Anyone familiar with The Standard could predict that the site would take a "worker solidarity" line on this issue, so that is no surprise. What really takes the cake are the vituperative comments directed towards anyone who suggests even the most moderate position. Banning commenters who disagree with you is a sure sign that you've lost the argument and are sliding towards insensibility.
And don't bother with Chris Trotter. In this post he compares Chris Finlayson to the Mouth of Sauron.
On the other side of the debate the mainstream news media appears to be taking a largely hostile approach towards the Australian union behind this dispute and backing "Our Peter", while the blogosphere on the right predictably rails against the commies.
But if you want to read something sensible and considered about the dispute between Peter Jackson and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, there is hope. You could try Russell Brown or Gordon Campbell. Neither have an agenda or an axe to grind, and both examine the matter dispassionately.
The dispute shows no sign of abating. Stuff reports that Sir Peter Jackson requested a meeting with the actors' union, but was turned down. It can only be hoped that the two sides will get together soon, because if this continues our film industry may go down the plughole.
Update: It appears there is some question as to whether Jackson is legally able to deal with MEAA. The Herald reports:
Yesterday, Mr Finlayson said in a letter to the studios - which was also copied to Sir Peter and Ward-Lealand - that legal advice from the Crown Law Office confirmed the Commerce Act prevented The Hobbit's producers "from entering into a union-negotiated agreement with performers who are independent contractors". Section 30 of the act, which deals with price fixing, "effectively prohibits" such arrangements, he said.The MEAA has obtained an opinion from Simpson Grierson pointing out that Jackson could deal with them as employees, rather than independent contractors, and not breach section 30.
I’m not going to give a legal opinion on this. Both parties may well be right, but I’m no expert in these areas.
"...don't bother with The Standard... ...And don't bother with Chris Trotter..."
ReplyDeleteDear me, a bad case of Public Address disease breaking out in this post! Of course Mr. Trotter and The Standard are going to differ from your POV - they are offering a perspective informed by a very different ideological toolbox.
Dismiss out of hand any point of view that doesn't conform to a middle class perspective then present those who you agree with as the only model of reasonableness.
Ah, the unconscious irony of middle class authoritarianism.
"Ah, the unconscious irony of middle class authoritarianism."
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of unconscious irony, that's a wonderful line. The tactic on The Standard of shouting down or banning anyone who disagrees with the "worker solidarity" line is a pretty good example of authoritarianism in action.
There is plenty of debate on Public Address about this issue. Informed debate. Not people coming out throwing punches from predetermined ideological corners. A shouting competition is not a debate.
Except that Russell Brown's take on events is at least coloured by the fact he was excluded from the meeting he turned up to attend, not that he would have the honesty to admit that.
ReplyDelete"not that he would have the honesty to admit that."
ReplyDeleteAnon, don't be such a dick. Have you actually read his post? Let me help you out:
"I had been looking forward to hearing what was said, but the sign taped to the door reading "Performers only – NO MEDIA" indicated I wasn't welcome."
So accusing Brown of dishonesty is pretty low behaviour.
Poor Russell gets awfully offended when he's confronted with something as brutish as class struggle or Tuhoe nationalism or anti-imperialism. His delicate Grey Lynn liberalism is not really designed to cope with such asperities. Leaving all else aside, though, I'm for the immediate deportation of Jackson on aesthetic grounds.
ReplyDelete