Kim Hill's demolition of Shawcross: printed transcript available?
79 posts by 21 authors
 |
 |
Did anyone else hear Kim Hill reduce that pompous liar William Shawcross into a blithering heap of incoherent anger this morning?
I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
Click here to Reply
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0404301822.
> Did anyone else hear Kim Hill reduce that pompous liar William
> Shawcross into a blithering heap of incoherent anger this morning?
>
> I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
I wonder if we heard the same programme? I heard him, quite justifiably,
rubbish the woman for her crass rudeness. She was the one demolished.
rubbish the woman for her crass rudeness. She was the one demolished.
R
|
On 30 Apr 2004 19:22:36 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
- show quoted text -
I heard Kim try to give him a hard time. When she said "Saddam
committed his worst atrocities with the sanction of the US government"
he bit back sharply, and good on him. He couldn't believe what he was
hearing; he obviously doesn't listen to NatRad much..
committed his worst atrocities with the sanction of the US government"
he bit back sharply, and good on him. He couldn't believe what he was
hearing; he obviously doesn't listen to NatRad much..
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
> I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
Newmonitor does printed transcripts, but I don't think that they're cheap.
|
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
news:
- show quoted text -
Shawcross obviously does not believe in telling the truth, either -
obviously :
obviously :
"Rumsfeld, as Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East,
visited Iraq in 1983 and 1984 to establish firmer relations with Saddam (at
the same time the administration was criticizing Iraq for using chemical
weapons).
visited Iraq in 1983 and 1984 to establish firmer relations with Saddam (at
the same time the administration was criticizing Iraq for using chemical
weapons).
Powell was Bush I's national security adviser from December,
1987, to January, 1989, and a few months later became chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
1987, to January, 1989, and a few months later became chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
Cheney was Bush I's defense secretary.
Thus, Powell and Cheney were in top decision-making positions
for the period of Saddam's worst atrocities, the massacre and gassing of the
Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991 that might
have overthrown him.
for the period of Saddam's worst atrocities, the massacre and gassing of the
Kurds in 1988 and the crushing of the Shiite rebellion in 1991 that might
have overthrown him.
Today, under Bush II, Powell, Cheney and others constantly bring
up those atrocities to justify beating the devil - rightly, though the
crucial element of U.S. support of Saddam during this period is missing.
up those atrocities to justify beating the devil - rightly, though the
crucial element of U.S. support of Saddam during this period is missing.
In October, 1989, Bush I issued a national security directive,
declaring that "normal relations between the United States and Iraq would
serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and
the Middle East."
declaring that "normal relations between the United States and Iraq would
serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and
the Middle East."
The United States offered subsidized food supplies that Saddam's
regime badly needed, along with advanced technology and biological agents
adaptable to weapons of mass destruction.... for more
http://www.commondreams.org/
regime badly needed, along with advanced technology and biological agents
adaptable to weapons of mass destruction.... for more
http://www.commondreams.org/
"Five years before Sadddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of
the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a
significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and
Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to
have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved
the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and
the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched
his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad
with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and
a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume
diplomatic relations.That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the
highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6years. He met Saddam
and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to
the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.
highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6years. He met Saddam
and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to
the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.
"[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making
mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times.
"It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were
interested in solving the Mideast problems." Just 12 days after
the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that
the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly
Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war
with Iran would be'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several
moves to prevent that result." In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq
war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad
for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.On the
day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations:
"Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian
soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq,
a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi
capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held
talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before
leaving for an unspecified destination." The day before, the Iranian
news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons
assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers.
"Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in
the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report
said. "The types of chemical agents used were
bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide,
also known as mustard gas, and ethyl
N,N-
a nerve agent knownas Tabun."Prior to the release of the UN report,
the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying
"available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical
weapons." Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane
J.Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times assaying, "We think
that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've
made that clear in general and particular." Compared with the
rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on
speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction
was hardly a call to action.Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld
was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about
the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department
"evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from
Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves
satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and
suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but
name." A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld
resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations
between Iraq and the US were fully restored.Two years later, in an
article about Rumsfeld'saspirations to run for the 1988 Republican
Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among
Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with
Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time
when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using
chemical weapons.Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's
Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from
American firms, empowered by the White House to sell.
mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times.
"It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were
interested in solving the Mideast problems." Just 12 days after
the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that
the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly
Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war
with Iran would be'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several
moves to prevent that result." In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq
war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad
for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.On the
day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations:
"Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian
soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq,
a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi
capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held
talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before
leaving for an unspecified destination." The day before, the Iranian
news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons
assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers.
"Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in
the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report
said. "The types of chemical agents used were
bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide,
also known as mustard gas, and ethyl
N,N-
a nerve agent knownas Tabun."Prior to the release of the UN report,
the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying
"available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical
weapons." Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane
J.Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times assaying, "We think
that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've
made that clear in general and particular." Compared with the
rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on
speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction
was hardly a call to action.Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld
was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about
the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department
"evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from
Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves
satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and
suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but
name." A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld
resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations
between Iraq and the US were fully restored.Two years later, in an
article about Rumsfeld'saspirations to run for the 1988 Republican
Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among
Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with
Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time
when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using
chemical weapons.Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's
Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from
American firms, empowered by the White House to sell.
The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from
the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a
February13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article: "First on Hussein's
shopping list was helicopters-he bought 60 Hughes helicopters
and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10
twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat
troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August,
1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved." In 1984, according to
The LA Times, the State Departmentin the name of "increased American
penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft
market"pusheed through the sale of 45 Bell214ST helicopters to
Iraq. The helicopters, worth some$200 million, were originally
designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported
that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters]
to his military." In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians
with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S.
intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that
the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly
bombs." In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were
unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq
access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White
House. Senior officials later told reporters they did not press
for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up
Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research
uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing
even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical
weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he
appeared on an ABC news special.Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld
signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him
to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to
"provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world
from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that
he refuses to relinquish." In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position
to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was
in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used
against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the
State Department that it had bavailable evidenceb Iraq was using
chemical weapons.But Rumsfeld said nothing.Washington now speaks
of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite
the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred
of concrete proof that Iraq has links to AlQaeda or has resumed
production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that
"the absenceof evidence is not evidence of absence." But there is
evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very
moment when Iraq'salleged threat to international security first
emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed
evidence.
the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a
February13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article: "First on Hussein's
shopping list was helicopters-he bought 60 Hughes helicopters
and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10
twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat
troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August,
1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved." In 1984, according to
The LA Times, the State Departmentin the name of "increased American
penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft
market"pusheed through the sale of 45 Bell214ST helicopters to
Iraq. The helicopters, worth some$200 million, were originally
designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported
that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters]
to his military." In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians
with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S.
intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that
the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly
bombs." In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were
unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq
access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White
House. Senior officials later told reporters they did not press
for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up
Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research
uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing
even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical
weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he
appeared on an ABC news special.Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld
signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him
to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to
"provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world
from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that
he refuses to relinquish." In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position
to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was
in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used
against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the
State Department that it had bavailable evidenceb Iraq was using
chemical weapons.But Rumsfeld said nothing.Washington now speaks
of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite
the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred
of concrete proof that Iraq has links to AlQaeda or has resumed
production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that
"the absenceof evidence is not evidence of absence." But there is
evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very
moment when Iraq'salleged threat to international security first
emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed
evidence.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Think $50 a page or so.
DPF
--
David Farrar
e-mail: da...@farrar.com
blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nzs
msn: dpf...@hotmail.com
icq: 29964527
David Farrar
e-mail: da...@farrar.com
blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nzs
msn: dpf...@hotmail.com
icq: 29964527
|
"DPF" <da...@farrar.com> wrote
> On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:58:05 +1200, in nz.general "Nik Coughin"
> >Morrissey Breen wrote:
> >> I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
> >Newmonitor does printed transcripts, but I don't think that they're
cheap.
cheap.
> Think $50 a page or so.
Would probably be cheaper to get it from Replay Radio and do the transcript
himself...
himself...
|
You can at least listen to it again here at:
http://xtra.co.nz/broadband/0,
cheers
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0404301822.
http://xtra.co.nz/broadband/0,
cheers
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0404301822.
- show quoted text -
|
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:<c6v0uf$5ga$1...@news.wave.
- show quoted text -
Is there any other kind of rudeness?
>
> She was the one demolished.
> She was the one demolished.
Maybe you were drunk. Shawcross became incandescent with anger when
Hill pointed out that America had supported Iraq when it was
committing its worst atrocities against Iran and against its own
Kurdish people.
Hill pointed out that America had supported Iraq when it was
committing its worst atrocities against Iran and against its own
Kurdish people.
"I did NOT say that!" he shouted. " Come on, you're absolutely - this
is an ABSURD interview if you want to say that! - I did NOT say that!
I did not say that!"
is an ABSURD interview if you want to say that! - I did NOT say that!
I did not say that!"
Of course, he HAD said that. Hill was quoting his own words against
him.
him.
But you go ahead and insist that interviewers defer to liars, and
remain polite in the face of unctuous apologists for the Coalition of
the Killing.
remain polite in the face of unctuous apologists for the Coalition of
the Killing.
The rest of us want these scum to be accountable for their words.
|
Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<5s2690lhlp0bt79ho0sr7o50
> On 30 Apr 2004 19:22:36 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
> Breen) wrote:
>
> >Did anyone else hear Kim Hill reduce that pompous liar William
> >Shawcross into a blithering heap of incoherent anger this morning?
> >
> >I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
>
> I heard Kim try to give him a hard time.
> Breen) wrote:
>
> >Did anyone else hear Kim Hill reduce that pompous liar William
> >Shawcross into a blithering heap of incoherent anger this morning?
> >
> >I wonder if it is possible to get hold of a printed transcript?
>
> I heard Kim try to give him a hard time.
"Try to give him a hard time"? That's her JOB. She's an interviewer.
Perhaps you want our broadcasters to be PR spokesmen for the Bush
administration, like their timid American counterparts. And William
Shawcross.
Perhaps you want our broadcasters to be PR spokesmen for the Bush
administration, like their timid American counterparts. And William
Shawcross.
>
> When she said "Saddam
> committed his worst atrocities with the sanction of the US government"
> he bit back sharply, and good on him.
> When she said "Saddam
> committed his worst atrocities with the sanction of the US government"
> he bit back sharply, and good on him.
"Good on him"?!!???!?!? He was lying.
>
> He couldn't believe what he was hearing;
> He couldn't believe what he was hearing;
Yes, he obviously doesn't talk to many intelligent, or tenacious
interviewers. Hill had read all of his books, and did not have to
ignorantly sit there as Shawcross blithered about "Islamic holy war"
and "a poll that showed most Iraqis support the Americans". He
thought he could intimidate her with his patrician aloofness and his
coolness. He failed.
interviewers. Hill had read all of his books, and did not have to
ignorantly sit there as Shawcross blithered about "Islamic holy war"
and "a poll that showed most Iraqis support the Americans". He
thought he could intimidate her with his patrician aloofness and his
coolness. He failed.
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 17:22:06 +1200, Enkidu <enk...@xyzcliffpxyz.com>
wrote:
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Er - what are you on about, Cliff? Or should I leave off the "about"?
|
- show quoted text -
You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no significant WMD in the
1980s but Saddam did.. and he used them, or was he just delousing the
Iranians and Kurdish population with pesticide?
1980s but Saddam did.. and he used them, or was he just delousing the
Iranians and Kurdish population with pesticide?
What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
JC
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British model."
Cheers,
Cliff
|
Re: ON Kerry and the Greens Re: Kim Hill's demolition of Shawcross: printed transcript available?
"Redbaiter" <nodamn@mail.thanks> wrote in message snip>
> Hanoi Johnny is fucked...
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/
NewsMax ..the paranoid and crazed far right rag that has been shown to be
full of it so many times (including promoting dubious investment schemes),
has not a shred of credibility.
>
>
> > > --
> > > Redbaiter
> > > In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
> > >
> > > "it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
> > > freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
> > > punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
> > > challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
> "it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
> freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
> punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
> challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
full of it so many times (including promoting dubious investment schemes),
has not a shred of credibility.
>
>
> > > --
> > > Redbaiter
> > > In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
> > >
> > > "it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
> > > freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
> > > punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
> > > challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
> "it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
> freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
> punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
> challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
|
Enkidu wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:47:49 +1200, "John Cawston"
> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Enkidu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 May 2004 16:55:36 +1200, Sue Bilstein
>>> <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hill: I think that the point at which you took offence was
>>>> when I suggested that Saddam Hussein had committed his worst
>>>> atrocities while he was sanctioned by the United States.
>>>>
>>>> Shawcross: Oh yes, that's right. Well I don't think he was
>>>> "sanctioned" by the United States, I think as I said to you,
>>>> often you have to deal in areas of darker shades of grey and
>>>> at that time in the 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini was seen as
>>>> a very great threat to the world ...
>>>>
>>> So...when North Korea drops an atomic bomb on South Korea and
>>> millions of people are killed, the US is going go in all guns
>>> blazing. When asked why they didn't interfere the answer will
>>> be, "Oh, we though that Saddam Hussein was the bigger threat
>>> at the time". Weasel words from a representative of a weasel
>>> government.
>>
>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>
>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>> population with pesticide?
>>
>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>
> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
> model."
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:47:49 +1200, "John Cawston"
> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Enkidu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 May 2004 16:55:36 +1200, Sue Bilstein
>>> <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hill: I think that the point at which you took offence was
>>>> when I suggested that Saddam Hussein had committed his worst
>>>> atrocities while he was sanctioned by the United States.
>>>>
>>>> Shawcross: Oh yes, that's right. Well I don't think he was
>>>> "sanctioned" by the United States, I think as I said to you,
>>>> often you have to deal in areas of darker shades of grey and
>>>> at that time in the 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini was seen as
>>>> a very great threat to the world ...
>>>>
>>> So...when North Korea drops an atomic bomb on South Korea and
>>> millions of people are killed, the US is going go in all guns
>>> blazing. When asked why they didn't interfere the answer will
>>> be, "Oh, we though that Saddam Hussein was the bigger threat
>>> at the time". Weasel words from a representative of a weasel
>>> government.
>>
>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>
>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>> population with pesticide?
>>
>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>
> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
> model."
But of no danger in the 80s compared to Saddams programmes.
JC
|
Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<fvc890djmri4ulist2lgo7gn
>
> So apart from a few questions of terminology, you're perfectly
> comfortable with NatRad's line.
"John B" <ting...@anywhere.net> wrote in message
news:CRflc.1397$s3.123042@
>
> Gib
>>
OK, if you don't like that one, this one actually talks about WMD in
NK in the 1980s.
In article <c747b3$85f$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>
Gib Bogle <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
>
>Danger to whom? Iraq - supported by US at that time; N Korea - avowed
>enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with the US to a stalemate.
>
North Korea was well beaten. It was China that subsequently fought
the UN forces to a stalemate.
> and in spite of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon
> Non-proliferation Treaty, continued to develop nuclear
> weapons. This will have been well known to the US.
> Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons in
> the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
>
> Now tell me again that Iraq posed the bigger threat in the
> 1980s! It wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat,
>
>Sean Plunkett completely failed to play devils advocate on both sides a
>couple of weeks ago, and fucked his credibility as a result.
Tarla
****
"...I'd rather be anything but ordinary, please."
"Tarla" <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:
> >Which is entirely valid if she is interviewing someone who believes the
> >opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens,
it
> >is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
> >capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
> >technique.
>
> In fact, I would consider it a requirement of a good journalist.
country. It had a known nuclear weapons program and a known WMD
capability. Iraq had neither.
produce plutonium in 1980. That's why they were forced to sign the
non-proliferation treaty, which they, predictably ignored.
>
>Saddam has a plant at Osirac in 1981. The Israelis bombed it because it was
>about to be loaded with nuclear rods (AIRC). So in nuclear matters and other
>WMDs Iraq was well ahead of NK.
>
Sounds to me (see above) that they were in much the same situation as
NK.
>
>> Contrast that with Iraq where WMDs were claimed but were never
>> found, and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
>
>Are you joking?
>>
>> Now tell me again that Iraq posed the bigger threat in the
>> 1980s! It wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat,
>
>NK was the bigger threat because of it's conventional arms aimed at SK. But
>WMD have not been an issue till the 1990's and then only because of
>potential developments.
>
WMDs existed in NK in the 1980s. They
not fooled, but I agree almost everyone else was.
--
>
> So apart from a few questions of terminology, you're perfectly
> comfortable with NatRad's line.
When journalists at National Radio, or the Herald, or TV stations,
thoughtlessly recycle Bush administration Newspeak, it's far more
serious than a matter of mere "terminology". The fact that you don't
seem to see it as a problem shows that either you haven't thought
about it or that you endorse such distortion of the language.
thoughtlessly recycle Bush administration Newspeak, it's far more
serious than a matter of mere "terminology". The fact that you don't
seem to see it as a problem shows that either you haven't thought
about it or that you endorse such distortion of the language.
>
> And you're the most doctrinaire
> anti-American on the nz.* newsgroups.
> And you're the most doctrinaire
> anti-American on the nz.* newsgroups.
I am neither doctrinaire nor anti-American. Your labelling of me is
frivolous, insulting and inaccurate. I'm "anti-American" in the same
way that Albert Einstein and Dietrich Bonhoffer were "anti-German".
Suggesting that protesting against an unelected, rogue, war-mongering
administration is so ludicrous that it almost qualifies you for a Post
of the Year nomination.
way that Albert Einstein and Dietrich Bonhoffer were "anti-German".
Suggesting that protesting against an unelected, rogue, war-mongering
administration is so ludicrous that it almost qualifies you for a Post
of the Year nomination.
>
> I think that NatRad interviewers should interview their subjects in an
> unbiased fashion,
> I think that NatRad interviewers should interview their subjects in an
> unbiased fashion,
Ha! So they should never ask questions or challenge them when they
lie?
lie?
>
> to bring out what these people have to say, so that
> we the listeners can make up our own minds about it.
> to bring out what these people have to say, so that
> we the listeners can make up our own minds about it.
That's what people like Shawcross write books and articles for; by
contrast, an interview is supposed to be where their views are tested.
contrast, an interview is supposed to be where their views are tested.
>
> It is not the
> interviewers' job to make up our minds for us -
> It is not the
> interviewers' job to make up our minds for us -
No, it's an interviewer's job to INTERVIEW someone. If that someone
is a liar, a hypocrite and a smarmy apologist for brutal
war-mongerers, then he must be confronted. if you want a respectful,
fawning, uncritical reception for such scoundrels, watch Fox News.
is a liar, a hypocrite and a smarmy apologist for brutal
war-mongerers, then he must be confronted. if you want a respectful,
fawning, uncritical reception for such scoundrels, watch Fox News.
> >>
> >> But Morrissey, the US government did not sanction Saddam's atrocities.
> >> She was lying.
> >
> >Yes it did, and you know it did.
> >
> >Refresh your memory HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
>
> Search google on halabjah and "cover up"? Puhleese, Morrissey. By
> the way, I read about the gassing of Kurds in Time magazine not long
> after it occurred. There were photographs. There was worldwide outrage.
> >> But Morrissey, the US government did not sanction Saddam's atrocities.
> >> She was lying.
> >
> >Yes it did, and you know it did.
> >
> >Refresh your memory HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
>
> Search google on halabjah and "cover up"? Puhleese, Morrissey. By
> the way, I read about the gassing of Kurds in Time magazine not long
> after it occurred. There were photographs. There was worldwide outrage.
That's why the Reagan administration tried to blame it on the
IRANIANS, instead of America's Iraqi allies.
IRANIANS, instead of America's Iraqi allies.
> >
> >and HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
>
> A post on soc.singles.moderated quoting Saddam Hussein's biographer?
> I guess this explains how you form your views, if you think this is a
> credible source.
> >and HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
>
> A post on soc.singles.moderated quoting Saddam Hussein's biographer?
> I guess this explains how you form your views, if you think this is a
> credible source.
Check the post again. It comes from salon.com.
>
> >
> >and HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/2o5eo
>
> Pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands. Yes dear, we know that
> the US supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
> >
> >and HERE....
> >http://tinyurl.com/2o5eo
>
> Pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands. Yes dear, we know that
> the US supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
We know the U.S. also conspired to cover up, then transfer the blame
for, Iraqi atrocities.
for, Iraqi atrocities.
>
> You are unable to
> understand however that this is not the same thing as the US
> "sanctioning Saddam's atrocities".
> You are unable to
> understand however that this is not the same thing as the US
> "sanctioning Saddam's atrocities".
I, and you, understand that the United States DID sanction Saddam's
atrocities.
atrocities.
The difference between us is that you cannot afford to admit that the
same evil people who reassured Saddam that he was free to use chemical
weapons against the Kurds are now sanctimoniously blathering about
"liberation" and "democracy". To do so would call into question the
whole rationale for this bloody, disastrous and illegal invasion.
same evil people who reassured Saddam that he was free to use chemical
weapons against the Kurds are now sanctimoniously blathering about
"liberation" and "democracy". To do so would call into question the
whole rationale for this bloody, disastrous and illegal invasion.
|
"Sue Bilstein" told MB:
> you're the most doctrinaire anti-American on the nz.* newsgroups.
> we the listeners can make up our own minds about it.
> you're the most doctrinaire anti-American on the nz.* newsgroups.
Do you think a writer is automatically anti-American when they oppose the
extant US administration?
extant US administration?
In that case, how anti-New Zealand are you?
> I think that NatRad interviewers should interview their subjects in an
> unbiased fashion, to bring out what these people have to say, so that> we the listeners can make up our own minds about it.
What a naiive thing to suggest, Sue. If interviewers where to do that, any
approximation of truth would never be arived at, since interviewees would
simply blather on with their own key lines until the time ran out -- or,
more likely, until the viewers switched off.
approximation of truth would never be arived at, since interviewees would
simply blather on with their own key lines until the time ran out -- or,
more likely, until the viewers switched off.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
You and Morrissey both appear to have no concept of what unbiased
interviewing is like. I guess it's not surprising, as we so rarely
encounter it in the NZ media.
interviewing is like. I guess it's not surprising, as we so rarely
encounter it in the NZ media.
So I'll explain:
When the interviewer attacks the interviewee for daring to hold
different views to the interviewer's, this is not an unbiased
interview.
When the interviewer attacks the interviewee for daring to hold
different views to the interviewer's, this is not an unbiased
interview.
When the interviewer plays along with the interviewee in a patsy
manner, because he/she has the same views as the interviewer, this is
not an unbiased interview. That's the sort you are talking about
above.
manner, because he/she has the same views as the interviewer, this is
not an unbiased interview. That's the sort you are talking about
above.
When the interviewer gives the interviewee full scope to say what they
have to say, while politely insisting they answer fair and revealing
questions, this is an unbiased interview. A really good practicioner
of this art will ask the questions that you, listening at home, think
of as the discussion proceeds, plus some more penetrating ones that
reveal the subject even further. Depending on the interviewee, an
unbiased interview can be a demolition job. However it is never
intended as such.
have to say, while politely insisting they answer fair and revealing
questions, this is an unbiased interview. A really good practicioner
of this art will ask the questions that you, listening at home, think
of as the discussion proceeds, plus some more penetrating ones that
reveal the subject even further. Depending on the interviewee, an
unbiased interview can be a demolition job. However it is never
intended as such.
|
- show quoted text -
You are being naive. Interviews have a limited time, and giving the
interviewee full scope would often result in an uninterrupted monologue.
This isn't the function of an interview. A good interviewer will
challenge the interviewee and ask questions that sceptical listeners
would like to ask. To some extent an interviewer is obliged to be
impolite, even obnoxious if necessary, since politeness will fail to get
below the surface. Although he can be infuriating, the guy who does
Hard Talk on the BBC gets results.
interviewee full scope would often result in an uninterrupted monologue.
This isn't the function of an interview. A good interviewer will
challenge the interviewee and ask questions that sceptical listeners
would like to ask. To some extent an interviewer is obliged to be
impolite, even obnoxious if necessary, since politeness will fail to get
below the surface. Although he can be infuriating, the guy who does
Hard Talk on the BBC gets results.
I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer, since I
never watch her.
never watch her.
Gib
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:53:02 +1200, Gib Bogle
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
- show quoted text -
If you read what I said above, I believe you will find that we are
saying essentially the same thing. I can reluctantly dispense with
politeness in the service of getting to the point, though I think
rudeness is generally counter-productive.
saying essentially the same thing. I can reluctantly dispense with
politeness in the service of getting to the point, though I think
rudeness is generally counter-productive.
>
>I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer, since I
>never watch her.
>
>I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer, since I
>never watch her.
>
We are talking about a radio interview with William Shawcross last
Saturday morning, during which she made an offensively untrue claim
about what Shawcross had written in his latest book.
Saturday morning, during which she made an offensively untrue claim
about what Shawcross had written in his latest book.
|
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
news:c73puq$qtt$1@lust.ihug.
news:c73puq$qtt$1@lust.ihug.
- show quoted text -
Never seen nor heard him be impolite or obnoxious though. Unlike Hill.
> I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer, since I
> never watch her.
>
> Gib
> never watch her.
>
> Gib
John B
|
John B wrote:
- show quoted text -
It's in the eye of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully.
Gib
|
Jas wrote:
> Becasue they occasionally stray from the centre right party line they are
> called "left"?! For example, Morning Report frequently referred to the
> mercenaries in Iraq as "contractors", the insurgents as "terrorists and
> baathists", etc. Only recently when the evidence has been too overwhelmingly
> against this disinformation (and after many e-mails from those with
> contradictory evidence) have they softened their stance. Their reporting on
> Haiti had shamefully taken the Bush party line ...nearly exclusively. Many
> other examples exist, but who has the time...?
> called "left"?! For example, Morning Report frequently referred to the
> mercenaries in Iraq as "contractors", the insurgents as "terrorists and
> baathists", etc. Only recently when the evidence has been too overwhelmingly
> against this disinformation (and after many e-mails from those with
> contradictory evidence) have they softened their stance. Their reporting on
> Haiti had shamefully taken the Bush party line ...nearly exclusively. Many
> other examples exist, but who has the time...?
My father used to say "It's no use kicking against the pricks, because
there are too many pricks". ;-)
there are too many pricks". ;-)
Gib
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:53:02 +1200, Gib Bogle
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
- show quoted text -
Quite right. Jeremy Paxman, the very epitome of cool, quiet
skepticism, is feared by many who simply refuse to appear on his
programme, the BBC's Newsnight.
skepticism, is feared by many who simply refuse to appear on his
programme, the BBC's Newsnight.
In the 80's he interviewed Michael Heseltine, a formidable subject,
who was then the minister charged with implementing the closing of the
coal mines, throwing thousands out of work.
who was then the minister charged with implementing the closing of the
coal mines, throwing thousands out of work.
During his long ministerial carrer Heseltine had always insisted that
he would do *only* live interviews since he mistrusted the
post-editing process. But, in this one interview he met his nemesis.
he would do *only* live interviews since he mistrusted the
post-editing process. But, in this one interview he met his nemesis.
On such a hot and emotive issue he held his ground against one of the
most penetrating but, to me, fair "assaults" I've ever witnessed in
such an interview, and every point Heseltine made was in itself
considered and logical. Until the close of the segment when Paxman,
sensing with consummate timing and precision a faltering in
Heseltine's argument, asked in a quiet, throwaway manner:
most penetrating but, to me, fair "assaults" I've ever witnessed in
such an interview, and every point Heseltine made was in itself
considered and logical. Until the close of the segment when Paxman,
sensing with consummate timing and precision a faltering in
Heseltine's argument, asked in a quiet, throwaway manner:
"Minister, how does it now feel now to be less popular than Arthur
Scargill?"
Scargill?"
In one sweeping gesture and with not another word Heseltine got up and
left the studio. Where intensive interrogation was concerned this
doyen of the cut and thrust of interview was broken. Paxman and he
never again shared the Newsnight studio.
left the studio. Where intensive interrogation was concerned this
doyen of the cut and thrust of interview was broken. Paxman and he
never again shared the Newsnight studio.
More recently, Paxman skewered the oily, wily Michael Howard, then
Home Secretary (now Tory leader) over a lie he had uttered. He pinned
Howard down with supremely persistent questioning until his palpable
lameness was exposed. The confession never came, but it would have
been superfluous. Howard was exposed for what he was, and undone.
Home Secretary (now Tory leader) over a lie he had uttered. He pinned
Howard down with supremely persistent questioning until his palpable
lameness was exposed. The confession never came, but it would have
been superfluous. Howard was exposed for what he was, and undone.
Sebastian and Paxman could never be accused of patsying, and the world
of investigative interviewing some of the vilest and most corrupt of
political personalities is the better for them.
of investigative interviewing some of the vilest and most corrupt of
political personalities is the better for them.
Hill comes nowhere close.
|
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
news:c73v83$e9$1@lust.ihug.co.
- show quoted text -
I don't agree. I think it can be objectively observed and demonstrated that Hill
is much more obnoxious, rude, manipulative and biased. Her bias is towards
socialism and it shows. This affects her objectivity. If you can't see this,
then you are not being objective yourself, or, you are a socialist too and
because of that it makes Hill's failings as an interviewer OK to you and not
worthy of mention.
is much more obnoxious, rude, manipulative and biased. Her bias is towards
socialism and it shows. This affects her objectivity. If you can't see this,
then you are not being objective yourself, or, you are a socialist too and
because of that it makes Hill's failings as an interviewer OK to you and not
worthy of mention.
I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented without
any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
socialism is the *right* way. Many of her questions are just down right
insulting to any objective person. She deliberately and calculatingly does her
best to make anyone who is not of the socialist persuasion look bad.
any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
socialism is the *right* way. Many of her questions are just down right
insulting to any objective person. She deliberately and calculatingly does her
best to make anyone who is not of the socialist persuasion look bad.
If you want to gloss over her obvious bias and prejudice, that's fine, but it
really just highlights your own personal lack of maturity, objectivity and sense
of fair play. And in fact, condoning such biased interviewing, whether you
realise it or not, actually has much more sinister overtones. Yes she is, no she
isn't type of arguments serve only to obsfucate the real issue - should she be
objective or not? If so, or if not, then why?
really just highlights your own personal lack of maturity, objectivity and sense
of fair play. And in fact, condoning such biased interviewing, whether you
realise it or not, actually has much more sinister overtones. Yes she is, no she
isn't type of arguments serve only to obsfucate the real issue - should she be
objective or not? If so, or if not, then why?
> Gib
John B
|
John B wrote:
- show quoted text -
>>> Unlike Hill.
>>
>>It's in the eye of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully.
>
>
> I don't agree. I think it can be objectively observed and demonstrated that Hill
> is much more obnoxious, rude, manipulative and biased. Her bias is towards
> socialism and it shows. This affects her objectivity. If you can't see this,
> then you are not being objective yourself, or, you are a socialist too and
> because of that it makes Hill's failings as an interviewer OK to you and not
> worthy of mention.
>
> I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented without
> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
> socialism is the *right* way. Many of her questions are just down right
> insulting to any objective person. She deliberately and calculatingly does her
> best to make anyone who is not of the socialist persuasion look bad.
>
> If you want to gloss over her obvious bias and prejudice, that's fine, but it
> really just highlights your own personal lack of maturity, objectivity and sense
> of fair play. And in fact, condoning such biased interviewing, whether you
> realise it or not, actually has much more sinister overtones. Yes she is, no she
> isn't type of arguments serve only to obsfucate the real issue - should she be
> objective or not? If so, or if not, then why?
>>
>>It's in the eye of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully.
>
>
> I don't agree. I think it can be objectively observed and demonstrated that Hill
> is much more obnoxious, rude, manipulative and biased. Her bias is towards
> socialism and it shows. This affects her objectivity. If you can't see this,
> then you are not being objective yourself, or, you are a socialist too and
> because of that it makes Hill's failings as an interviewer OK to you and not
> worthy of mention.
>
> I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented without
> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
> socialism is the *right* way. Many of her questions are just down right
> insulting to any objective person. She deliberately and calculatingly does her
> best to make anyone who is not of the socialist persuasion look bad.
>
> If you want to gloss over her obvious bias and prejudice, that's fine, but it
> really just highlights your own personal lack of maturity, objectivity and sense
> of fair play. And in fact, condoning such biased interviewing, whether you
> realise it or not, actually has much more sinister overtones. Yes she is, no she
> isn't type of arguments serve only to obsfucate the real issue - should she be
> objective or not? If so, or if not, then why?
You obviously don't read very carefully. (I won't leap to conclusions
about your political leanings from this.) I previously specifically
stated "I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer,
since I never watch her." I responded to your statement "Never seen nor
heard him be impolite or obnoxious though." by saying "It's in the eye
about your political leanings from this.) I previously specifically
stated "I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer,
since I never watch her." I responded to your statement "Never seen nor
heard him be impolite or obnoxious though." by saying "It's in the eye
of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully."
From my simple brief comment about the Hard Talk interviewer, you found
reason for a diatribe about my supposed "personal lack of maturity,
objectivity and sense of fair play". I could be forgiven for thinking
you may be slightly unbalanced.
reason for a diatribe about my supposed "personal lack of maturity,
objectivity and sense of fair play". I could be forgiven for thinking
you may be slightly unbalanced.
Gib
|
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
news:c7428p$305$1@lust.ihug.
- show quoted text -
My bad. Sorry.
> Gib
John B
|
John Cawston wrote:
- show quoted text -
Danger to whom? Iraq - supported by US at that time; N Korea - avowed
enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with the US to a stalemate.
enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with the US to a stalemate.
Gib
|
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
news:c7428p$305$1@lust.ihug.
> You obviously don't read very carefully. (I won't leap to conclusions
> about your political leanings from this.) I previously specifically
> stated "I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer,
> since I never watch her." I responded to your statement "Never seen nor
> heard him be impolite or obnoxious though." by saying "It's in the eye
> of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully."
> about your political leanings from this.) I previously specifically
> stated "I have no view on whether or not Kim Hill is a good interviewer,
> since I never watch her." I responded to your statement "Never seen nor
> heard him be impolite or obnoxious though." by saying "It's in the eye
> of the beholder. He interrupts forcefully."
On which interviews by people other than Kim Hill did you base that
conclusion?
conclusion?
|
Daniel Silva wrote:
- show quoted text -
Oh God, not another one with reading comprehension problems! The
subject of the above remarks is the guy (Sebastian?) who does interviews
on the BBC program Hard Talk. No connection with Kim Hill at all.
subject of the above remarks is the guy (Sebastian?) who does interviews
on the BBC program Hard Talk. No connection with Kim Hill at all.
Gib
|
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
news:c74hr6$h9q$1@lust.ihug.
- show quoted text -
The actual statement to which you replied was, "Never seen nor heard him be
impolite or obnoxious though. Unlike Hill." The last bit was snipped by you.
impolite or obnoxious though. Unlike Hill." The last bit was snipped by you.
For someone who professes never to watch Kim Hill (presumably you never
listen to her radio interviews either), you appear to be remarkably ready to
jump to her defence. I thought that the allegation of your ideological bias
was quite reasonable.
listen to her radio interviews either), you appear to be remarkably ready to
jump to her defence. I thought that the allegation of your ideological bias
was quite reasonable.
|
- show quoted text -
But you have proven yourself to be a drongo.
Gib
|
"John B" <ting...@anywhere.net> wrote in message
news:CRflc.1397$s3.123042@
> I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented
without
> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
> socialism is the *right* way.
without
> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
> socialism is the *right* way.
Which is entirely valid if she is interviewing someone who believes the
opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens, it
is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
technique.
opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens, it
is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
technique.
Sean Plunkett completely failed to play devils advocate on both sides a
couple of weeks ago, and fucked his credibility as a result.
couple of weeks ago, and fucked his credibility as a result.
|
"Sue Bilstein"
> >What a naiive thing to suggest, Sue. If interviewers where to do that,
any
> >approximation of truth would never be arived at, since interviewees would
> >simply blather on with their own key lines until the time ran out -- or,
> >more likely, until the viewers switched off.
>
> You and Morrissey both appear to have no concept of what unbiased
> interviewing is like.
> >What a naiive thing to suggest, Sue. If interviewers where to do that,
any
> >approximation of truth would never be arived at, since interviewees would
> >simply blather on with their own key lines until the time ran out -- or,
> >more likely, until the viewers switched off.
>
> You and Morrissey both appear to have no concept of what unbiased
> interviewing is like.
You'd be quite wrong, Sue. Even so, I am not so naiive as to suggest that
bias should never exist in all forms of news and current affairs reporting.
That would also be stupid. Just ask any -- and I mean ANY -- professional
broadcaster.
bias should never exist in all forms of news and current affairs reporting.
That would also be stupid. Just ask any -- and I mean ANY -- professional
broadcaster.
> I guess it's not surprising, as we so rarely encounter it in the NZ media.
Bias is built in to the business of reporting and diseminating news. It
manifest itself in such phenomena as headline creation and choice, story
angle, pitch, and tone. In broadcast media, part of the business of being a
professional interviewer in nes and curent affairs is to express the view
that opposes that of the interview subject. Find me a situation where that
doesn't occur and i will show you a programme that is about to get ditched
because it has no audience ratings.
manifest itself in such phenomena as headline creation and choice, story
angle, pitch, and tone. In broadcast media, part of the business of being a
professional interviewer in nes and curent affairs is to express the view
that opposes that of the interview subject. Find me a situation where that
doesn't occur and i will show you a programme that is about to get ditched
because it has no audience ratings.
Now, if you mean BALANCE -- now that's a different matter. I think news and
curent affaors coverage should be balanced.
curent affaors coverage should be balanced.
|
Simon Pleasants says...
So where's the balance on Radio NZ?
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
You have to put most of these remarks in the context of the thread.
Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
the problem.
Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
the problem.
However, there's some use to the confusion because it shows quite clearly
that over just 20 years how foreign policy with regards friends and enemies
have to change to counterbalance growing power, reversals in trade, other
trade opportunities and responsibilities under the Cold War, the Iraq
sanctions and now the War on Terror... and thats just NZ.
that over just 20 years how foreign policy with regards friends and enemies
have to change to counterbalance growing power, reversals in trade, other
trade opportunities and responsibilities under the Cold War, the Iraq
sanctions and now the War on Terror... and thats just NZ.
JC
>
> Gib
|
On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:17:13 +1200, "John Cawston"
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>>
>>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>>> population with pesticide?
>>>
>>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>>
>> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
>> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
>> model."
>
>But of no danger in the 80s compared to Saddams programmes.
>
>> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>>
>>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>>> population with pesticide?
>>>
>>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>>
>> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
>> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
>> model."
>
>But of no danger in the 80s compared to Saddams programmes.
>
>>
OK, if you don't like that one, this one actually talks about WMD in
NK in the 1980s.
Damn, I found one earlier that described the unease of other nations
over NK's nuclear action in 1980, and that they were forced to sign a
non-proliferation treaty. Can't current find it.
over NK's nuclear action in 1980, and that they were forced to sign a
non-proliferation treaty. Can't current find it.
Here's another one though:
Try as you might you can't deny that North Korea was known to have
started it's muclear weapon programme in the early 1980s and in spite
of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon Non-proliferation Treaty,
continued to develop nuclear weapons. This will have been well known
to the US. Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons
in the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
started it's muclear weapon programme in the early 1980s and in spite
of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon Non-proliferation Treaty,
continued to develop nuclear weapons. This will have been well known
to the US. Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons
in the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
Contrast that with Iraq where WMDs were claimed but were never found,
and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
Now tell me again that Iraq posed the bigger threat in the 1980s! It
wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat, but the US
(eventually) decided to hit Iraq.
wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat, but the US
(eventually) decided to hit Iraq.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
In article <c755fr$1lu$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>
>You have to put most of these remarks in the context of the thread.
>Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
>Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
>zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
>the problem.
>
>However, there's some use to the confusion because it shows quite clearly
>that over just 20 years how foreign policy with regards friends and enemies
>have to change to counterbalance growing power, reversals in trade, other
>trade opportunities and responsibilities under the Cold War, the Iraq
>sanctions and now the War on Terror... and thats just NZ.
>
>You have to put most of these remarks in the context of the thread.
>Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
>Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
>zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
>the problem.
>
>However, there's some use to the confusion because it shows quite clearly
>that over just 20 years how foreign policy with regards friends and enemies
>have to change to counterbalance growing power, reversals in trade, other
>trade opportunities and responsibilities under the Cold War, the Iraq
>sanctions and now the War on Terror... and thats just NZ.
>
So what's new? In 1914 the departure of the troopships with our
contingent that was to join the Australians and become the ANZACS was
delayed for lack of escorts to protect them en route. The necessary
escorts were found, courtesy of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Less than
30 years later, however ........
contingent that was to join the Australians and become the ANZACS was
delayed for lack of escorts to protect them en route. The necessary
escorts were found, courtesy of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Less than
30 years later, however ........
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
|
In article <c747b3$85f$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>
Gib Bogle <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
>
>Danger to whom? Iraq - supported by US at that time; N Korea - avowed
>enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with the US to a stalemate.
>
North Korea was well beaten. It was China that subsequently fought
the UN forces to a stalemate.
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
|
Enkidu wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:17:13 +1200, "John Cawston"
> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>>>
>>>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>>>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>>>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>>>> population with pesticide?
>>>>
>>>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>>>
>>> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
>>> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
>>> model."
>>
>> But of no danger in the 80s compared to Saddams programmes.
>>
>>> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/
>>>
> OK, if you don't like that one, this one actually talks about
> WMD in NK in the 1980s.
>
> http://www.csis.org/press/
>
> Damn, I found one earlier that described the unease of other
> nations over NK's nuclear action in 1980, and that they were
> forced to sign a non-proliferation treaty. Can't current find
> it.
>
> Here's another one though:
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/
>
> Try as you might you can't deny that North Korea was known to
> have started it's nuclear weapon programme in the early 1980s> On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:17:13 +1200, "John Cawston"
> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are doing a bit of time travelling here.
>>>>
>>>> To the best of everyone's knowledge, Nth Korea had no
>>>> significant WMD in the 1980s but Saddam did.. and he used
>>>> them, or was he just delousing the Iranians and Kurdish
>>>> population with pesticide?
>>>>
>>>> What the Koreans may have is now, not then. Eh Timelord?
>>>>
>>> "In the 1980s North Korea added a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
>>> - in effect, a bomb-fuel factory - based on an old British
>>> model."
>>
>> But of no danger in the 80s compared to Saddams programmes.
>>
>>> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/
>>>
> OK, if you don't like that one, this one actually talks about
> WMD in NK in the 1980s.
>
> http://www.csis.org/press/
>
> Damn, I found one earlier that described the unease of other
> nations over NK's nuclear action in 1980, and that they were
> forced to sign a non-proliferation treaty. Can't current find
> it.
>
> Here's another one though:
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/
>
> Try as you might you can't deny that North Korea was known to
> and in spite of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon
> Non-proliferation Treaty, continued to develop nuclear
> weapons. This will have been well known to the US.
> Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons in
> the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
You are a bit behind the times. NKs nuclear programme started in the 1950s.
However, in the 1980s it was still in its infancy and thus of no danger.
Saddam has a plant at Osirac in 1981. The Israelis bombed it because it was
about to be loaded with nuclear rods (AIRC). So in nuclear matters and other
WMDs Iraq was well ahead of NK.
However, in the 1980s it was still in its infancy and thus of no danger.
Saddam has a plant at Osirac in 1981. The Israelis bombed it because it was
about to be loaded with nuclear rods (AIRC). So in nuclear matters and other
WMDs Iraq was well ahead of NK.
>
> Contrast that with Iraq where WMDs were claimed but were never
> found, and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
> Contrast that with Iraq where WMDs were claimed but were never
> found, and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
Are you joking?
>
> Now tell me again that Iraq posed the bigger threat in the
> 1980s! It wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat,
NK was the bigger threat because of it's conventional arms aimed at SK. But
WMD have not been an issue till the 1990's and then only because of
potential developments.
WMD have not been an issue till the 1990's and then only because of
potential developments.
> but the US (eventually) decided to hit Iraq.
Who had used WMDs and was considered to possess them at the time of the
occupation by every major western intelligence service.
occupation by every major western intelligence service.
JC
|
Journalism according to Cawston: ASK NO QUESTIONS
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> extends his rather odd take on
life to feisty radio interviewers in message
news:<c752g6$vfm$1...@lust.ihug.
life to feisty radio interviewers in message
news:<c752g6$vfm$1...@lust.ihug.
First of all, being a serious and moral fellow - remember his serious
and moral "Lives saved in Iraq" posts, where he calculated how every
Iraqi woman and child slaughtered by invading troops was actually a
life saved? - he lambasts any TV station that is unprepared to....
and moral "Lives saved in Iraq" posts, where he calculated how every
Iraqi woman and child slaughtered by invading troops was actually a
life saved? - he lambasts any TV station that is unprepared to....
>
> discuss serious matters. If the TV station is unable to provide the time to
> properly inform its viewers then it should stick to being a model of
> crassness, soft porn, violence, advertisements, infomercials for Abflaboff
> and promotion of retards... oh, it does.
> discuss serious matters. If the TV station is unable to provide the time to
> properly inform its viewers then it should stick to being a model of
> crassness, soft porn, violence, advertisements, infomercials for Abflaboff
> and promotion of retards... oh, it does.
Having completed that lame swipe at television, he proceeds to lecture
us on the way to provide politicians and pompous asses like William
Shawcross with the perfect forum to express their views. The one
thing an interviewer must NOT do is ask any questions. That's
something that naifs like Gib Bogle just do not seem to understand.
Look what Bogle wrote...
us on the way to provide politicians and pompous asses like William
Shawcross with the perfect forum to express their views. The one
thing an interviewer must NOT do is ask any questions. That's
something that naifs like Gib Bogle just do not seem to understand.
Look what Bogle wrote...
>
> This isn't the function of an
> > interview. A good interviewer will challenge the interviewee
> > and ask questions that sceptical listeners would like to ask.
> This isn't the function of an
> > interview. A good interviewer will challenge the interviewee
> > and ask questions that sceptical listeners would like to ask.
We'll let Mr Cawston explain....
>
> Should she? Depending on the importance of the subject and/or interviewee,
>
> Should she? Depending on the importance of the subject and/or interviewee,
And Mr Shawcross, being an upper class Englishman with a chilling and
haughty manner, is as important as you can get. No way should he be
questioned by an oik like Kim Hill.
haughty manner, is as important as you can get. No way should he be
questioned by an oik like Kim Hill.
>
> I would have thought the important thing was provide a forum that got as much
> information as possible in the time allowed.
> I would have thought the important thing was provide a forum that got as much
> information as possible in the time allowed.
Without asking any questions, mind you.
>
> The viewers are quite capable
> of info analysis.
> The viewers are quite capable
> of info analysis.
Clearly they are. We can see how deferential, some might say timid,
interviewing by American reporteres, letting Bush and his cronies
speak uninterrupted by such rude people as Kim Hill, has led to some
intelligent and deft anaysis. Those capaple American viewers,
according to polls, obediently believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11
attacks!
interviewing by American reporteres, letting Bush and his cronies
speak uninterrupted by such rude people as Kim Hill, has led to some
intelligent and deft anaysis. Those capaple American viewers,
according to polls, obediently believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11
attacks!
>
> One or two questions on contentious issues and thats
> One or two questions on contentious issues and thats
[sic!]
>
> it. From what I've seen in 40 years of TV viewing, poor interviewees and
> interviewers condemn themselves when they are allowed to run off at the mouth.
> it. From what I've seen in 40 years of TV viewing, poor interviewees and
> interviewers condemn themselves when they are allowed to run off at the mouth.
A smooth and superficially plausible liar and propagandist like
William Shawcross is a different matter. Cawston's "one or two
questions" policy would be useless.
William Shawcross is a different matter. Cawston's "one or two
questions" policy would be useless.
>
> > To some extent an interviewer is obliged to be impolite, even
> > obnoxious if necessary, since politeness will fail to get
> > below the surface.
>
> In the case of a poor interviewer, yes.> > To some extent an interviewer is obliged to be impolite, even
> > obnoxious if necessary, since politeness will fail to get
> > below the surface.
>
When faced by a practised dissembler like Shawcross, yes.
|
On Mon, 3 May 2004 19:04:56 +1200, "Ashley"
<ashle...@XXXXXxtra.co.nz> wrote:
<ashle...@XXXXXxtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"John B" <ting...@anywhere.net> wrote in message
>news:CRflc.1397$s3.123042@
>
>> I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented
>without
>> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
>> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
>> socialism is the *right* way.
>
>Which is entirely valid if she is interviewing someone who believes the
>opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens, it
>is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
>capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
>technique.
>"John B" <ting...@anywhere.net> wrote in message
>news:CRflc.1397$s3.123042@
>
>> I much prefer objective interviews where just the facts are presented
>without
>> any bias. I can then make up my own mind. But Hill is always angling her
>> questions etc from the philosophical standpoint that it is a given that
>> socialism is the *right* way.
>
>Which is entirely valid if she is interviewing someone who believes the
>opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens, it
>is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
>capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
>technique.
In fact, I would consider it a requirement of a good journalist.
>
>Sean Plunkett completely failed to play devils advocate on both sides a
>couple of weeks ago, and fucked his credibility as a result.
Tarla
****
"...I'd rather be anything but ordinary, please."
--Avril Lavigne
|
"Tarla" <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:
> >Which is entirely valid if she is interviewing someone who believes the
> >opposite. But equally, when she is interviewing someone from the Greens,
it
> >is entirely appropriate for her to adopt the POV of a profit-minded
> >capitalist. Playing devil's advocate is an entirely acceptable interview
> >technique.
>
> In fact, I would consider it a requirement of a good journalist.
Depends entirely on the point of the interview, the information you're after
and the personality of the interviewee. Sometimes playing devil's advocate
simply doesn't work.
and the personality of the interviewee. Sometimes playing devil's advocate
simply doesn't work.
|
On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:05:30 +1200, "John Cawston"
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Danger to whom? Iraq - supported by US at that time; N Korea
>> - avowed enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with
>> the US to a stalemate.
>
>You have to put most of these remarks in the context of the thread.
>Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
>Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
>zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
>the problem.
>
Korea has always been the bigger threat than any Middle Eastern<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Danger to whom? Iraq - supported by US at that time; N Korea
>> - avowed enemy of US at that time, had fought a major war with
>> the US to a stalemate.
>
>You have to put most of these remarks in the context of the thread.
>Shawcross correctly stated that Iran was the threat in the 80s, less than
>Saddam who was seen as the next Anwar Sadat by the US. Cliff jumped a time
>zone and said Korea was the bigger threat and buggered if I didnt compound
>the problem.
>
country. It had a known nuclear weapons program and a known WMD
capability. Iraq had neither.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:33:12 +1200, "John Cawston"
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Here's another one though:
>>
>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/
>>
>> Try as you might you can't deny that North Korea was known to
>> have started it's nuclear weapon programme in the early 1980s
>> and in spite of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon
>> Non-proliferation Treaty, continued to develop nuclear
>> weapons. This will have been well known to the US.
>> Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons in
>> the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
>
>You are a bit behind the times. NKs nuclear programme started in the 1950s.
>However, in the 1980s it was still in its infancy and thus of no danger.
>
It wasn't "in it's infancy". NK had processing plants and a reactor to>> Here's another one though:
>>
>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/
>>
>> Try as you might you can't deny that North Korea was known to
>> have started it's nuclear weapon programme in the early 1980s
>> and in spite of being forced to sign the Nuclear Weapon
>> Non-proliferation Treaty, continued to develop nuclear
>> weapons. This will have been well known to the US.
>> Incidentally they also had stocks of germ and gas weapons in
>> the early 1980s. This has all been proved and documented.
>
>You are a bit behind the times. NKs nuclear programme started in the 1950s.
>However, in the 1980s it was still in its infancy and thus of no danger.
>
produce plutonium in 1980. That's why they were forced to sign the
non-proliferation treaty, which they, predictably ignored.
>
>Saddam has a plant at Osirac in 1981. The Israelis bombed it because it was
>about to be loaded with nuclear rods (AIRC). So in nuclear matters and other
>WMDs Iraq was well ahead of NK.
>
NK.
>
>> Contrast that with Iraq where WMDs were claimed but were never
>> found, and a nuclear weapon industry claimed and never found.
>
>Are you joking?
>>
>> Now tell me again that Iraq posed the bigger threat in the
>> 1980s! It wasn't. However North Korea was the bigger threat,
>
>NK was the bigger threat because of it's conventional arms aimed at SK. But
>WMD have not been an issue till the 1990's and then only because of
>potential developments.
>
>
>> but the US (eventually) decided to hit Iraq.
>
>Who had used WMDs and was considered to possess them at the time of the
>occupation by every major western intelligence service.
>
....who were disinformed and persuaded by the US and UK! Israel were>> but the US (eventually) decided to hit Iraq.
>
>Who had used WMDs and was considered to possess them at the time of the
>occupation by every major western intelligence service.
>
not fooled, but I agree almost everyone else was.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
"Redbaiter"
> > Now, if you mean BALANCE -- now that's a different matter. I think news
and
> > curent affaors coverage should be balanced.
> >
> So where's the balance on Radio NZ?
> > Now, if you mean BALANCE -- now that's a different matter. I think news
and
> > curent affaors coverage should be balanced.
> >
> So where's the balance on Radio NZ?
My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass of detail
to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do that
on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do that
on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
|
Simon Pleasants says...
How about just one example then?
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
|
"Redbaiter"
> Simon Pleasants says...
> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass of
detail
> > to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do
that
> > on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
> >
> How about just one example then?
> Simon Pleasants says...
> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass of
detail
> > to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do
that
> > on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
> >
> How about just one example then?
okay. what form would be acceptable?
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Post it here, why don't you, Simon?
|
Sue Bilstein says...
- show quoted text -
Yes, any form you wish Simon.. go for it....
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
|
"Sue Bilstein"
> >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass of
> >detail
> >> > to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do
> >that
> >> > on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
> >> >
> >> How about just one example then?
> >
> >okay. what form would be acceptable?
> >
>
> Post it here, why don't you, Simon?
> >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass of
> >detail
> >> > to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to time to do
> >that
> >> > on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
> >> >
> >> How about just one example then?
> >
> >okay. what form would be acceptable?
> >
>
> Post it here, why don't you, Simon?
No. I mean, how much proof is needed, covering how much of National Radio? A
whole programme, a single interview, what?
whole programme, a single interview, what?
|
Simon Pleasants says...
Hey, look back a few posts, see where you said there was "plenty
of balance".
- show quoted text -
of balance".
Just tell us what you were thinking of when you said that. You
don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
what you were thinking of.
don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
what you were thinking of.
You've already said "OK".. too...
So let's read it...
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to
freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social
punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that
challenges their status quo." -Tammy Bruce
|
"Redbaiter"
> > > >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass
of
> > > >> > detail to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to
> > > >> > time to dothat on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
> > > >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass
of
> > > >> > detail to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to
> > > >> How about just one example then?
> Just tell us what you were thinking of when you said that. You
> don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
> what you were thinking of.
> don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
> what you were thinking of.
Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I can do
to locate a transcript.
to locate a transcript.
|
Simon Pleasants says...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
- show quoted text -
Sean Plunkett, an example of balance...??????
Good joke Simon, now stop fucking about and do what you said you
would do...
would do...
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
The one with Wayne Mapp?
Or one where he was sucking up to someone he agrees with?
|
"Sue Bilstein"
> >Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I can
do
> >to locate a transcript.
>
> The one with Wayne Mapp?
> >Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I can
do
> >to locate a transcript.
>
> The one with Wayne Mapp?
Would youlike me to dig that one out?
|
On Wed, 5 May 2004 20:56:32 +1200, Redbaiter <nodamn@mail.thanks>
wrote:
>Simon Pleasants says...
>> "Redbaiter"
>> > > > >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass
>> of
>> > > > >> > detail to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to
>> > > > >> > time to dothat on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
>>
>> > > > >> How about just one example then?
>> > Just tell us what you were thinking of when you said that. You
>> > don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
>> > what you were thinking of.
>>
>> Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I can do
>> to locate a transcript.
>>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
>
>Sean Plunkett, an example of balance...??????
>
>Good joke Simon, now stop fucking about and do what you said you
>would do...
wrote:
>Simon Pleasants says...
>> "Redbaiter"
>> > > > >> > My feeling is that there's plenty of balance. If you want a mass
>> of
>> > > > >> > detail to back up my impression, I'm sorry; I just haven't got to
>> > > > >> > time to dothat on Usenet. I'm not that much of a usenet junkie.
>>
>> > > > >> How about just one example then?
>> > Just tell us what you were thinking of when you said that. You
>> > don't have to go into detail, just provide a simple example of
>> > what you were thinking of.
>>
>> Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I can do
>> to locate a transcript.
>>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
>
>Sean Plunkett, an example of balance...??????
>
>Good joke Simon, now stop fucking about and do what you said you
>would do...
Note that a Sean Plunkett interview on the subject of rugby, say, or
whistling tree frogs, will fail to convince.
whistling tree frogs, will fail to convince.
Give us one on the foreshore and seabed, or Iraq, or Ahmed Zaoui;
something that arouses strong feeling pro and con.
something that arouses strong feeling pro and con.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
If you can get a transcript of that one, I would be very much obliged.
It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
Standards Authority over it.
It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
Standards Authority over it.
|
Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<2pch90hbk7rb85s2brhq6k1h
- show quoted text -
Ha ha ha ha ha! A complaint to the BSA about an interviewer asking a
notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
Be warned that your complaint, in this case, would certainly be
adjudged frivolous and you'd end up footing the bill for Radio New
Zealand's lawyers.
adjudged frivolous and you'd end up footing the bill for Radio New
Zealand's lawyers.
Why don't you complain about one of the really virulent and utterly
unfair people on the radio, like the sneering Maori-haters Larry
Williams, Leighton Smith and Paul Holmes? Oh that's right - they are
also virulent haters of the Palestinians (one rarely restricts one's
bigotry to one group alone) so we'll leave them alone, shall we?
unfair people on the radio, like the sneering Maori-haters Larry
Williams, Leighton Smith and Paul Holmes? Oh that's right - they are
also virulent haters of the Palestinians (one rarely restricts one's
bigotry to one group alone) so we'll leave them alone, shall we?
And I'm sure you complained last year about Holmes' chuckling over the
torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay....
torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay....
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Once again, with feeling:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our
interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is
our duty to follow.
interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is
our duty to follow.
Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston"
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0405051021.
> Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<2pch90hbk7rb85s2brhq6k1h
> >
>
> Be warned that your complaint, in this case, would certainly be
> adjudged frivolous and you'd end up footing the bill for Radio New
> Zealand's lawyers.
>
> Why don't you complain about one of the really virulent and utterly
> unfair people on the radio, like the sneering Maori-haters Larry
> Williams, Leighton Smith and Paul Holmes? Oh that's right - they are
> also virulent haters of the Palestinians (one rarely restricts one's
> bigotry to one group alone) so we'll leave them alone, shall we?
>
> And I'm sure you complained last year about Holmes' chuckling over the
> torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay....
> Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<2pch90hbk7rb85s2brhq6k1h
> >
> > If you can get a transcript of that one, I would be very much obliged.
> > It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
> > Standards Authority over it.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! A complaint to the BSA about an interviewer asking a
> notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
> > It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
> > Standards Authority over it.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! A complaint to the BSA about an interviewer asking a
> notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
Of course, he is following the Breen line.
>
> Be warned that your complaint, in this case, would certainly be
> adjudged frivolous and you'd end up footing the bill for Radio New
> Zealand's lawyers.
Is this actually what happens with BSA appeals, or is it just Breen's
totalitarian fantasy?
totalitarian fantasy?
>
> Why don't you complain about one of the really virulent and utterly
> unfair people on the radio, like the sneering Maori-haters Larry
> Williams, Leighton Smith and Paul Holmes? Oh that's right - they are
> also virulent haters of the Palestinians (one rarely restricts one's
> bigotry to one group alone) so we'll leave them alone, shall we?
Are these Newstalk ZB hosts? I don't listen to the station.
>
> And I'm sure you complained last year about Holmes' chuckling over the
> torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay....
Was that on TV or radio? Gee, you must be a fan of these people,
Breen. Never saw/heard that one.
Breen. Never saw/heard that one.
|
Morrissey Breen says...
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! A complaint to the BSA about an interviewer asking a
> notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
>
That's not the issue you brainwashed bimbo.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! A complaint to the BSA about an interviewer asking a
> notorious groveller like Wayne Mapp a few awkward questions!
>
Its the comparatively softball treatment all the leftists get
that is the point. Ever heard Hill or Plunkett give the PM or
any leftist politician the kind of grilling they give the so
called right???
that is the point. Ever heard Hill or Plunkett give the PM or
any leftist politician the kind of grilling they give the so
called right???
They can't of course, because their information sources, (like
yours) are so tainted and bigoted and one sided, (such as the
BBC) they don't even possess the knowledge base that would allow
them to ask any leftist any "awkward questions".
yours) are so tainted and bigoted and one sided, (such as the
BBC) they don't even possess the knowledge base that would allow
them to ask any leftist any "awkward questions".
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
|
"Sue Bilstein"
> >> >Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I
can
> >> >do to locate a transcript.
> >>
> >> The one with Wayne Mapp?
> >
> >Would youlike me to dig that one out?
>
> If you can get a transcript of that one, I would be very much obliged.
> It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
> Standards Authority over it.
> >> >Would a recent Sean Plunket interview be okay? If so, I'll see what I
can
> >> >do to locate a transcript.
> >>
> >> The one with Wayne Mapp?
> >
> >Would youlike me to dig that one out?
>
> If you can get a transcript of that one, I would be very much obliged.
> It will make it easier for me to bring a complaint to the Broadcasting
> Standards Authority over it.
You'll need to complain in writing to RNZ first, then get an answer from
them, then be dissatisfied, then go to the BSA.
them, then be dissatisfied, then go to the BSA.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
I have complained in writing - more than 20 days ago (the time limit).
No answer whatsoever. I'm getting ready to go to the BSA.
No answer whatsoever. I'm getting ready to go to the BSA.
|
Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<07sj90d7d3v0lofgkmpmojht
- show quoted text -
Looks like you won't be able to help me with the transcript then Simon? Shame.
|
"Sue Bilstein"
> > I have complained in writing - more than 20 days ago (the time limit).
> > No answer whatsoever. I'm getting ready to go to the BSA.
>
> Looks like you won't be able to help me with the transcript then Simon?
Shame.
> > I have complained in writing - more than 20 days ago (the time limit).
> > No answer whatsoever. I'm getting ready to go to the BSA.
>
> Looks like you won't be able to help me with the transcript then Simon?
Shame.
Not that. I've just been very busy. Which one are you after? The date. I'll
see what I can do.
see what I can do.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
It was on the 13th of April. I *think* it was in the second hour of
the program. I tried the audio site for Radio NZ, but that hour was
not available - you just got the first few words of the news and then
it stopped.
the program. I tried the audio site for Radio NZ, but that hour was
not available - you just got the first few words of the news and then
it stopped.
Thanks in advance, whether possible or not, Simon.
