- Date published:
5:30 pm, October 28th, 2020 - 29 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
NZ needs more unions with balls (or ovaries) like this
The contrasts between the nz union movement and the Australianunion movement. was most graphic during the time of rogernomics..the unions here tugged their forelocks and went and waited for the company directorships etc..that came their way..the aussie unions said: 'no you're fucken not!'….forward to the present day and we have a weak union movement here…and a strong one in australia..
How about puting a ban on house buying by investors, leaving first home buyers only to compete. That will take the heat off the market.
How about we avoid a totalitarian state
How about we make multiple property owners pay at least 50% tax on each holding when they cash up, cease all tax write offs, and prevent them from using the properties they own to fund the purchase of more.
How about doubling the rates for each additional property owned after the family home?
A good practical solution.
How about we avoid a hedonistic state with don't care at the top materially and too brutalised at the bottom to care spiritually at the bottom.
Totalitarian states are more to do with oppressing dissenting individuals than curtailing the investment options of sociopathic entities like corporations – that's done by democracies.
My thoughts exactly Stuart.
One house, one person/family. If you need more than one house, then its an investment of the most exploitive type.
I consider that allowing the immoral actions of investors/speculators to be totalitarian.
It's the Reserve bank taking LVR restrictions off investors despite receiving a good number of submissions to leave them on and maybe even increase the %.
No they knew best but "hey RB told you so ".
We don't want prices going any higher ( if they crash more people wind up further underwater) so the RB needs to hurry up and put LVR back on and adjust the percentages for deposit until the market starts to glide down. And it also need to facilitate leaving mortgages on interest only for current homeowners who live in property. They should not be made homeless and possibly lose equity just because they can't afford principal reductions.
What’s next? Medical advice from Paltrow?
In Aussie investors in property for let paid a larger deposit.
50% for a one bedroomed property, 40% for two, 30% for three.
Buying to live in it 10%.
Commercial property had insurances and huge additional costs.
In Queensland in 1996.. (someone may have more up to date knowledge.)
Perhaps it could help here.
"Menéndez March said he hoped to live up to a long-held Green Party tradition of being transgressive in Parliament, and that some discomfort would be natural if progress was being made and things were being done differently."
Tedious "end justifies the means" rhetoric from Parliament's first Latin American wannabe.
Our young transgressor and marxist sympathiser will know of his compatriot Toledano, remembered "as a leading force in Mexican politics and one of the country's outstanding intellectuals."
I think he may have George Bernard Shaw in mind:
Change involves angst, and getting people out of their comfy theories and systems that work for them, will produce some degree of discomfort- That is for sure. Greywarshark
And starting dissing royalty shows an immaturity that I hope will quickly be replaced by hands-on wisdom. Just remember that Prince Charles is supportive of organic farming – they are not a bunch of dilettante lightweights.
Menéndez March just get on with priorities and keep your power dry.
Menendez March should be working to achieve progress on environmental issues – not trying to make a virtue of his origins or sexual preferences.
He's from Mexico, how is he a Latin American wannabe?
Immature of him imho.
Really important to pick your battles. Most NZders are probably in favour of being a republic but at this point in time, very low prority.
The Standard is at the extremity of the political spectrum in the NZ media landscape 🙂
Well if The Standard overall represents the extreme left, then the current centre of the political spectrum in NZ is closing in on the far right.
Thats crazy dont they realize how many russiaphobes visit this site ?
I recall the original article (https://mediabias.co.nz – no fullstop at the end) and wondered from the description whether they were effectively counting mentions of politicians, and assuming differences in the number of times a politician is mentioned arise from bias. The How It Works section does not give examples, but every government gets mentioned more often than the opposition. Has it been peer reviewed? Having said that, the Easton numbers are easier to understand, and the "bias" of Kiwiblog and The Standard are probably as we would expect.
I am not sure what defines left and right for the calculations. It has a feeling of the transparency international's findings with some rigour from academics applied to attempt conclusions to be drawn.
And thinking about culture wars being fought by a tiny minority with 12 mentioned. We regard this under MMP as being a sizable number worthy of respect! And the big silent majority get referred to as if they are a bunch of worthies who watch, cogitate and withhold judgment. I think we should regard them as people who are a drag on democracy and who need to sharpen their minds and ideas up with lots of regular debates and express their ideas and listen to see whether it is garbage or not.
We need to decide what we want for this country, instead of the raggle-taggle way we carry on still, since our colonisation times. When thinking is everybody's responsibility, it appears that it is nobody's and just kneejerk reactions and the merest snap of a synapse taking place once every three years is regarded as satisfactory. I think that maintenance levels on everything that we use and do need an overhaul and it should start soon with ideas being gathered from people who have already turned it over in their minds.
Scoop and Max Rashbrooke are providing a site to get started on so all the bright sparky minds what about lighting our path to the future.
That's because their method does not count 'capitalist running dog' or 'socialist scum' towards sentiment scores. Otherwise Slater and co would register much further right and Bradbury would easily out-left this place. Political discussion is far more than mentioning parties.
Scoop banned from posting for talking about the Standard as if it has an opinion?
Kind of cute. Of course there are an implicit biases in the approach.
What they measured was effectively was the concentration of the level of politics in the posts and articles. See https://mediabias.co.nz/home and https://mediabias.co.nz/how They also seem to have missed publishing the obvious measurements skews.
For a starter there is a general bias in the methodology, that if they ever do their 2017 analysis should show up. The government always gets way more 'positive' media than the opposition simply because it is putting out more published material than the opposition. That is because oppositions really aren't doing much in the way of actual deeds apart from being critics. General media focus on reporting what actually affects people rather than critics carping.
Another problem is that this study isn't looking at 'media'. It is looking at online sources of local information.
In that context, trying to compare political sites (and calling them media) and a general news media organisation is like trying to compare warships with container ships. Same basic functionality (they float and can move in water) with a completely different purpose and set of handling characteristics.
The Standard is almost entirely a specialist political site – as is Kiwiblog. It has a specific audience of people interested in local and overseas politics. Specialist sites, especially partisan ones, usually concentrate less on what their parties are doing and far more on what the other side is saying about it.
The methodology in this study effectively casts the same weight of praise as it does on criticism. Lauding the supported parties (fawning) usually isn't noticeable in political writers who'd usually praise with faint-damning – the exception is the brown nosers praising Trump – but that appears to be more a function of his personality in that if you aren't his personal arselicker then you are clearly his enemy. However political writers are usually pretty damn critical of political parties that they disagree with.
I'm pretty sure that showing a for and against skew ratio in the political sites would be fascinating. Praise with faint damning of who they support would show, as would the strident criticism of the other sides of the political spectrum. It'd be even more useful for looking at general media sites than anything that was actually reported.
Which leads me on to the final point. The density of political information in specialist political sites compared to more general sites is extremely high. The only other multi author long form political site that I can think of are sites like Pundit, which is more 'balanced' in the spectrum in that its authors tend to be from both left and right – but which has a an equally high political concentration of posts.
If you ran a comparison with other specialist outlets like (for instance) BusinessDesk looking at business compared to business in The Herald or Stuff you'd see the same concentration effect. There are fewer articles that concentrate on the target subject (decreasing density), and then there are far fewer mentions in the articles that are on topic.
It is like the difference between reading about a linux kernel in computer or technical media outlets like Phoronix vs general technical media like zdnet. There really is no comparison between the density of target information specialist site compared to a more general site. Detail vs puff pieces.
The obvious exceptions pretty well prove the rule. Overtly political sites like BFD and TDB actually aren't particularly political. Their political article tend to focus less on crucial details and more on unsubstantiated opinions. Anyway on these indices they tend to have lower concentrations of political pieces and lower densities of information within the political pieces. I will forbear describing what I think the purpose of either site really is.
Scoop is a dump site where people can put up what are essentially press releases. I've literally seen political treatises from all corners of the political spectrum there. I'd agree that the right isn't noticeable about being proactive in using it. Sheer laziness would be my guess about why.
Personally I wouldn’t count any of those sites as being media in any general sense. I certainly have never thought of this site as ‘media’. It just runs in corner of my server in my living room. I suppose they are if you count free public publishing as media. But by that definition, you should look at public facebook and twitter as well. Not to mention the NewsTalk site.
It looks more like they put these specialist sites in so that there were extremes for mainstream to point to an say – but we aren’t extreme.
Anyway is you multiply a tilted for/against skew in the analysis (vaguely praising with reservations for with whom we support vs scathing criticism about those who we oppose) against a specialist concentration effect – you get exactly what this site measures. Interesting at pushing measurement extremes wider. Not that useful for looking at the actual positioning.
Because they have only published for one period with one side being government vs the other side being opposition – you’d also mostly looking at the action vs criticism effects in the main stream media.
Not a particularly useful system over all. Whoever did it should go and do some courses on how to measure like with like and how to use controls to look at their measurement biases.