nzherald editor may advocate law change?

Forums › Off topic › nzherald editor may advocate law change?

tombrownzz

147 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#70479 24-Oct-2010 20:50

What do you think about the nzherald newspaper sending their editor to advocate a law change?:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682676

Personally I got no problem with it, but then when I read stories in the nzherald about alcohol limits in the future I may wonder whether the facts are true or not, a bit like if a Tv channel supported a political candidate for an election then I would wonder whether in the future the Tv channel would tell the truth about the candidate.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#395336 24-Oct-2010 20:58

I've seen newspapers editorials supporting public movements and governments before. A free, strongly opinionated press is part of a democratic environment.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

nickb800

2735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

#395340 24-Oct-2010 21:16

The odd editorial is fair enough but I personally find actively promoting policies a step too far. It is a great cause, and good PR getting celebrites onboard, but I think this sort of thing is best left to NGOs

I remember when the Dominion post (evening post back then?) gave out bumper stickers promoting Transmission Gully, which I thought wasnt right. Not that they made much of a difference anyway lol

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#395342 24-Oct-2010 21:24

Personally it's a wasted effort . If they think for one second this will lower the road toll they need a reality check. Those involved in DIC accidents are way over the current limit and this will just become a revenue gathering exercise like the 4Km/hour speed blitz on at the moment.. I think the Herald should stick to what it's good at, sensationalist and tabloid reporting.. I gave up on my Herald sub a couple of months ago as it seem to be a complete waste of money..

Regards,

Old3eyes

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#395374 24-Oct-2010 23:59

I think they would have more luck reducing the road 'toll' by not having a name that sounds so feeble and instead calling it what it is.

Road deaths.

When I hear that the road toll over the long weekend was only 4, I think 'meh'

But if I hear that 4 people died horribly in road accidents this weekend, I might think twice about speeding next time.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#396076 27-Oct-2010 00:36

This blog post has an interesting graph:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/10/blood-alcohol-levels-of-fatally-injured.html

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#396082 27-Oct-2010 06:02

Ragnor: This blog post has an interesting graph:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/10/blood-alcohol-levels-of-fatally-injured.html

Since when did the media let facts get in the way of a good story? That graph is very interesting.

I lost interest as soon as I saw the "Celebs" sign up to it.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#396723 28-Oct-2010 10:26

Ragnor: This blog post has an interesting graph:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/10/blood-alcohol-levels-of-fatally-injured.html

interesting as in completely irrelevant?

It only shows fatally injured drivers. what about the times when the drunk person causes a crash and the driver of the other car (who is sober) dies but not the drunk person? or when a drunk driver causes a crash and passengers and/or pedestrians die?

(btw it is a table, not a graph)

nickb800

2735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

#396728 28-Oct-2010 10:40

I think the other benefit of a lower limit that is harder to quantify is that the more drinks you have, the harder it is for you to make rational decisions like to stop drinking, drink less, or not drive because you are too drunk.

For example, you drive to a party, knowing that you have to drive home for whatever reason. You estimate the limit for yourself to be six drinks, so you have six drinks. After six drinks your judgment is impaired and you decide to drink more. Come time to go home you are well over the limit, you drive home and become and statistic. If you knew the limit was equivalent to having two drinks, then you would have only had two drinks, after which you would been able to decide to stop drinking.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#396733 28-Oct-2010 10:56

Ragnor: This blog post has an interesting graph:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/10/blood-alcohol-levels-of-fatally-injured.html

I have a very cynical attitude towards journalists, especially those that write for the NZ Herald. But having just read through a number of blog posts written by the above-mentioned person, I'd put more faith in what's written in the NZ Herald...

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#397001 28-Oct-2010 20:12

NonprayingMantis:

interesting as in completely irrelevant?

It only shows fatally injured drivers. what about the times when the drunk person causes a crash and the driver of the other car (who is sober) dies but not the drunk person? or when a drunk driver causes a crash and passengers and/or pedestrians die?

(btw it is a table, not a graph)

How is it not relevant? If fatal accident stats show ~75% of the time alcohol was not a factor I think it's logical to assume similar for non fatal accidents.

It would be interesting to see non fatal results but they don't automatically breath test the driver in non fatal accidents so we don't have that information.

Do you really think more advertising and regulation will have any effect on relatively small % of people who persist in driving while drunk now? I don't.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#397179 29-Oct-2010 09:31

Ragnor:
NonprayingMantis:

interesting as in completely irrelevant?

It only shows fatally injured drivers. what about the times when the drunk person causes a crash and the driver of the other car (who is sober) dies but not the drunk person? or when a drunk driver causes a crash and passengers and/or pedestrians die?

(btw it is a table, not a graph)

How is it not relevant? If fatal accident stats show ~75% of the time alcohol was not a factor I think it's logical to assume similar for non fatal accidents.

Except that is not what it shows at all. It simply shows that of the drivers who died in road accidents, alcohol was present for ~25% of them. It says nothing about the cause of the fataility.

Let me explain with an example. Let's say only one crash happened, a 2 car smash up caused by a drink driver where both drivers died. Only one was over the limit, the other was sober.
This means that only 50% of fatalities were drunk, however 100% of the fatalities were caused by alcohol.

And what if each car had a passenger who also died? that is 4 deaths all caused by 1 drunk driver, but the only info the table would give us is 2 deaths, 1 of which was drunk.

that is why the table is irrelevant at best, and totally misleading at worst.

It would be interesting to see non fatal results but they don't automatically breath test the driver in non fatal accidents so we don't have that information.

Do you really think more advertising and regulation will have any effect on relatively small % of people who persist in driving while drunk now? I don't.

relatively small? Just what do you suppose the number is?
<1%? the articels suggest somewhere around there
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10672986
"186 caught drink-driving, of 31,777 cars stopped"

so, even if your calim about 25% was correct (and we have already established that it could be significantly over that) this means that <1% of drivers are causing 25% of driver fatalities
You don't think it is worth targetting that 1% of drivers?
Even a small reduction in the number of drunk drivers has the potential to save a large proportion of fatalities.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#397191 29-Oct-2010 09:57

tombrownzz: What do you think about the nzherald newspaper sending their editor to advocate a law change?:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682676

Personally I got no problem with it, but then when I read stories in the nzherald about alcohol limits in the future I may wonder whether the facts are true or not, a bit like if a Tv channel supported a political candidate for an election then I would wonder whether in the future the Tv channel would tell the truth about the candidate.
?

The Herald openly backed John Banks in the recent Auckland elections. They failed to report that for the Council more than62.5% of votes returned elected no one to that Council. In Albany Ward, 81% of votes elected no one. Neither person elected even got 10% of the vote. Not a word about it from the Herald, self-style champion of the people.

The Herald campaigned for a National victory from 2004 onwards.

Bias at the Herald is both overt and nothing new. Their two-part, full-section odes to John Key on subsequent Saturdays prior to the last election nailed the colours to the mast beyond all doubt politically.

Thus is just the latest of a very long series of episodes where the Herald has attempted to shape public opinion to aid political outcomes they seek.

Fairfax does the same. The foreign- owned media in Nz all do it. The only truly kiwi media are TVNZ and Radio New Zealand and this government is hostile to both as they are more likely to question the interests of multi- nationals here.

If anyone questions foreign ownership, the foreign-owned Herald brands them as racists and xenophobes and never looks at the real issues related to economic sovereignty. How can they? They are foreign-owned. But in doing so they are highlighting exactly why we should be looking more closely at who owns our media. It isn't Kiwis. It's people who don't live here at all using these media to advance their business interests via political means. Like Rupert Murdoch and his 175 newspapers globally who - coincidentally - were 100% in favour of invading Iraq.....the week after he made a speech saying he supported it. Examples of this are legion.

Bottom line: You don't have to tell an editor what to write if you hire the right editor.

"Freedom of the press"? I'd love to see it, but we don't have it. We get the press a handful of foreign media moguls and corporates allow us to have. The editorial line is consistently pro-corporate and anti-democratic across owners and newspapers or radio.

In NZ, foreign billionaires enjoy freedom of the press, because Kiwis dont actually own any but for the state media...and the almost 100% foreign-owned commercial media rubbish "our" media every chance they get....out of self-interest...as do their political clients who also don't like being held to account in ways their foreign-owned partners won't do. This government is itching to privatise and diminish the last voices we actually own.

The day the Horton family sold the MMP-loving, fair-minded Herald to Irish Media mogul, Tony O'Reilly's APN was a very sad day for Auckland and NZ.

It's not just NZ. In 2007 there was a referendum on MMP in the Canadian province of Ontario. MMP got just under 40% of the vote.....but 54 out of 54 daily newspapers in the province, owned by 3 politically-aligned corporates, were 100% opposed. Unanimous. It's a wonder MMP got 49% of the vote in the face of that..... and the media there are owned buy the same small group who own it here. The London Free press (London pop: 500,000) didn't even cover the referendum in the last 3 weeks of the election. Not one mention. Asked why, they said: "We didn't think anyone was interested." Oh....

Bias? That's pretty much all we get on matters with a political dimension to them. Our media is "pwned"...and not by us. The more you dig, the worse it looks. Start digging. you owe it to yourself to understand how bad this is for you and for NZ.

Prediction: Virtually every newspaper in NZ will be opposed to MMP in the referendum next year....never mind public support for it pretty much even money. Corporates don't like democracy. They want their political clients to have 100% of the power on 40% of the vote....they way they used to. If that means making the votes of a million Kiwis worthless....they could care less.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#397205 29-Oct-2010 10:29

tombrownzz: What do you think about the nzherald newspaper sending their editor to advocate a law change?:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682676

Personally I got no problem with it, but then when I read stories in the nzherald about alcohol limits in the future I may wonder whether the facts are true or not, a bit like if a Tv channel supported a political candidate for an election then I would wonder whether in the future the Tv channel would tell the truth about the candidate.

There is money to be made in private prisons now....so the more people you can put in jail for longer is good for business.

Will tougher laws stop drink drivers? I doubt it. A drunk person has impaired judgement and thoughts of the law and penalties go out of their head. In the US, where there a boatload of money being made running jails, the pressure is for ever longer sentences for more and more crimes.....largely driven by the corporate media.....never mind all the experts point out the evidence says it doesn't actually work. The US consistently has the highest murder rates in the so-called 'developed' world...even with the death penalty.

But at least there will be money made from incarcerating more and more people for longer and longer.

If "tougher" (='s more punitive, but ultimately ineffective) laws are passed, make sure you buy shares in private prison companies.

I'm sure the Herald's owners will be. Mugs not to.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#397220 29-Oct-2010 11:01

freitasm: I've seen newspapers editorials supporting public movements and governments before. A free, strongly opinionated press is part of a democratic environment.

I agree 100%, Mauricio...It's just shame (but for TVNZ and RNZ) Kiwis actually don't own any of their "free" press.

It would be wonderful if we had a diverse, free press....but after you take out Fairfax, APN and CanWest-Global....there's very little press left at all.

If you can see any 'light' or diversity between the editorial lines of the Fairfax and APN corporate-interest monolith....please share.

Sure, they all include the token 'other' voice....like Brian Rudman in the Herald....but the overriding primary 'voice' is pretty much consistent across all private media in NZ.

...and this isn't taking choice of news story into account. The current debate over foreign ownership is a good example of how the media try to pervert the debate into something the serves their interests and undermines opposing views.

A free press.....we can only dream.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#397315 29-Oct-2010 13:21

...which is why we have the internet, where any and all opinions can be heard.