of which...
Poor dears. Straight after coming second to Critic, there's this.
Victoria has and will continue to embarrass itself by trying to silence Salient. Even if they win. Particularly given the circumstances, it's just drawing about a gagillion percent extra attention onto the facts it was trying to hide.
Critic and conscience indeed.
What gets me is that their (still only interim) injuction against publication has been upheld. Never mind that the university has also taken it upon itself to enforce the order by basically stealing Salient's magazines. I can't understand how they got the injunction in the first place.
I mean, I know that if the the article were released it's not like it could be taken back. But surely before a judge does something like holding back a magazine for almost the whole of its production cycle, the complainant has to show they have a leg to stand on?
What I'm hoping is that it was because the case actually is unprecidented. That nobody has before has the combination of opportunity and gall to try to stop a media organisation publishing leaked material. I'm hoping this because that would make all this more likely to be a one-off, and because the other possiblity is that judge sees some merit in their case.
All I've seen from Vic's side was on Stuff:
[Vic spokewoman] Ms Urlich said the university was forced to take out the injunction because Salient "had documents they were not entitled to have in their possession".As far as the integrity of government processes goes, I'm sure the Tertiary Education Commission can make its decision without being unduly influenced by what Salient thinks.
"Unfortunately, we were unable to secure the return of those documents and Salient was determined to publish information from those documents."
The university had a "strong obligation" to protect the integrity of government processes.
As for being "not entitled" to have documents: what her argument - and any argument in Vic case - must surely boil down to is that it is illegal for media to publish leaked information.
Because if ever there was a leak with a right to be published it's this one.
If it's a question of weighing public interest against damage done: we have information that is of keen personal interest to Salient's readership and some significance to the entire country - tertiary policy was an election issue, after all. What damage does the release of this information do to Victoria? It embarrasses them.
And it's not all that secret. Universities (and presumably the TEC) come under the Official Information Act, so all this stuff is in principle public information. Victoria might be expected to claim commercial sensitivity at this point, but if the did that they would be talking ass.
And if Salient shouldn't have it, that's not Salient's problem. Salient, I'm guessing, never signed any confidentiality agreements with the University. Even if it were supposed to be secret, Salient has no duty to conceal it. The person who leaked it may have done, and if they're caught they will no doubt be punished. But if it's news, and it's true, and it's important, Salient has a positive duty to run it. Leaks should be plugged at the source, not at the media level.
I'm pretty sure the above is fundimentally a freedom of expression issue.
And of course, by the time the actual case swings around everyone will know that Vic is proposing 5 to 10 per cent across the board fee increases. Because before Salient was injuncted, Salient told the Aotearoa Student Press Association a number of those magazines also ran the story. To choose a random example, Critic's version is online. It seems Vic's lawyers left this contingency out of their injunction. Someone just needs a URL and a photocopier to render the whole case moot.
The leaking of confidential documents is - at least in a real democracy - an accepted and vital part of the media process. It is one of the last defenses society has against corrupt, duplicitous or merely sneaky practise. And if the media can't use this leak, there is no leak the media can use.
Big media might do well to offer Salient support if they need it, because if this stands - if even the likehood similar injunctions remains, it will be bad for what's good about the media.
I don't think it will stand. But then, I didn't think the injunction would stand. And I didn't think TV3 would lose over who they put on their own election debate. What that judge is generally though to have been getting at was that the media, in some specific and significant circumstances, has particular obligations that the court can enforce. And kind of fair and quite satisfying it was at the time too.
What that also amounts to is the assertion that the media is not free. But we knew that already; there's plenty of stuff - defamation for example - that it's illegal to say. It also suggested that the media was actually less free than the average person, and was restricted in a new way nobody had previously thought of.
I wasn't rejoicing to hard at the time, pleased as I was in fact but not in principle. It's characteristic of the thin end of wedges that they are thin.
So given that that judge is the same chappie who is presiding over Salient's case, I worry.
In other student media news, Critic's offensive issue is now before the Censor's office. The article in question does seem to have done more of drink spiking awareness than practically anything ever, which should support the Critic crew's argument.
Anyhow, in the event that the censor finds against them - there's about three tests in the law, I forget the details - I think it's a fine and/or jail, plus - just take a moment to imagine this - everyone with a copy of Critic 23, 2005 could be charged with posessing an objectionable publication.
Those top-flight student magazines. Larikins both.
Hamish McKenzie - bankrupt, London, Ontario
Full list of ASPA winners and other guff
Ben Thomas, cured of his hangover, has kindly furnished me with the full gamut of ASPA award winners from Saturday night. Please note: I made a couple of mistakes in my last post. The results listed below are final and official -- at least until I find out otherwise. Oh yeah, and the ASPA Awards are held in association with the New Zealand Listener.
In the meantime, a short word (not "wombat") on VUW's injunction against Salient. No, actually, I'm going to make it a few words, and a mix between long and short. Here they are: blatant and unfair intimidation. God forbid that for once students actually be given advance notice of a university's attempt to once again hike fees (Critic has the story here). Universities routinely wait until students are embroiled in exams or have left for the year before deciding on fee increases. It's about time they were held to account by their major stakeholders: the students.
For VUW to attempt to muzzle a humble little student newspaper reeks of bully-in-the-playground stuff. Can you imagine them attempting such a move against the Dom Post or the Herald?
The lovely thing is, because of this cowardly injunction (come on VUW, if your figures are defensible, defend them to the people they'll be affecting the most), the issue has got national media play, when before it would likely have been confined to the 80gsm matt pages of a low-circulation student rag.
Another good thing is that it's more exposure for student media, which is having a banger of a year.
It was also nice to see overwhelming support for Critic, vis a vis the drug-rape article, in this week's letters pages.
And now for the results...
Best Cartoonist
1. Colin Andrews, Critic
2. James Squires, Canta; Roy Cunningham, Nexus
Best Reviewer
1. Aaron Hawkins, Critic
2. Gareth Heta, Canta
3. Rob Hay, Magneto
Best Cover
1. Craccum
2. Critic
3. Salient
Best Education Writer
1. Megan McKechnie, In Unison
2. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
3. Chris Leggett, Sattelite
Best Maori Content
1. Critic
Best News Writer (Volunteer)
1. Nicola Kean, Salient
2. Kate Wright, Magneto; Chris Grala, Craccum
Best News Writer (Paid)
1. Kate Newton, Critic
2. Keith Ng, Salient
3. Cushla Thompson, Canta
Best Sports Writer
1. Nick Holm, Chaff
2. William Fussey, Canta; Lucy Smith, Nexus
Best Columnist
1. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
2. Georgia Jamieson Emms, Salient; Nick Gibb, Chaff
Best Humour Content
1. Geoff Brischke, Salient
2. Ryan Sproull and Chris Grala, Craccum
3. Dean Kilbride, Canta
Best Feature
1. Erica Chellis, Magneto
2. Dawn Tuffey, Nexus; Toby Turner, Craccum
Best Feature Writer
1. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
2. Ryan Brown-Haysom, Critic; Nick Holm, Chaff
Best Editorial Writer
1. Holly Walker, Critic
2. Emily Braunstein, Salient
3. Stian Overdahl, Craccum
Best Designed Publication
1. Critic
2. In Unison
3. Craccum
Best Small Publication
1. Debate
2. Magneto
3. Satellite; In Unison
Best Publication
1. Critic
2. Salient
3. Critic
Great to see a good spread of results, and smaller publications like In Unison, Magneto and Satellite featuring amongst the winners. And Alec Hutchinson from Craccum must be congratulated for an excellent personal haul.
Here's where each of the mentioned publications are from:
Critic: Otago University
Salient: Victoria University
Craccum: Auckland University
Chaff: Massey University (PN)
Nexus: Waikato University
Canta: Canterbury University
Debate: Auckland University of Technology
In Unison: Auckland Unitech
Magneto: Massey University, Wellington Campus
Satellite: Massey University, Albany Campus
The distinguished judges were: Russell Brown, David Young, Patrick Crewdson, Selwyn Manning, Steve Braunias, Ant Sang, Lyndon Hood, Elliot "Askew" O'Donnell, Ed Mason, Michael Appleton, Denis Welch, David Cohen, Alistair Bone, Nicki Burrows, Wayne Hope, Ant Hiron, Tim Watkin, Damian Christie, Raybon Kan, Simon Pound, Tapu Misa, Chris Trotter, Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury, Clark Gayford, Peter Malcouronne, Amy Hamilton, Jon Stephenson, Noelle McCarthy, Simon Collins, Nicky Hager, Corin Lill, Laura Barnsley, Zoe Linsell, Nadine Metzger, Tze Ming Mok, Leah Haines, Jenny Nicholls, Delaney Tabron, Desna Jury, Olivia Kember, James Cardno, Scott Kara, Chris Knox, Richard Scholes, and Malcolm Evans.
Ben Thomas, cured of his hangover, has kindly furnished me with the full gamut of ASPA award winners from Saturday night. Please note: I made a couple of mistakes in my last post. The results listed below are final and official -- at least until I find out otherwise. Oh yeah, and the ASPA Awards are held in association with the New Zealand Listener.
In the meantime, a short word (not "wombat") on VUW's injunction against Salient. No, actually, I'm going to make it a few words, and a mix between long and short. Here they are: blatant and unfair intimidation. God forbid that for once students actually be given advance notice of a university's attempt to once again hike fees (Critic has the story here). Universities routinely wait until students are embroiled in exams or have left for the year before deciding on fee increases. It's about time they were held to account by their major stakeholders: the students.
For VUW to attempt to muzzle a humble little student newspaper reeks of bully-in-the-playground stuff. Can you imagine them attempting such a move against the Dom Post or the Herald?
The lovely thing is, because of this cowardly injunction (come on VUW, if your figures are defensible, defend them to the people they'll be affecting the most), the issue has got national media play, when before it would likely have been confined to the 80gsm matt pages of a low-circulation student rag.
Another good thing is that it's more exposure for student media, which is having a banger of a year.
It was also nice to see overwhelming support for Critic, vis a vis the drug-rape article, in this week's letters pages.
And now for the results...
Best Cartoonist
1. Colin Andrews, Critic
2. James Squires, Canta; Roy Cunningham, Nexus
Best Reviewer
1. Aaron Hawkins, Critic
2. Gareth Heta, Canta
3. Rob Hay, Magneto
Best Cover
1. Craccum
2. Critic
3. Salient
Best Education Writer
1. Megan McKechnie, In Unison
2. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
3. Chris Leggett, Sattelite
Best Maori Content
1. Critic
Best News Writer (Volunteer)
1. Nicola Kean, Salient
2. Kate Wright, Magneto; Chris Grala, Craccum
Best News Writer (Paid)
1. Kate Newton, Critic
2. Keith Ng, Salient
3. Cushla Thompson, Canta
Best Sports Writer
1. Nick Holm, Chaff
2. William Fussey, Canta; Lucy Smith, Nexus
Best Columnist
1. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
2. Georgia Jamieson Emms, Salient; Nick Gibb, Chaff
Best Humour Content
1. Geoff Brischke, Salient
2. Ryan Sproull and Chris Grala, Craccum
3. Dean Kilbride, Canta
Best Feature
1. Erica Chellis, Magneto
2. Dawn Tuffey, Nexus; Toby Turner, Craccum
Best Feature Writer
1. Alec Hutchinson, Craccum
2. Ryan Brown-Haysom, Critic; Nick Holm, Chaff
Best Editorial Writer
1. Holly Walker, Critic
2. Emily Braunstein, Salient
3. Stian Overdahl, Craccum
Best Designed Publication
1. Critic
2. In Unison
3. Craccum
Best Small Publication
1. Debate
2. Magneto
3. Satellite; In Unison
Best Publication
1. Critic
2. Salient
3. Critic
Great to see a good spread of results, and smaller publications like In Unison, Magneto and Satellite featuring amongst the winners. And Alec Hutchinson from Craccum must be congratulated for an excellent personal haul.
Here's where each of the mentioned publications are from:
Critic: Otago University
Salient: Victoria University
Craccum: Auckland University
Chaff: Massey University (PN)
Nexus: Waikato University
Canta: Canterbury University
Debate: Auckland University of Technology
In Unison: Auckland Unitech
Magneto: Massey University, Wellington Campus
Satellite: Massey University, Albany Campus
The distinguished judges were: Russell Brown, David Young, Patrick Crewdson, Selwyn Manning, Steve Braunias, Ant Sang, Lyndon Hood, Elliot "Askew" O'Donnell, Ed Mason, Michael Appleton, Denis Welch, David Cohen, Alistair Bone, Nicki Burrows, Wayne Hope, Ant Hiron, Tim Watkin, Damian Christie, Raybon Kan, Simon Pound, Tapu Misa, Chris Trotter, Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury, Clark Gayford, Peter Malcouronne, Amy Hamilton, Jon Stephenson, Noelle McCarthy, Simon Collins, Nicky Hager, Corin Lill, Laura Barnsley, Zoe Linsell, Nadine Metzger, Tze Ming Mok, Leah Haines, Jenny Nicholls, Delaney Tabron, Desna Jury, Olivia Kember, James Cardno, Scott Kara, Chris Knox, Richard Scholes, and Malcolm Evans.
Hamish McKenzie - erstwhile editor, London, Ontario
Sunday, October 02, 2005
ASPA Awards
Hearty congratulations to Critic for cleaning up at the ASPA Awards (NZ student press awards) in Auckland last night. (No, that doesn't mean the Critic team attended to the sweeping of rubbish and washing of dishes after the boozy ceremony.) Winners of Best Publication, Best Design, Best Editorials, Best News Writer, Best Reviewer, Best Maori Content, and Best Comics. A sterling effort and fully deserved, particularly in light of recent scandal over the drug-rape article. Nice to see the good guys get one up on Salient, too, although I gather they did quite well, as did Auckland University's Craccum.
Anyway, to everyone at Critic: Smashing job, guys. Bloody good stuff.
Apparently Mary Lambie, MC for the night, did much to remind the crowd of editor Holly Walker's supposed endorsement of rape. "Watch your drinks everyone," she said, "Holly Walker's here". Or words to that effect.
I'd like to be able to present a full list of winners, but unfortunately they're yet to be officially released. That's a nice way of saying Ben Thomas, the awards organiser, didn't email them to me. So, here's the Critic honours roll, which I gleaned from Holly over the phone while her and the kids were celebrating in appropriate style at a seedy karaoke joint. (I've linked to a sample of each winner's work.)
Best Publication: Critic
Best Design: Critic
Best Editorial: Holly Walker
Best News Writer: Kate Newton (Last year's winner, Keith Ng, was second)
Best Reviewer: Aaron Hawkins
Best Comics: Colin Andrews
Best Maori Content: Critic
Second place, Features Writer: Ryan Brown-Haysom
Hearty congratulations to Critic for cleaning up at the ASPA Awards (NZ student press awards) in Auckland last night. (No, that doesn't mean the Critic team attended to the sweeping of rubbish and washing of dishes after the boozy ceremony.) Winners of Best Publication, Best Design, Best Editorials, Best News Writer, Best Reviewer, Best Maori Content, and Best Comics. A sterling effort and fully deserved, particularly in light of recent scandal over the drug-rape article. Nice to see the good guys get one up on Salient, too, although I gather they did quite well, as did Auckland University's Craccum.
Anyway, to everyone at Critic: Smashing job, guys. Bloody good stuff.
Apparently Mary Lambie, MC for the night, did much to remind the crowd of editor Holly Walker's supposed endorsement of rape. "Watch your drinks everyone," she said, "Holly Walker's here". Or words to that effect.
I'd like to be able to present a full list of winners, but unfortunately they're yet to be officially released. That's a nice way of saying Ben Thomas, the awards organiser, didn't email them to me. So, here's the Critic honours roll, which I gleaned from Holly over the phone while her and the kids were celebrating in appropriate style at a seedy karaoke joint. (I've linked to a sample of each winner's work.)
Best Publication: Critic
Best Design: Critic
Best Editorial: Holly Walker
Best News Writer: Kate Newton (Last year's winner, Keith Ng, was second)
Best Reviewer: Aaron Hawkins
Best Comics: Colin Andrews
Best Maori Content: Critic
Second place, Features Writer: Ryan Brown-Haysom
