- chrs 4 that morrissy....i tried listening to this interview....but the exercise in self-justification/glossing-over from/by clark....was giving me serious gastric-reflux..(..i had to turn back to music..my salve at times like that..)..did she dare to say anything about poverty..?phillip ure..
Ennui5.2
Hello Morrissey, good work.Lanthanide5.3
This time Morrissey actually seems to have gotten the words about right. But as usual, he’s adding extraneous punctuation and emphasis on words, as well as his usual bullshit “Significant pause” crap so as to distort what actually happened.Te Reo Putake5.3.1
Yep, better than average effort, only a few errors and really only spoilt by the distortions of meaning that his spin puts on the words. Kinda hypocritical to demand of others standards he doesn’t apply to himself, but that’s our Moz. 6/10.Morrissey5.3.1.1
Listen to the tape, then come back and tell us where I distorted anything.Anything.And where were the “couple of errors”?- Already did listen to the tape, Moz, hence my comment that you got it mostly correct. Well done. If you want to find the errors, which are mostly small ommisions, then go back over it yourself.The distortion is adding emphasis were no emphasis can be heard. That’s not reporting, that’s editorialising. It’s bogus if you are calling it a transcript. As I said, you demand standards of others you don’t apply to yourself.
- ….mostly correct. Well done.
No, it was completely correct.If you want to find the errors, which are mostly small ommisions [sic] then go back over it yourself.
So you couldn’t find one small “ommision” then. But you’re happy to carry on with the baseless claim.The distortion is adding emphasis were no emphasis can be heard.
For example?That’s not reporting, that’s editorialising.
No, it’s reporting. Pointing out that Helen Clark was cagey and diffident and awkward when asked whether or not she set her spies onto New Zealand citizens is not distortion, as you say, but reporting. It’s quite clear that you think reporters should simply be megaphones for politicians. You don’t like their words being emphasized and underlined: that’s your problem. You are plainly wrong when you try to insinuate there’s something misleading about pointing out the obvious discomfort of a politician.It’s bogus if you are calling it a transcript.
So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? Please put up your bald transcript of those four minutes—and we’ll see which one is more true to the nature of that conversation.As I said, you demand standards of others you don’t apply to yourself.
More empty personal insults. Can I remind you: this is not an LEC meeting, and I don’t get intimidated or confused by your strategy of abuse.- Again with the slander, moz? You’re a sad wee man.
- So you don’t behave at LEC meetings in the same way you behave on this forum? Okay, we’ll take your word for it.As they say in parliament, I withdraw and apologize.
felix…
“So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? “That’s pretty much the definition of a transcript.Tracey…
Thats what we get from the Court. The time the initials of the speaker and the words.- Thats what we get from the Court. The time the initials of the speaker and the words.
That’s why we depend on honest reporters to bring out the nuances and inflexions that the bare transcripts leave out.- hmmmm. I use the transcript and the audio. You are right that how someone says something matters, but that ius why I read and audio.
freedom…
when the courts actually let you see the transcripts that is
- I get that but they release ones to parties, that is the context I get them in.
- Tracey, It has been my experience that when it comes to the courts, ‘parties’ seems not to include the victim.So crumbled the cookie of justice into the teacup of disillusion.
- Yes you are right if by victim you mean in criminal cases? That’s wrong of course and transcripts ought to be readily available. The police prosecution service ought to be cooperative in the supply though? Or are they so budget conscious they wont pay for the extra copy?I deal with civil matters btw.
- “So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? “That’s pretty much the definition of a transcript.Yes, you’re correct there, felix. That’s why my enhanced transripts, and even my more imperfect slapdash efforts scribbled on a piece of paper, are better than a bald transcription of the words. It would be highly misleading, for instance, to not mention that Helen Clark was uncomfortable and hesitant when pressed on the subject of whether she set her spies onto New Zealand citizens.
- ‘Enhanced’ transcript.So your efforts relate to real transcripts in the way enhanced interrogation techniques relate to lawful questioning? Good to know.
- False analogy. I’m not surprised.By the way, I’m guessing that you support “enhanced interrogation”. Am we correct in surmising that?
- That’s twice today you’ve used the royal pronoun, Moz. You’re not related to that German woman on our money, are you?
sockpuppet…
Really Morrissey I don’t know why you bother trying to educate TRP he appears to be a rather nasty little bigot and bully boy who is unable to widen his thought processes beyond his own little clique’s list of what is good and what is bad.I’m also not sure why he’s desperate to suggest Liz Windsor is German .. unless it’s some poor imitation of a Fawlty Towers joke that I’m missing ?
- TE REO OUTAKE: That’s twice today you’ve used the royal pronoun, Moz.
MORRISSEY: It’s a common propaganda trick—but you were alert to it. Well spotted, Te Reo!
TE REO PUTAKE: You’re not related to that German woman on our money, are you?….[Uncomfortable pause]….MORRISSEY: [carefully] Errrrr, as far as I know, no-o-o-o-o. If I wasn’t fearful that it was a Mormon site, I might be tempted to check it on theancestry.com site.- Really Morrissey I don’t know why you bother trying to educate TRP he appears to be a rather nasty little bigot and bully boy who is unable to widen his thought processes beyond his own little clique’s list of what is good and what is bad.Thanks, sockpuppet, I do appreciate your solicitude. Te Reo is a buddy of mine. He dishes it out to this writer, i.e. moi, fearsomely at times, but he is also kind and supportive at other times. A diamond geezer, he is—as they say in the East End.I’m also not sure why he’s desperate to suggest Liz Windsor is German .. unless it’s some poor imitation of a Fawlty Towers joke that I’m missing ?
I think he meant this German woman….
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Dominatrix.jpg - Thanks for the clarification Morrissey I didn’t realise you were indulging in a grumpy old man double act, although I’m not sure if my reading of TRPs comments in the tone of Ginger Rodgers will make them any less ludicrous.
- ‘grumpy old man double act’The Statler and Waldorf of teh blogs? No, Moz and I are actually the same person. We’ve been having this bipolar, duopolist dialogue since June 1984, only days after Al Gore invented the web. Moz corrected Al on his proposed name for the internet (we felt that it obviously should be the elegant ‘bittube’, rather than the cheap, brutalist Americanism of ‘the web’). I publicly disagreed with myself (mozself?) on an embryonic board and an institution was born. We’re sorry if this has led to any confusion, or indeed, contusions.ps, the Windsors are German. They changed their name from the original Wettin a century ago for PR purposes.
- …the Windsors are German. They changed their name from the original Wettin a century ago for PR purposes.Here’s another great British/German royalty-themed cover from 1985…
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=615 - To say that Liz Windsor is German is a bit of a stretch. She’s probably no more German than you or I.Fascinating that you are one and the same person – it really does make me all the more in awe of Morrissey being able to write so beautifully under his own name as distinct from his efforts under the TRP pseudonym.
- Fascinating that you are one and the same person – it really does make me all the more in awe of Morrissey being able to write so beautifully under his own name as distinct from his efforts under the TRP pseudonym.Thanks for that my friend. I turn into Te Reo Putake whenever I want to write something really horrible.
Next I might try being Garth Gaga George…. fender…
Have you consigned Professor Longhair to the scrapheap?
- Our good friend “fender” asks: Have you consigned Professor Longhair to the scrapheap?The Professor wrote to me the other day. He is on “sabbatical”* in Eastern Europe somewhere. He extends to all Standardisti the very best wishes for the New Year.* Colloquially known as “on the run”.
- Louis Mount Batten was born Prince of Battenburg, changed during world war one cos of german dislike in England. Mount Btten ws Prince Philip’s uncleSaying she is no more German than you or I is a little spurious given she is only Queen by virtue of those who came before, some of whom in this case were German. Her Great Grandfather Albert was German, so that’s an 8th German right there.
- That’s great great grandfather ….. and a good chap as far as that family goes by all accounts.
- This time Morrissey actually seems to have gotten the words about right.
I got it exactly right, my friend. Exactly. I was careful to even include Ms Clark’s little verbal tics, like the repeated use of y’ow and her frequent guffawing, which is a control mechanism par excellence.But as usual, he’s adding extraneous punctuation and emphasis on words,
“Extraneous”? I challenge you to put up ONE example of where my punctuation is extraneous or misleading, and where I have emphasized a word inappropriately.….as well as his usual bullshit “Significant pause” crap so as to distort what actually happened.
There were several significant, awkward, uncomfortable pauses when Laidlaw pressed her on whether she had set the dogs onto New Zealand citizens. They were significant, all right, and you know it.My “stage directions” are intended, as always, to emphasize and clarify, and to evoke the flavour and nature of the conversation. They are not intended to distort, as you allege.- Because I have some time, and because you’re so much in denial, I figured I’d bother to answer these questions.“We’ve been talking here,…hrrrumph…. some might say obsessively,”
This “hrrumph” is unwarranted, as it was a very brief mumbled pause before he continued on. Recording this as “hrrumph” has negative connotations that are not warranted.“I mean, err, y’know, journalists have a duty! And that duty is to get out and seek the truth! That journalist broke what in journalistic terms was a pretty good story! Now, it happened to be pretty annoying to the government!”
None of these exclamation marks are warranted.“[cagily] Wellllll, as reported on every yeeeear, in the annual report, uh …. [uncomfortable caesura]…. Yes I did sign warrants!”
It wasn’t cagey, you’ve added unnecessary emphasis on “Well” and “year” that implies she was reluctantly answering the question when there is no reluctance in her voice at all. I don’t think “caesura” is the correct term here and there was certianly nothing uncomfortable about it. Once again, an unwarranted exclamation mark.“Yep!”
Another unwarranted exclamation mark.…….[Significant pause]….
This pause at 22:48 is shorter than one marked merely “[pause]” at 24:40-24:42. Furthermore there is nothing significant, nor indeed apparently deliberate in the very brief pause here at all. It’s a natural part of speech after someone has asked a question in a new direction on the topic at hand.“I aaaaam.”
She said “am”.“I had a HUUUUUUGE respect”
She said “huge”.“I was a BUSY PERSON!”
Exclamation mark appropriate, but capitalisation is not. This makes it appear like she’s being defensive when there is nothing defensive about this conversation at all.“and he would set out the issues as he saw them.”
No idea why you chose to embolden ‘as he saw them’ in your first transcript.“So there was a LOT OF CARE taken with that.”
Inappropriate emphasis on “lot of care” not present in the audio.“They doooo!”
She said “do”. Again, inappropriate exclamation mark.“broooooader dialogue”
She said “broader”. Again not sure why you choose to embolden this.The entire section between your “significant pause” and “pause” markers actually under-transcribes Helen’s stammering and filler sounds, and for a strict transcripts as you are claiming this is, you actually miss a few words out entirely around these parts.- Awesome analysis, Lanthanide! I do have some disagreements, but I haven’t got the time to answer now. I’ll make a feature of it on tomorrow’s Open Mike (for January 7th).Sorry, but I have to go now.
-
- This is an exactly accurate transcript, and you know it, QoT.
Tim5.4
I have to say …. Helen probably would have been a lot better off withOUT her various ‘advisers’ – the ‘long termers’ probably responsible for the biggest fuckups she ever made.SHG (not Colonial Viper)5.5
How much NZ property does Clark own while a non-NZ resident again?- You mean that Peter Davis and her *both* own – right? I hadn’t noticed Peter leaving his job at Auckland Uni. They just rotate holidays and visits. Perhaps you should look at the requirements of being a “resident”.While you’re at it look at a mirror to see what fatuous dickhead looks like.
Saturday 10 November 2018
“To try and make the lives of people better”: Helen Clark interviewed by Chris Laidlaw, August 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Helen Clark interviewed by Chris Laidlaw, August 2013
HELEN CLARK: I was certainly surprised that, er, Parliamentary Services handed over those records! [guffaw]
CHRIS LAIDLAW: A heh, heh!
HELEN CLARK: Ha ha ha! But, errrr…
CHRIS LAIDLAW: What would you have SAID to them?
HELEN CLARK: Errrmmmm…
LAIDLAW: Had that been YOU?
HELEN CLARK: I think–heh heh—someone would have had to have been holding the phone out rather a long way from their [sic] ear! ….[guffaw]…. I mean, I don’t think this is acceptable, at ALL. ….[pause]…. I mean, err, y’know, journalists have a duty! And that duty is to get out and seek the truth! That journalist broke what in journalistic terms was a pretty good story! Now, it happened to be pretty annoying to the government! Y’know, been there, experienced THAT! ….[guffaw]….. But, ahh, you know she had a right to pursue a story and get to the truth as she saw it.
LAIDLAW: Were you aware of that Defence Force manual that stated that investigative journalists could be lumped in with a lot of other undesirable people?
HELEN CLARK: [guffaws] I’m certain I never SAW such a thing! Huh! I would have found it rather extraordinary.
LAIDLAW: Did you ever sign a warrant for covert surveillance of a New Zealand citizen?
HELEN CLARK: [cagily] Wellllll, as reported on every yeeeear, in the annual report, uh …. [uncomfortable caesura]…. Yes I did sign warrants!
LAIDLAW: Mmmm, hmmm…
HELEN CLARK: Yep! And they were all, ahh, referred to and counted up in the Annual Report to Parliament every year.
LAIDLAW: And you’re convinced that they were absolutely justifiable?
LAIDLAW: Isn’t the most serious effect of some of this the erosion of public confidence in the organs of the state? We’ve been seeing a lot of pressure on various departments lately, MFAT and others, but revelations of this kind really do make people wonder about whether the state is on their side.
HELEN CLARK: They doooo! And it’s partly an issue of not knowing what you don’t know. But I think that, given that in this whole fracas, there appears, if we take the Kitteridge Report as the guide here, that there WAS a gap in the law. Now something has to be done about the gap in the law, BUT…. at the same time I think it’s an opportunity to have a, y’know,broooooader dialogue about the kind of protections New Zealand citizens are entitled to and one would hope that that would come through this sort of process.
HELEN CLARK: I think that power as a concept is neutral. You can use power for good ends or you can use it for bad ends. I like to think that I used the power and influence I had in my life in New Zealand and now at UNDP to try and, y’ow, make the lives of people, errr, BETTER. That was my mission. So I think it can be used for GOOD but it can can also be used for ILL.
LAIDLAW: Nice to talk to you! And I hope you enjoy your time here. That was former prime minister Helen Clark, who is these days leading the UN Development Program, and her bookAt the UN is published by Dunmore Publishing.