Sloppy Journalism #20 – DomPost on Christine Rankin
Keri Welham and Tracy Watkins write in the Dominion Post that Christine Rankin refuses to quit Families Commission role. Watkins blogs about Rankin’s appointment as well. In addition Watkins and Welham have another article on the issue as well.
Adam has commented previously on Rankin’s appointment.
It occurs to him that given where so much of the complaining is coming from there might actually be some merit in Rankin’s appointment. After all we have had 9 years of quangos being stuffed to the gills with Labour cronies and fellow travellers and those who share the ‘received’ viewpoint on issues.
If National had appointed someone acceptable to say Sue Bradford and Peter Dunne would we ever get any value from this misbegotten spawn of MMP and pork barrel politics.
However, the purpose of this post is not to take a swipe at political correctness, Sue Bradford and Peter Dunne- fun though that is.
What caught Adam’s attendtion was this snippet in both the print edition and on-line version of the first article referenced:-
Dominion Post - May 13
Now Adam sees absolutely no need for this comment. It is offensive, gratuitous and full of innuendo.
Sloppy journalism indeed.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Don’t be silly, the name is in the DomPoststory, I reproduced it in the post from the print edition.
Plus it can as I said in my post be found in Keri Welham’s and Tracy Watkins on line story here
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2405829/Rankin-refuses-to-quit-role
So instead of accusing me of knowing something, read the post and then comment.Then you will see that the name was published by the DomPost.
Andrei
Because it adds nothing and is to my mind offensive is why I posted about it.
The story could have been presented without the comment on Ms McAuley. The comment added nothing to the story and in my opinion detracted from the rest of the piece.
So you know about Ms McAuley but don’t think other New Zealanders should,
What makes you the arbiter of what your fellow citizens should or should not know about those who are in our employ?
It actually speaks volumes as to the character (or lack of it) of this particular appointee and is highly relevant, particularly given the role she is purportedly to perform.
In fact if you know the background I think the article is remarkably restrained.
I do not know anything about Ms McAuley I simply thought the comment did not add anything.
Further, i do not see myself as the arbiter of anything.
I simply had a view and made a comment about it.
You have your view and that is obviously at variance with mine.
So be it.
Yet you seem for whatever reason to be all bent out of shape on this matter, but then that is up to you.
If you don’t no anything about Ms McAuley how did you know the name?
Its not in the story you criticize, you introduced it into the conversation
Yip old bean you are right – there are plenty of other ways you can show why she is a bad appt http://roarprawn.blogspot.com/2009/05/iiiiiiiiiiii.html
You don’t like that they have reported this but that doesn’t make it sloppy, it only becomes that if it is not factual.
Where’s the innuendo btw? What do you think they might be alluding to?
It is sloppy because it adds nothing to the story which is about her appointment to the Families Commission. The death of Ms McAuley is irrelevant.
You think it adds nothing?
Really – then why are you concerned over it?
And why did you feel compelled to post about it?