tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post5019164021537273270..comments2023-11-13T16:30:40.096+13:00Comments on Editing the Herald: Odds and/or endsJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12661495023149576052noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-6135735933054180862009-04-03T12:01:00.000+13:002009-04-03T12:01:00.000+13:00I'm pretty sure that the Herald has a rule that ev...I'm pretty sure that the Herald has a rule that every day's Bain trial update *must* have the word "blood" in the headline.3410https://www.blogger.com/profile/07999268873476350686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-6551157897605626632009-04-03T10:28:00.000+13:002009-04-03T10:28:00.000+13:00I noticed the article refered to pulling a sicky, ...I noticed the article refered to pulling a sicky, which I thought meant taking a day off work and claiming illness rather than actually necessarily being ill. Meaning that the article claimed people who turned up to work ill were less productive than people who stayed home healthy (or just feeling lazy).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-9189533290411258832009-04-03T09:17:00.000+13:002009-04-03T09:17:00.000+13:00Yeah from the headline I would have assumed that t...Yeah from the headline I would have assumed that that would be the story as well, but apparently not. If you can't work out that coming in sick = (allegedly) 50% productivity loss but not coming in at all = 100% productivity loss then you're a tard frankly.Gwanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127784431543135980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-70277348730159522552009-04-03T07:54:00.000+13:002009-04-03T07:54:00.000+13:00To start with I gave the benefit of the doubt to t...To start with I gave the benefit of the doubt to the reporter, and assumed that there was something study about people coming in sick lengthen their own period of sickness, and make other people sick. <BR/><BR/>But based on the final two paragraph summarising the reports conclusions, I think the report must have simply been about working out the cost to ill health on the economy. And the reporter just didn't get it. You would think reporters would run their draft stories past their interviewees if they weren't sure...Wansbonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-67306918666718419972009-04-02T18:19:00.000+13:002009-04-02T18:19:00.000+13:00Copy / paste / forget.Copy / paste / forget.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-14471158303105313442009-04-02T17:35:00.000+13:002009-04-02T17:35:00.000+13:00Yep that's my point, thanks gazzaj. Not even the b...Yep that's my point, thanks gazzaj. Not even the body of the article makes that clear (well, presuming you're not smart enough to work it out yourself). Personally, I think whoever the reporter/copy editor/whoever was who put it there falls into that category. Morons.Gwanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127784431543135980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-18996627661792646272009-04-02T16:51:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:51:00.000+13:00The problem with the maths is that in terms of *to...The problem with the maths is that in terms of *total* cost over the whole workforce, people turning up to work sick costs more, because it happens more often - 11.1 days/year vs 4.2.<BR/><BR/>But in terms of an individual person on an individual day it (obviously) costs more to take a sicky than it does to turn up to work - but the headline says the exact opposite. <BR/><BR/>There aren't enough numbers quoted to check their maths, but basically everything in the article is consistent, just contradicted by the headline, which is not what the study says at all. The Herald is blatantly lying to you.<BR/><BR/>Anyway the whole thing *is* bollocks because it's all built on the assumption that a sick worker is "half as productive" as a well one. I don't know about you but I doubt a lot of scientific research went into coming up with that number.gazzajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269126625443588798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-79685355715068796562009-04-02T16:40:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:40:00.000+13:00Hop to it and make sure Goff Corner remains a piec...Hop to it and make sure Goff Corner remains a piece of the internet future<BR/>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goff+corner<BR/><BR/>Oh, and while you're at it try this one too http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=news-ragePete Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03292338984328864756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-25583268383257923662009-04-02T16:39:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:39:00.000+13:00Here's another good one:Was there a 'conflict of i...Here's another good one:<BR/><BR/><I>Was there a 'conflict of interest' in Internal Affair Minister Richard Worth's India trip? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:</I><BR/><BR/>And I thought it was the Herald who was supposed to give us the news... instead of investigating and reporting they've thrown a pretty simple yes/no question out to the public. Even in the story they've only quoted MPs and haven't bothered to check with other sources. <BR/><BR/>The Herald - NZ's Your Viewspaper of Recordgazzajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269126625443588798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-68752469078346075272009-04-02T16:37:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:37:00.000+13:00actually, I take that back. the story doesn't stat...actually, I take that back. the story doesn't state how large the NZ workforce is. first, big mistake.<BR/><BR/>second: WTF are the 700 and 900 about? per day? per week? per year? and they conflict with the $1500 figure stated in the intro. where does that one come from? <BR/><BR/>in conclusion: bollocks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-88038075981584116212009-04-02T16:34:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:34:00.000+13:00the numbers seem fairly solid, if you think there ...the numbers seem fairly solid, if you think there are 1.3 million people working in new zealand.<BR/><BR/><BR/>but it's one of those numbers-that-mean-absolutely-nothing stories.<BR/><BR/>and the answer to all of them? so f*cking what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-50596321137736281072009-04-02T16:26:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:26:00.000+13:00Who me? Here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/art...Who me? Here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10564855Gwanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127784431543135980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-32188398811325823952009-04-02T16:05:00.000+13:002009-04-02T16:05:00.000+13:00The UN story could have been very interesting, if ...The UN story could have been very interesting, if you're into that sort of thing and if it was written well. So, erm, we're on a loser straight away.<BR/><BR/>However:<BR/><BR/>The fact that NZ is trying to get the US onto the UN's HR body for the first time since its inception in 1946 is very significant, given the historical animosity between the two nations. <BR/><BR/>Also that the US would be on such a body after boycotting it for God knows how long due to nations like Sudan, Saudi Arabia and others being voted on by their mates.<BR/><BR/>And what will the US presence affect? The US isn't answerable to the ICC but it's on the UNHRC. Is that about to change? The UNHRC was reorganised for the very purpose of getting US support. Will it have more moral authority or will it remain the world's biggest talking shop?<BR/><BR/>I guess no one in New Zealand without an internet connection will ever know. All of this could have been explored. Instead, a fairly significant story found its way to Goff corner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-2025097980428154132009-04-02T15:59:00.000+13:002009-04-02T15:59:00.000+13:00Link?Link?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-31507894924782506632009-04-02T15:22:00.000+13:002009-04-02T15:22:00.000+13:00May I draw your attention to the article on how it...May I draw your attention to the article on how it's allegedly cheaper to skive off work? The Herald's inability to comprehend basic maths strikes again...Gwanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127784431543135980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-24708349040126004622009-04-02T15:10:00.001+13:002009-04-02T15:10:00.001+13:00Mike Hosking? I'm getting my TV wankers mixed up.P...Mike Hosking? I'm getting my TV wankers mixed up.<BR/><BR/>Paul Henry.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661495023149576052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-694554578395062502009-04-02T15:10:00.000+13:002009-04-02T15:10:00.000+13:00Don't forget Breakfast with Mike Hosking.Don't forget Breakfast with Mike Hosking.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661495023149576052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9139464357237074361.post-71167988704586533482009-04-02T13:40:00.000+13:002009-04-02T13:40:00.000+13:00A full-page notice in the Herald by so-called lawy...<I>A full-page notice in the Herald by so-called lawyers Kurtze & Grieve declares the word 'mini' protected by international copyright law.<BR/><BR/>It provided a list of alternatives for certain words including miniskirt now becoming teenyskirt, minibus now babybus and minibar now now shorty-bar.</I><BR/><BR/>Uuuurrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhh. What the hell is that feeling?? Oh yeah, fucking <B>cultural cringe</B>. I thought NZ humour had got past this shite. Though it's obviously alive and kicking in some ad agencies.<BR/><BR/>Thank Christ for great NZ comedy like FotC and... um.. NZ's next top model!gazzajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269126625443588798noreply@blogger.com