I've been listening all week to Nicky Hager telling us we have a "right to know" what was in Don Brash's emails, that the theft of these emails is in "the public interest," and how he has no regrets about publishing a book filled with someone else's mail. A book published as the result of theft.According to Hager, if "the public interest" demands it, then anyone's private mail should be available to bottom-sniffers like himself to cherrypick and pull together into whatever story he can try and make from it all.
Now, Hager insists the emails weren't stolen (at least not by him), but refuses to give the name of the person who did, um, borrow this stuff. Don't we, by Hager's own reasoning then, have " a right to know" who the bottom-sniffer's muckraker is? Isn't the name of this thief and the means by which these private communications liberated a matter of"public interest" so we may judge for ourselves the context and provenance of the mails? In short, don't we have a right to the contents of Hager's own inbox, however unedifying the contents might be?
The answer, of course, is that we have no such right, any more than Hager had any right to publish a book based on receipt of private communications.
And here's something else Hager might like to think about: the story of the News of the World 'journalist' currently in the dock in London for intercepting and publishing private communications. Clive Goodman (right), who intercepted the calls of royals, MPs and celebrities, has been told by the judge that he faces jail time. Hager meantime has been led to believe by our own complicit media that he faces a best-seller.Justice?
UPDATE: How do you think Hager would look in court if one or others of the owners of Hager's stolen communications were to take him there?
LINKS: Goodman pleads guilty - Guardian
RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-UK, Politics-National
12 comments:
I both love and hate Hagar, his timing is impeccable, his self-promoting marketing couldn't be bettered by Satchi, and he has the ability to topple political parties with mere hype.
He plays the media like nintendo.
He's NZ's answer to Malcolm McLaren, a rude brazen punk with little regard for the media, politicians, the public or the truth.
And anyway, truth has nothing to do with it.
In a world where the public gobble up any and all shite dished up to them by the braindead media - they deserve Hagar.
As McLaren said, "Stealing things is a glorious occupation, particulary in the art world".
Good on Hagar, he is a product of our time - if he did'nt exist, (excuse the cliche) it would be necessary to create him.
He embodies Marx's twist on late-capitalism's production - production creates the need for consumption of the products it creates.
"And anyway, truth has nothing to do with it..."
Many a true word, etc.
That sort of double standards coming from him doesn't surprise me.
Steve, how can you love a thief? A thief is anti-life and deserves hate and only hate.
And anyway, truth has nothing to do with it.
Sadly, yes, though it should.
As McLaren said, "Stealing things is a glorious occupation, particulary in the art world".
No, stealing, as I said, is anti-life, which has no place in art.
The only glorious thing in art is pro-life, right, PC?
Good on Hagar, he is a product of our time - if he did'nt exist, (excuse the cliche) it would be necessary to create him.
No he violated property rights, so bad on him. There is no "need" to create thieves. There is a need to remove then from normal society (i.e., imprison them).
He embodies Marx's twist on late-capitalism's production - production creates the need for consumption of the products it creates.
Marx's beliefs were not a flavour of capitalism. The were a flavour of socialism. Capitalism is more than just an economic system, it is a political system, the only one that recognises the rights of individuals as inviolate.
Besides production does not create the need for consumption. That is backwards. Consumption creates the need for production. Since demand creates consumption, the ultimate source of production is demand.
"Besides production does not create the need for consumption. That is backwards. Consumption creates the need for production. Since demand creates consumption, the ultimate source of production is demand."
This is Keynesian economics Kane. You are throughly confused. If you wish to defend capitalism (and one should), then at least do it coherently. A bad defense is worse than no defense.
Sean.
Sean, I think you misinterpreted my point. Admittedly, I used bad wording. What I was saying is that consumption creates the need for production, not the other way around. Without consumption there is no need for production. I meant the source of the need, not the action. Sorry about the bad wording.
What a pack of plonkers.
None of you have a clue!
Nicky Hager, is against the :
#1)Waihopai listening post in the south island. He had demonstrated outside the facility many times with his mate late Rod Donald.
#2) Big businesses.
First, all the emails, given to him were certain to be intercepted somewhere, perhaps from paliarment's server. He dismisses the good work of the people at Waihopai, as intrusion of privacy by big brother, which is not, because those folks are doing a good job as our first line of defence , BUT whoever intercepted Don's emails and handed to Hager, is regarded by Hager as genuine.
Second, he uses the services of big businesses (publishers, bookstores, TV news, newspapers, etc,...) to launch his book.
What a fuckin hypocrite.
Steve said...
What a pack of plonkers.
None of you have a clue!
An insult followed by a bland assertion. Why would anyone take your criticism seriously?
Sean.
What is it we are so clueless about then? If you are so knowledgeful why not full us in? :-)
As said, said, "An insult followed by a bland assertion. Why would anyone take your criticism seriously?"
I agree with that Sean! Why don't you try actually offering an argument instead of a baseless comment. You need a base, i.e. an argument, for a comment to be worthwhile. And just to clarify for you what an argument is, since I have to wonder if you know, I will quote Monty Python, "An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition." You failed to do that.
What a fuckin hypocrite.M
Indeed!
Is this a National Party site?
The e-mails were of course leaks, not stolen goods.
Obviously some National Party folk were sufficiently ashamed of what was going on to spread the word.
The discussion should surely be on the CONTENTS of the email, not the method we came to hear of them. They paint a damning picture - and have put National Party to shame.
A few hours ago, Don Brash retired from Parliament after being asked to consider his future. He will shuffle away, with Exclusive Brethrens and wealthy backers from outside the party hopefully following him.
PW
"Is this a National Party site?"
Hahahahahaha. Oh stop it, you're killing me.
"The e-mails were of course leaks, not stolen goods."
Perhaps you don't have a dictionary anywhere near you, PW, so let me help you:
"Steal, v.t. to take away without right or permission, to take feloniously; to secure covertly or by surprise; to secure insidiously."
Hager is a recipient of stolen goods.
What's the big issue with stealing? I take a utilitarian attitude to it - he did the public of New Zealand a favour.
We're lucky we have people like Hager amongst us providing a bit of juicy truth to debate. ;)
Post a Comment