Cracker: How Media Made me a Bad Person.
103 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
This puts me in mind of the whole Smarm vs Snark thing
Thank you. A remarkable (and long) piece.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
On the other hand, the subsequent decision to stake the paper on a demand for Brown’s resignation was silly. He didn’t, they couldn’t make him and they ended up looking spiteful and desperate in pursuing it.
And one thing that got lost in the shuffle: The Herald was perfectly happy to go large with allegations that Brown exerted grossly improper influence to get his mistress a job at the Auckland City Art Gallery. Well, I know a few people at the ACAG who aren’t holding their breaths waiting for an equally prominent correction of that slur against the institution’s integrity. And sorry, Damien, I’m not going to be nice about The Herald’s habit of attacking people on page one, and burying the retraction well inside the paper and below the fold – if it happens at all.
Also, I guess I'm terribly hard on The Herald for one very simple reason. The Herald is an effective monopoly player in this country's largest media market. So, yeah, I don't cut them a lot of slack, because there isn't exactly an Option B.
-
Have you just taken a job at TV3?
-
Hebe,
PS to my last post: "...I...is..." Cringe.
I am interested in Damien's piece because it is revealing of human frailty and emotions - the media worker as a human being - rather than an intellectualised, professional image, with the inherent contradictions and failings of chipping out a career in the constraints of a large media machine. One of the first things in journalism I was (repeatedly) told: "This is an industry; it's here to make money." That informs a huge number of decisions made in the industry -- from Chris Waugh's comments about news editing/story placement right through. Sex, money, fear and the Royal family sell big; worthy but dull doesn't. The only way to change that culture is by setting up your own outlet.
He's brave to publish: I appreciate it.
-
And in the spirit of offering positive feedback: this is an example of the kind of thing I'd like to see more of. The NZ media was a bit too quick to buy Fonterra's line during last year's DCD and botulism scandals, while the Chinese media was going mad, but in this piece they're actually examining the issues, and some good points are made.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
The only way to change that culture is by setting up your own outlet.
Something technology is making ever easier, although I don't see how the financial challenges involved are changing at all. Quality journalism is still going to cost someone a lot of money.
He’s brave to publish: I appreciate it.
+1
-
Hebe, in reply to
Quality journalism is still going to cost someone a lot of money.
Yep. And we have a tiny domestic market to pay for it.
-
But since, unlike in Britain, we have no alternatives
What he said.
-
Can I just request that people make an effort to spell Damian's name correctly? It's on the masthead!
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Yep. And we have a tiny domestic market to pay for it.
We also have very few news outlets, though. The Herald has a wider circulation than the Guardian.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I am interested in Damien’s piece because it is revealing of human frailty and emotions – the media worker as a human being – rather than an intellectualised, professional image, with the inherent contradictions and failings of chipping out a career in the constraints of a large media machine.
This is important. In focusing on the greater analysis, we can forget that it's also about the strengths, weaknesses, foibles and passions of individuals within what can be quite odd and demanding environments.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Can I just request that people make an effort to spell Damian's name correctly? It's on the masthead!
Mea culpa; again. Sorry. The pendulum has swung too far in the recovery from sub-editing phase. Bet you've wanted to do that to a sub for decades; beloved revels in every opportunity for payback ;-) Happy to help as my typing is appalling after all these years.
-
Sorry...Damian, of course. What might be useful to this debate would be to summarise some of the significant findings from the 2013 survey of NZ journalists, which James Hollings, Grant Hannis (Massey) and I did as a contribution to the global research Worlds of Journalism.
I am about to write this up for publication, It would provide a good overview of the major characteristics of journalists in NZ, if people are interested,
, -
Lilith __, in reply to
Quality journalism is still going to cost someone a lot of money.
Does anyone know (or can anyone comment on) how Werewolf is doing financially? Such quality work, would be great if they can make the online-subscription model work.
-
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
We have been paying $15 a month for a couple of years, so they probably only need a swag of modest contributions,
-
Sacha, in reply to
a good overview of the major characteristics of journalists in NZ, if people are interested
yes
-
OK, based on an online sample of 320 journalists, which is regarded as adequate (95% confidence level) for this 80+ country survey, In many ways this survey didn't surprise me, given that it pretty much replicated the general tendencies of previous surveys I have been involved in je the typical full-time journalist in NZ is likely to be female (57% in this survey, the same figure as in the 2097 survey), slightly left-if-centre politically, and most likely to have a university degree, specialising in journalism. A majority (82%) are happy in their work, but fewer than half (44%) rate the quality of NZ media as above average to excellent. More rate it as average to poor. This latter finding might need some thinking through--can we assume that they want to see improvements, or perceive it to be a structural problem? Most (74%) would resist any increased regulation of the NZ media.
There is a lot more to write up.
-
Thanks Geoff. That's fascinating.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
What Rob said: Fascinating. Especially this bit:
A majority (82%) are happy in their work, but fewer than half (44%) rate the quality of NZ media as above average to excellent. More rate it as average to poor. This latter finding might need some thinking through–can we assume that they want to see improvements, or perceive it to be a structural problem?
There's a lot in there that just doesn't seem to add up. Were there more detailed questions in the survey that could shed some light on this?
-
Hebe, in reply to
a structural problem?
Time pressure and output requirements/ lack of resources is endemic.
Interesting findings. I'd like to know more.
-
Oops
Big fingera small phpne :) -
So: hate the game but not the playas. Is that the tl;dr take-home?
Can I still be hatin' on Lhaws, George et al? I need my simple pleasures.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
There’s a lot in there that just doesn’t seem to add up.
People don't generally enjoy their job if they think they're not doing it well. I too would be interested to hear more detail.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
a 'working' theory
make an effort to spell....
...getting spell names wrong
may have Omen-ous results..."Wrong'uns don't make a rite..."
-
Sacha, in reply to
Can I still be hatin' on Lhaws, George et al?
Think how much more pleasant public opinion of real journalists might be if the clownish columnists were removed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.