5 posts tagged “professionalism”

Yesterday, I became a customer of the Taranaki Savings Bank. I got my accounts open with the manager herself, Lynne Russell. Today, one of her staff opened my US currency account, on which I get interest—rather than be stung the $17 or whatever it was at the ANZ just for having the account.
   No fees on EFT-POS and ATM (not that I ever use these), no fees on my account since I have a healthy balance, and, basically, banking as it should be.
   Remember when you deposit money into a bank you are technically making a loan to the bank. There is no logical reason you should be charged for that—unless when you take out a loan, you can charge the bank a discretionary fee. (I dare you to ask.)
   The TSB gets it. It gets that the customer is ‘paramount’, as I was told by one of its team today. Sir John Anderson and his fellow directors do not. I was with the ANZ since 1995 (leaving after Sir John took over from Sir Spencer Russell at the National Bank and began instigating some ridiculous charges there). I told Lynne she should expect I will stay with the Taranaki bank for 20-plus years.

Another item on Yola Lucire, this time in The Times–Leader in Pa.:

In January, the state medical board in Sydney, Australia, admonished psychiatrist Yolande Lucire for testifying in a court case about her belief that Ritalin and similar drugs had produced residual organic hallucinosis in children that might explain their violence later in life. The board said it disagreed with her and ordered Lucire to make an appointment with a senior psychiatrist for therapy, to help her deal with her problem of making unconventional diagnoses.

   Man, I’d hate to get ill there if all diagnoses had to be in line with what the establishment and probably Big Pharma had to say. What is this? Some psychatric version of the Soviet Union where dissenting opinions are not allowed?

Pravda, the mouthpiece of the CCCP many moons ago, asked Sen. Hillary Clinton 12 questions, to which it has not received a reply beyond a standard, anonymous answer of two years ago. Repeated contact has amounted to nothing. Even Dick Cheney’s office acknowledged the questions it received.
   I think the American people might want to know the answers from Sen. Clinton, too. They are seemingly harmless questions, though the first might be possibly inflammatory and the fifth could be difficult to answer. Pasted from right-wing site Death by 1,000 Papercuts.

   1. Senator Clinton, is it true that you insinuated President Putin does not have a soul?
   2. You have said you wish to reform the US healthcare system. Could you please tell us how you plan to do this?
   3. Why should you succeed where others have failed?
   4. How would you comment on your statement that being a Republican and a Christian are difficult to conciliate?
   5. Is it true that you have the support of the Jewish Lobby? If so, how will this influence your foreign policy? Will it continue to be controlled by Israel?
   6. What is your message to the average American voter? How would you propose to make his/her life better?
   7. What are your plans for Iran? Do you stand for a war?
   8. How would you improve America's standing in the international community?
   9. Why did you support the war against Iraq?
   10. What are the reasons for your having fallen for the lies which were launched against Saddam Hussein?
   11. Why does your Candidate website not have an email for the Press, whereas that of Senator Obama has? Would you agree this is a comment on the professionalism or the arrogance of your campaign?
   12. Did you hope to gain an advantage over your opponent by announcing your trip to Florida and your support for the seating of Florida delegates just prior to the Florida primary?

   The newspaper then commented on Sen. Clinton’s failure to acknowledge or respond:

The absense [sic] of an answer, on a systematic basis, can mean one or all of a number of things: Senator Clinton cannot answer these questions, does not want to answer these questions because she cannot find a credible enough reply, could not care less about the international press (in which case, what a fine candidate for a US President at a time when the USA needs to build bridges) or worse still, never received the messages in the first place, which would indicate a tremendous and shocking degree of lack of professionalism. If she cannot handle a website, how can she be expected to govern a nation of 300 million people?
   Indeed, for some reason Barack Obama’s website has a contact for the Press, whereas Senator Clinton’s has none.

   If Sen. Clinton indeed has more of a clue on how to do her job than Sen. Obama or even Sen. McCain, she is not showing it in this case.

I spotted the below on Ninemsn today and thought, ‘Poor Brian.’

   I clicked on the first link and found quite the opposite:    It’s not as embarrassing as the network, and the Murdoch Press, reporting on the Miranda Kerr incident two years late and getting the venue wrong, but it’s still an about-face.
   Netizens will be able to work out that the first link came about because the Ninemsn website reported that Delta Goodrem turned down boyfriend Brian McFadden’s marriage proposal. Then, the site’s staff found out more and had to instantly change the piece, but due to caching or the way the Ninemsn site is structured, the headline link on another page had not changed.
   This is not abnormal and at least the link goes to an accurate item of news.
   And Ninemsn was not alone, as Murdochs did the same thing:
   It all makes me wonder about the wisdom of such immediacy when it comes to the gossip press. Usually, the items are of little significance. They are disposable news, so what harm is there with a brief delay to get the facts right? The contrary argument is that since these items are inconsequential, then why should the facts need to be dead right?
   I realize that’s not the way celeb-based factoid-reporting works, and on the web, even more rules get chucked out in the quest to be the first on to Google News with the headline.
   But we are representatives of the media. We are, supposedly, journalists and editors and publishers. And as the fourth estate, we have a duty to the public.
   Call me a traditionalist, but I would prefer to get everything straight before committing to press in any medium, even if it means a delay.
   After the Miranda Kerr embarrassment, propagated by Sky, news.com.au and The Daily Telegraph (Australia) newspaper, I have had to conclude that I can’t trust Murdoch Press items at all. Before this week I took only The Sun and News of the World items with a grain of salt (remember all the speculation about who the next James Bond would be?), but am saddened to have to apply the same doubts across more of the Murdoch Press. Especially since the chief himself, Mr Keith Rupert Murdoch, has (thank goodness) vowed to up the journalistic standards at papers such as The Wall Street Journal.
   Maybe I should not lecture since I have never been on dailies, but my feeling is that the damage to goodwill across a group is too great when this sort of misreporting starts happening regularly.

[Cross-posted] A contact of mine, Kip Brook, has been good enough to write, and have published, a far more positive article about Laural Barrett, Miss Universe New Zealand 2007. Let’s say it’s more balanced. In the short time I have known Kip, I have known him to be a decent bloke, and I am grateful he has written something that focuses on the real Laural, yet mentions the controversy that the Australian newspaper kicked up last week.
   The story ran in Fairfax’s Sunday Star–Times and today in The Press. It follows on nicely from the 60 Minutes report on TV3, which has had some positive feedback.
   It’s not all nice-nice with John Fairfax today, however. I was made privy to an email—I will not state the writer—but I will say that if Fairfax journalists cannot spell enquiry, controversial and adult when writing in an official capacity, then they should not be in the job. (We are not talking slips of the finger. We are talking dumbass stuff.) The matter has been dealt with—with some ease, I might add.
   My new title is Miss Universe New Zealand Pageant Ass-Kicker. That’s kicker.