Anonymous said.

Anonymous said...
Let's face it, the media is not going to sell papers by repeating the news David is innocent. They had to come up with a new angle and Robin Bain was their easiest option. No doubt, when people get sick of hearing about Robin, they'll start on Margaret.

Whilst the media has played a role in the current atmosphere regarding the Bain case, it is important to note the role of the internet, and in particular 'blogs', 'message boards' and other, relatively new mediums.

Peter Ellis, A. A. Thomas, David Dougherty and others, were convicted before the WWW or at least before it's popularity soared. The Bain case, is the first controversial mass murder since the internet became a common domestic feature.

The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.

Instead we have vast amounts of information being absorbed by pseudo experts ranging to complete idiots. The negative effects of this phenomenom are amply demonstrated in the Trademe message boards, where individuals can post a message, without the normal constraints of societal rules. What's more, when others don't agree with them, they are then able to use the internet as a tool to intimidate their opponents, and effect the cessation of balanced discussion.

It would be interesting to line these people up at a local bar and see what they had to say, I think it would be very little, if they bothered to turn up!

August 1, 2010 1:43 PM

To quote anonymous:

The internet allows access to vast amounts of information, photos, and opinions etc, that would previously been available to a select few, appropriately qualified or intelligent individuals. Who would have had the skill to interpret and determine their relevancy.

I'm all in favour of the information being available on the internet. It just appears that few rules were set at the outset, at least in NZ. The consequence has been anybody able to drive in cyber space, comfortably heading in the wrong direction and in full free flight. The cat is out of the bag, and to be fair we needed protocol and administration in place before the tap was turned on. In many ways viewing the effort to make the internet popular not much appears to have been done to deal with that popularity, or having thought out the possible ramifications, legal and otherwise. This has to be fault of legislators. The TM model is a dinosaur, eventually they'll give up or apply pre-publication checks on posts. The current model of letting the dogs out and chasing them later is extreme stupidity.

So it appears that a few hate-sites and the like are a by-product of having no active internet policing and time-delayed posting. I remain a bit of an optomist and believe that had rules been introduced and enforced, either by live moderation, or delayed moderation, the popularity of the internet wouldn't have been negatively effected as posters would just have accepted fairly strict rules as the norm. Unfortunately for now, the norm needs to be restrained and a fresh start made. We'd all benefit from that, even those who have for whatever reason believed that defaming and stalking were permissible. Part of that is reflected from the myopic view that the internet was like having a chat in the pub. I've seen that stated on the boards and I've heard talk that TM administrators have had some legal opinion to that view. Well, it's absolute nonsense, one press of the button can launch information into a million or more homes instantly, a chat in the pub does not in the least compare with that.

But to anonymous's first point which is probably right - the sale of papers being priority, shows that mainstream media has slipped to the thought that everyone can be treated as though they are idiots. I reject that idea, mediocre journalism is probably more dangerous than hate-sites.