And that’s not all, there’s more besides

First News Live!

In a fabulous post a few days ago, Christie tore apart the anonymous writer of an editorial in a newspaper.

Nearly a week later, the carrier?pigeons have delivered those same words to the Bay of Plenty Times?so they were repeated as the editorial in the edition I read over breakfast this morning.

I shall not revisit Christie’s fine work but, rather, look at another paragraph or two at the end of the article: Quote.

If people have a right to be angry, hurtful and offensive on their own online platforms, they have no right to insist that others give them another. Some editors would be happy to publish that sort of material, others would require a more respectful tone, not just for the sake of people’s feelings but also because calm, reasoned, respectful argument is usually more intelligent and therefore interesting.

Interest is always a test in news media. Editors do not refuse to run material because they disagree with it. Editors run a great deal of opinion they do not personally share. They run it if it is well expressed and they think it will interest a good number of readers and, hopefully, add to sensible debate and understanding and public discourse.

But even interesting material is sometimes unacceptable. […]

Molyneux holds a view that ethnic groups differ in their average IQ.

Others would argue that IQ tests are not a culturally neutral measure.

But that is not a debate Goff wants on a council platform and that is understandable.

These days all viewpoints can be found online. Not all, however, have a right to room on other platforms that try to serve the public interest. End of quote.

“If people have a right to be angry, hurtful and offensive on their own online platforms.”

IF?? IF!!!?

Clearly, the writer is firmly in the camp, “I believe in free speech, but …”? To suggest that it is questionable whether people have a right to be angry and offensive on their own platforms is the height of arrogance.

The writer goes on to imply that if that person’s views were presented politely or respectfully then they might be published.? /Tui

And then the money quote:

“Interest is always a test in news media. Editors do not refuse to run material because they disagree with it. Editors run a great deal of opinion they do not personally share.”

Apparently, starting next week, NZME will be featuring opinion writers that are not rabid left-wingers, because some people out there have an interest in conservative viewpoints and their platforms “try to serve the public interest”.

Also, starting in August will be a new N.Z.M.E series on why climate change is an absolute scam as they “try to serve the public interest”. Because of the significant public interest in this debate, N.Z.M.E believe it is right that both sides be treated fairly on their platform.

Since September is the one year anniversary of the election, N.Z.M.E will be running a balanced series on the government’s performance to date with intensive scrutiny of the progress that each of the working groups has made, the likelihood of a useful outcome and the costs to the taxpayer.

In October, N.Z.M.E will launch an in-depth look at the pros and cons of James Shaw’s Zero Carbon Bill and their special investigative reporter will present her findings on what actually happens to the $1.4 billion that New Zealand spends each year.

November’s series will be a look at the negative implications of Jacinda’s Captain’s Call about oil and gas exploration and the implications for New Zealand’s future energy security. If there are any positive outcomes from this decision they will also be covered.

[Health warning: Please do not hold your breath waiting for balance in the MSM]

40%
×