According to the San Antonio Current, a city employee believed to have been exposed as part of the Ashley Madison account leak has since committed suicide.
From George, as is becoming usual:
I never thought I would say this, but the political cycle is becoming a bore. The mid term blues have taken root and the only activity is the manufactured crisis by the socialists. Recession pending, TPPA disaster, Health and Safety debacle; all a load of cobblers of course, and the political polls identify this.
A robust opposition is essential to keep a government on it’s toes but sadly we have an opposition that blames the government every time a state tenant gets a cold or as drama queen Phil Twyford screams, “Housing New Zealand must immediately move a Glen Innes family whose son contracted serious and potentially fatal health problems from the appalling condition of their state house”. I wasn’t aware that a house could be so irresponsible but to compensate, mum’s multiple professional tats were quite impressive. What is shocking though, is the National Government’s trained rat that nibbled on a child’s ear whilst asleep in its state house.
The problem is the opposition and the MSM are assuming that the average IQ of the populous runs parallel with that of their supporters and reporters. And that is why politics is so boring at this time. Only idiots are sucked in, and as a consequence, middle NZers, who desire more intellectual stimuli than this garbage, are feeling so irritated and ignored and the more enlightened seek facts through Whaleoil.
Having been on the wrong end of criminal hackers, I am left with a sense of injustice.
The fact a crime is committed, and people’s lives are ruined is just collateral damage and a minor incidental to the story.
I have a need for that to turn around, where the hackers become the focus of the story and are hunted down and vilified. But I suspect that won’t happen during my lifetime.
Only people who have had their lives turned inside out through criminal hacking and thrown into the public will appreciate it.
The hacking group behind the Ashley Madison breach has compared the affair-seeking website to “a drug dealer abusing addicts” in an email exchange threatening to carry out more attacks.
In the exchange published on Friday by Vice Media’s Motherboard website, the group calling itself The Impact Team said that hacking Ashley Madison was easy because “nobody was watching” and the site had “no security”. Read more »
Is this the same Justice Edwin Wylie who believed the word of Kim Dotcom over Amanda Banks?
A judge has refused to release any prior criminal history of the man convicted of the murder of Connor Morris, questioning the media’s practice of running “what the jury didn’t know” stories.
Justice Edwin Wylie this week knocked back applications by both TVNZ and TV3 to view Michael Murray’s criminal file, if any.
The broadcasters said they wanted to report quickly and accurately after the verdict if Murray had a criminal history.
But Justice Wylie said the assumption any prior convictions should be in the public domain was unsound.
“It has become relatively common journalistic practice to publicise, after a verdict, a record of the defendant’s criminal convictions, frequently under the heading of `what the jury didn’t know’, or the like.”
Justice Wylie said he hadn’t been given any sound rationale for that type of reporting.
“Rather it seems to me that it could potentially undermine the fair administration of justice, by inviting the public to `second guess’ any verdict.”
Yup dirty media tactics…I have some sympathy with Wylie J on this.
Murray also had a right to privacy, Justice Wylie said.
That’s a pathetic reason.
Media were entitled to report on what went on in court but that didn’t extend to information not presented in open court, he said.
Prior to trials, defendants’ criminal histories are generally suppressed so as to protect their right to a fair trial.
Justice Wylie said if any criminal history came out during sentencing it might be relevant to report on it then.
Murray, 34, will be sentenced next month after being found guilty of Mr Morris’ murder following a two-week trial in the High Court at Auckland. Mr Morris was hit in the head with a sickle in a street fight in west Auckland.
Justice Wylie makes some valid points about the crusading media on behalf of criminal scumbags. They become invested in a story and become advocates for the criminals.
We have in New Zealand a new anti-online bullying law. I don’t support it because it is poorly written and can easily be used as an anti-blasphemy law to prevent people from legitimately criticising religion.
I do wonder though if the MSM are breaking it when they use criminally obtained online personal information and use it to expose, humiliate and harm individuals.
• New cyberbullying law will create a criminal offence of intentionally causing harm by posting a digital communication, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of $50,000.
Wonder no more.
A lecturer in journalism, a Mr Gavin Ellis no less, who used to be the editor of a newspaper had some real pearls of wisdom in another newspaper.
Why do your videos auto-play? Or essentially autoplay because it occupies most of my small screen and simply moving the mouse over it starts it playing?
Yes, I know I can stop them from doing so if I’m quick enough, but it is damn unfriendly to have to do so. And sometimes, when the page on your web site is launched from a link in email, or social media, or an RSS reader, the page may get launched but it isn’t the one I’m on.
Apart from the fact I have to manually stop it from playing, and apart from the fact that I’m sometimes not aware I have to do so, and sounds starts blaring out of my gear unexpectedly, and apart from that being inappropriate in certain settings, there is still one more problem with this.
In this country our mobile data plans are far from generous. And we do a lot ‘while on the go’. What bugs me even more than all the issues mentioned so far, is that your video starts buffering and eating my mobile data plan without me being aware of it. By the time I’ve caught it, half and sometimes all of the video has downloaded and I’ve lost valuable data, that incidentally I pay for, to your bad manners. Read more »
Karl du Fresne copped a flogging from bitter lefty twats on Twatter, but also from bitter lefty media in the Kiwi Journalists Association Facebook page.
He has a blog so can respond in his own manner, and he does so bluntly.
As I fully expected, I came under attack yesterday from some of my fellow journalists over my criticism of Nicky Hager’s claim to be an investigative journalist.
The usual suspects were represented among the comments posted on the Kiwi Journalists’ Association Facebook page. The sleazy socialist journalism academic Martin Hirst popped up like an unwelcome recurring pimple – the first time I’ve encountered his odious presence since he left the Auckland University of Technology journalism school several years ago to return to his native Australia.
According to Hirst, I’m a tired old 19th century opinion machine who hasn’t been a journalist for years. Hirst wouldn’t have a clue about the work I still do as a reporter (work unrelated to my opinion columns), but ignorance has never been any impediment to people like him.
Hirst is a bitter old communist who rants against almost everything.
A former Radio New Zealand journalist named Colin Feslier had a go at me too. Feslier’s name will be listed in the annals of New Zealand journalism for one reason only. As a PR flunky at the Department of Internal Affairs in 2009, he misled the media about Winston Peters’ failure to return a ministerial car after the election. And he made things worse by boasting in an email (wrongly, as it turned out) that he had managed to persuade TVNZ, TV3 and the Dominion Post to “terminate their interest in the story”.
Sorry, but I’m not likely regard Feslier as an authority on anything to do with journalism. He revealed his dismal lack of understanding when he suggested that by my own definition of “journalist”, I should have offered Hager a chance to respond to my comments about him. Apparently he fails to grasp the fundamental distinction between a piece of investigative journalism and an opinion column. Or perhaps he does get it, but it suits him to pretend not to.
Karl du Fresne, who as far as I can recall, is not well disposed towards me.
However he looks into Nicky Hager’s claims of being a journalist.
Debate about Hager’s book Dirty Politics, which exposed connections between government figures and Right-wing muckraker Cameron Slater, dominated last year’s general election campaign.
Now it has had a sequel in court, where Hager claims police searched his house unlawfully after Slater complained that material published in the book had been obtained illegally by hacking his computer.
(Hager, it should be noted, says he had no part in obtaining the material.)
Perhaps he might like to explain at least three visits to the Dotcom mansion prior to the hack.
Hager’s case hinges on whether he can claim the protection of something known as journalistic privilege, which covers the right to protect confidential sources. His lawyer claims the police didn’t adequately consider this right.
Central to the case, it seems to me, is whether Hager is entitled to call himself an investigative journalist.
That’s apparently how he prefers to be described, and most of the media oblige him by using that term. The court heard that the Crown accepts he is a journalist.
This is helpful for his image because the word “journalist” conveys a sense of professional impartiality.
Andrew Bolt shares remarkably similar thoughts to my own on the inherent bias of media personalities.
What’s relatively new is journalists being called out publicly for their bias. For many years, when dissent was punished or simply not published, journalists congratulated each other on being balanced – or at least seeming so.
I’m talking of the time when even George Negus – Negus! – was assumed to be impartial. When Phillip Adams was seen as at the centre of respectable opinion. When the ABC defined the middle ground.
I think one of the sources of the rage so many journalists have for the likes of me is that we are now calling out this fraud, using endless evidence. I have no hesitation in leveling with the audience and announcing my own biases – humanist, conservative, liberal, rationalist and individualist – but I have no hesitation in pointing out the biases of others in the media, too, particularly on the ABC. For a start, I want to end this deceit that the ABC is balanced and not at all leaning to the Left.
ABC presenters have been outraged to have their cover blown. Some – Jonathan Green, Virginia Trioli and Patricia Karvelas – profess astonishment at being identified as Left leaning, either because they are simply not self aware or because they don’t want you to know where they lie.
[…] Read more »