Do you think there are any editors are RNZ or other press outlets who make pro US, pro Israel, pro EU or pro UK edits

For sure.

Do you think the GCSB investigated anybody for being pro any of those countries?

I would not be surprised at all. The GCSB is presumably investigating various people all day every day as the core part of their job.

I disagree. Freedom of the press involves exactly that. In fact the most of the press in our country is owned by foreigners and you can bet your ass those countries are manipulating the press in order to change public opinion.

I’m really struggling with your argument. You are saying that the foreign owned press is manipulating the public through media and that in your opinion we should not do anything about that?

All the articles in New Zealand media are already too pro-Ukraine. Last month The Press had two pro-Ukraine articles, one by the Ukrainian ambassador, and another by Kate Turska (Mahi For Ukraine).

Those sound like opinion pieces. They are allowed to be biased. You don’t see opinion pieces supporting Russia for invading a neighbour because bothsidesism is not a good journalistic approach. Sometimes actions are not explained by anything other than megalomania.

According to RNZ, talking about colour-revolutions is pro-Russian.

Russia uses this term as a way of saying and protestors demanding democracy are part of a US operation to destabilise a country. I am not sure what RNZ actions you are referring to but I suspect they are right. I would like to know more, if you have a link?

The CIA and USAID are always up to no good in former soviet states.

At this point I feel like this is an undisputed fact of the world. Russia likes to play things as if being against the Russian invasion of Ukraine means you’re pro-US, but it’s possible to denounce all horrible actions by the superpowers.

Isn’t the chain of events:

• Editor makes pro-russia edits over a period of time
• RNZ catches editor doing this, starts reverting edits with notice to readers
• Editor in question resigns
• GCSB investigates whether this was a Russian spy
• outcome was that it wasn’t

I don’t see how anyone went outside their remit. RNZ wasn’t forced to do anything. The editor had already resigned, there’s no intimidation. GCSB seems to be doing what they are there for I’m regards to foreign interference.

I do not believe as you’re implying that freedom of the press involves not investigating foreign states manipulating that press to change the public opinion. Rather I think the press in question would welcome the outcome of this investigation (whatever the outcome). There is no implication here that anyone is forcing RNZ to do anything, only RNZ controlling one of their editors. Surely freedom of the press involves freedom of RNZ to control their editor?

Wait, is this the guy that got caught making minor wording edits to articles about Russia’s war on Ukraine to make them more Russia friendly?

And the article is presenting it like it’s a report that clears the guy of wrongdoing, when from my reading it seems the result of the investigation was that he was absolutely doing it but he wasn’t being paid by Russia so it wasn’t state sponsored foreign interference, the thing they were investigating. Right?

So basically the guy was editing stories to make them more Russia-positive but thinks he’s been cleared of wrongdoing due to not being paid for his acts?

Paywalled?

How do we know this isn’t market manipulation? When stock values are all over the place that’s a good opportunity for people with money to make more money.

Minister ignoring advice from experts, employers and high risk sectors

Sounds about right.

and create a hotline to enable reporting of overzealous road cone use.

Is this a joke?

I guess I just assumed there were strict political advertising rules. Every political ad says something like “authorised by Act party [etc]” so I assumed this meant political advertising had to be authorised by the party. But perhaps this is just so you know that ad was actually published by them (otherwise it would be false advertising I guess).

Man, this would open up so many opportunities if I had the money to spend 20 cents per view on facebook ads!

Woah woah woah… We can do this?

I can make a billboard that says “legalise shooting poor people, vote Act” and that’s legal so long as I put a disclaimer in tiny writing at the bottom?

What about Facebook advertising, we know micro-targeting happens where people get ads that only show them policies they are likely to support. Can I pay for ads that show real Act policies, like “remove all building regulations, vote Act”? And target them at people likely to be non-billionaire Act voters?

Uh sorry but corruption in China is so bad there’s even a Wikipedia page about how bad it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China

Having laws about things doesn’t make it true, that’s the whole point.

Of course he is. It’s still serving its purpose.

As we’ve heard previously, it’s purpose is to stay in the limelight so other things are not noticed.

I’m not sure how to respond to that. You think the grass is greener but it’s not.

For NZ to be “one of the most corrupt”, that would need to happen in almost all countries. I suspect it’s a single digit number of countries and possibly an amount you can count on one hand.

That’s not what I meant. What I meant is that this is not an NZ thing, it’s a whole world thing.

It’s a nice thought, because it implies that almost all other countries are less corrupt.

I honesty think NZ is one of the lesser corrupted countries in the world, and I mean that as a bad thing.

The government always talks about how many public were hired unter the Labour government but they never get more specific. Is there a breakdown of where these public servants were added?

Is is police, teachers, and nurses or is it middle management?

For context, this guy leads a party that is part of a coalition in government at the moment. However, they only got 6% of the vote. He/they (the guy/the party but I find it amusing given the context that I could have been referring to his pronouns) is certainly not representative of the country as a whole.

More concerning is that the other parties in the coalition are also trying their best to mimic Trump.

This wasn’t a crime before?

As I understand it, an employer not paying your wages is (was?) treated as someone not paying an invoice. Like if you don’t pay your power bill, you owe the power company money and your power company has a range of options to get the money from you but it’s not a crime to not pay your power bill, even if you never intended to pay.

I think this Act recognises that there’s quite a difference between not paying an invoice when you are a private individual vs a company who is responsible for many people’s livelihoods.

Hmm I think I have read that first article in the past. Man I hate the direction we are heading.

Ah ok, that sucks. Maybe with some luck it will get diluted through the select committee process.

The site has this message for me:

The more details link goes here: https://stuffcustomercare.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/43634195444505-Why-can-t-I-access-articles-Fix-Network-or-Browser-Issues

I assumed ad blocker was the issue but maybe it’s something else. There are half a dozen potential reasons and I’m kinda sick of Stuff’s shit 🤷

Edit: I discovered I can just use the reader mode in firefox and it shows me the article.