Yes a good piece by Mr Fisher putting this matter in context. Would he have been so keen to set the record straight if the alleged shoplifter had been Chantelle Baker?
Herald reporter Raphael Franks caught my eye in your article.
Mr Franks has been a reporter for the NZ Herald since 2022. Prior to becoming a reporter he worked in a factory and was studying Geography at Christchurch university, that was until he was offered the opportunity to join the Te Rito Journalism Cadetship programme in 2022, funded through the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
Far for it for me to suggest that he may be a DEI hire, not having achieved this opportunity on merit.
I had cause to email Mr Frank’s concerning his article in the Herald dated 15 December 2023.
The piece is a hit job on a teacher who had the temerity to provide some critical thinking skills to his class.
It’s full of all the buzz words like conspiracy theorist and misinformation.
In my email I suggested amongst other things that perhaps the real story lay within the investigation of the data drop that Mr Young had provided. No reply was received.
Of course faced with the ‘Newspeak’ from a national newspaper the school folded.
All the elements leading to the certitude of MSM’s demise is present in this example also.
Yet like a ship on autopilot heading towards the rocks they seemingly cannot change course.
Yep, well said and good points of course. People should always be allowed the opportunity to defend their actions lest they be falsely condemned. Shame on me I guess then because I bet $100 that in the alternative universe Golriz Grababag actually did go on to steal those groceries. And I whilst intellectually I fully concur with your gracious article (I seriously do), my sympathy for Golriz was pretty much used up well before she started publicly supporting Middle Eastern terrorists. That's not completely accurate because I do sympathise with her obvious mental health issues, but until she acknowledges her multiple misdeeds and has a coming-to-Jesus moment, I will probably direct my emotional concern to other, more needy folk.
All good reasons I guess why you were a top judge and I am not, but at least you've stirred my sense of justice for the day.
Regarding the sympathy issue the direction that I gave to juries and which I reminded myself of when sitting alone on a defended matter was that the "decision must be based solely on the evidence and whether it satisfies you to the proper standard. You must put sympathy and prejudice to one side. They have no role in judicial work because, members of the jury, you are sitting as judges - judges of the facts - and your decision must be based on the evidence you have heard in this courtroom".. or words to that effect.
As to the "top judge" bit - I could not possibly comment. There may be lawyers and others whop might disagree with that characterization. But thanks all the same :-)
OK the tote bag seems no big deal but the original Herald article did mention she also put some items in her handbag:
"She was allegedly seen putting some grocery items in a tote bag and other items into a handbag."
That doesn't count as shoplifting - her tote bag may have been full - but putting items in a handbag would have looked strange to store security surely.
I read that some commentators also shop directly into their tote bags. In light of the signs up at pretty much every supermarket advising that this is not permitted they are playing with fire and may wish to avoid finding themselves in hot water with security (and possibly trespassed from the store) in future and use a basket or trolley if their purchases exceed the ability to carry the items without?
As for the behaviour of the media: Shameful sensationalism one would expect from the rags in the past but have gradually become used to in the course of the past decade from previously trustworthy publications - expect even as they go through their death throes.
I dropped in to the local Woolworths carrying a tote bag in which I keep wallet, phone and other bits and pieces. Popped a large bottle of dishwashing liquid into said tote bag (although that was an impulse purchase and not why I went). Passed through self checkout but made sure I got a receipt. All good. No unlawful conduct. You could imagine the headline were it otherwise.
When I first skim read the news story which named Golriz, I felt sympathy, thinking she really did have a health problem. Then when I read it properly and saw she hadn't left the shop I thought holy shit, these reporters are for the high jump, that's not shoplifting. As a former bookshop owner, let alone former journalist, it's media 101 to know it's not theft until the shopper's left the shop. In these days of retailers insisting you bring your own bags (eyes. rolling. backwards) many of us put the goods in our tote bags before we pay. So, are we all alleged shoplifters now? Under suspicion from store detectives? Or only high-profile people? No excuse for such sloppy reporting.
When I saw the story I thought - oh not again, poor woman. When I found out that this ‘fresh’ report was a dredging up of the past coming across as fresh, it became pointless, cruel and unprincipled.
btw The checkout counter isn’t just the last place where there is an opportunity to pay, it is also the first place. And I use my tote bag to put stuff in at Pak’nSave Royal Oak all the time.
The crux of this story is that we have a real problem with our news media. The initial reports were all part of that axiom of dishonest media hacks;
"Don't spoil a good story with facts".
Yes a good piece by Mr Fisher putting this matter in context. Would he have been so keen to set the record straight if the alleged shoplifter had been Chantelle Baker?
God it really is just an awful mess!
Herald reporter Raphael Franks caught my eye in your article.
Mr Franks has been a reporter for the NZ Herald since 2022. Prior to becoming a reporter he worked in a factory and was studying Geography at Christchurch university, that was until he was offered the opportunity to join the Te Rito Journalism Cadetship programme in 2022, funded through the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
Far for it for me to suggest that he may be a DEI hire, not having achieved this opportunity on merit.
I had cause to email Mr Frank’s concerning his article in the Herald dated 15 December 2023.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tauranga-boys-college-distances-itself-from-teacher-after-covid-19-whistleblower-email-to-herald/SDFXPFEXWJBXZOFXHXXIPRBB6M/
The piece is a hit job on a teacher who had the temerity to provide some critical thinking skills to his class.
It’s full of all the buzz words like conspiracy theorist and misinformation.
In my email I suggested amongst other things that perhaps the real story lay within the investigation of the data drop that Mr Young had provided. No reply was received.
Of course faced with the ‘Newspeak’ from a national newspaper the school folded.
All the elements leading to the certitude of MSM’s demise is present in this example also.
Yet like a ship on autopilot heading towards the rocks they seemingly cannot change course.
“Execution by Media” - almost a daily event in the 2020-2023 era.
Yep, well said and good points of course. People should always be allowed the opportunity to defend their actions lest they be falsely condemned. Shame on me I guess then because I bet $100 that in the alternative universe Golriz Grababag actually did go on to steal those groceries. And I whilst intellectually I fully concur with your gracious article (I seriously do), my sympathy for Golriz was pretty much used up well before she started publicly supporting Middle Eastern terrorists. That's not completely accurate because I do sympathise with her obvious mental health issues, but until she acknowledges her multiple misdeeds and has a coming-to-Jesus moment, I will probably direct my emotional concern to other, more needy folk.
All good reasons I guess why you were a top judge and I am not, but at least you've stirred my sense of justice for the day.
Thanks Boris
Regarding the sympathy issue the direction that I gave to juries and which I reminded myself of when sitting alone on a defended matter was that the "decision must be based solely on the evidence and whether it satisfies you to the proper standard. You must put sympathy and prejudice to one side. They have no role in judicial work because, members of the jury, you are sitting as judges - judges of the facts - and your decision must be based on the evidence you have heard in this courtroom".. or words to that effect.
As to the "top judge" bit - I could not possibly comment. There may be lawyers and others whop might disagree with that characterization. But thanks all the same :-)
OK the tote bag seems no big deal but the original Herald article did mention she also put some items in her handbag:
"She was allegedly seen putting some grocery items in a tote bag and other items into a handbag."
That doesn't count as shoplifting - her tote bag may have been full - but putting items in a handbag would have looked strange to store security surely.
And this - admittedly from a long time ago:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99945432/reusable-bags-making-it-easier-for-people-to-steal-from-supermarkets
I read that some commentators also shop directly into their tote bags. In light of the signs up at pretty much every supermarket advising that this is not permitted they are playing with fire and may wish to avoid finding themselves in hot water with security (and possibly trespassed from the store) in future and use a basket or trolley if their purchases exceed the ability to carry the items without?
As for the behaviour of the media: Shameful sensationalism one would expect from the rags in the past but have gradually become used to in the course of the past decade from previously trustworthy publications - expect even as they go through their death throes.
I dropped in to the local Woolworths carrying a tote bag in which I keep wallet, phone and other bits and pieces. Popped a large bottle of dishwashing liquid into said tote bag (although that was an impulse purchase and not why I went). Passed through self checkout but made sure I got a receipt. All good. No unlawful conduct. You could imagine the headline were it otherwise.
When I first skim read the news story which named Golriz, I felt sympathy, thinking she really did have a health problem. Then when I read it properly and saw she hadn't left the shop I thought holy shit, these reporters are for the high jump, that's not shoplifting. As a former bookshop owner, let alone former journalist, it's media 101 to know it's not theft until the shopper's left the shop. In these days of retailers insisting you bring your own bags (eyes. rolling. backwards) many of us put the goods in our tote bags before we pay. So, are we all alleged shoplifters now? Under suspicion from store detectives? Or only high-profile people? No excuse for such sloppy reporting.
Sadly, yet another example of the lack of rigorous journalism education and training.
Sadly across the MSM spectrum. More and more clickbait and less and less sleuthing.
A very bad look.
When I saw the story I thought - oh not again, poor woman. When I found out that this ‘fresh’ report was a dredging up of the past coming across as fresh, it became pointless, cruel and unprincipled.
btw The checkout counter isn’t just the last place where there is an opportunity to pay, it is also the first place. And I use my tote bag to put stuff in at Pak’nSave Royal Oak all the time.
https://detective.nz/news/07-12-2024/private-sector-policing-and-ai/