Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The out-of-control manchild on the council

50 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Mark Harris,

    @media7
    I'm glad Jay Bennie called you on the Simon Pound piece. It made my skin crawl as well. Also the tone of Pound's narration in the interview piece with the "gay theorist" was so condescending. This appears to be his style - to mock and condescend. I'm going to start FFing through his bits if it continues. It shows no respect to the subject and is an example of what all 4 of you seemed to be decrying as treatingeverything as entertainment.

    Also, I have a problem with the flashing screens in the background. It seems to cause a bit of colour freakout in the clip, in terms of changing skintones. I don't have Freeview so I can't tell what it's like on broadcast - might be an Internet-only thing.

    I wonder if you tried to cover too much ground ("segment 1: we'll do this; segment two, we'll move to this"). There was a point where you asked Johnny to "hold that thought" because you had to go for a break, but what was he holding for? When you came back, you followed your script and his point was lost. I think you would have been better served to continue the discussion. And that could be a guide for all your programmes. Start the discussion, have stuff to fill if the discussion goes nowhere, but let discussions that are interesting develop.

    @Bhatnagar
    Who cares? He's always been a self-serving dick and he always will be.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Brian Murphy,

    Well it appears Barzini reads your posts and has already removed his user id.

    What else did he edit that he wishes to keep from the light.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 48 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Well it appears Barzini reads your posts and has already removed his user id.

    Shit, that was quick! It took him a whole day to get rid of those embarrassing Hubbard pamphlet PDFs in 2004.

    What else did he edit that he wishes to keep from the light.

    The user page is gone, but you can't delete edit trails. Enjoy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barzini

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    If I was Richard Worth, I'd be looking hard at my page...

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    To be fair to Bhatnagar, he does put in the hours, and makes plenty of uncontroversial edits (someof them albeit where he might still be seen to have a conflict of interest).

    But he also pulls crap like this.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    @media7
    I'm glad Jay Bennie called you on the Simon Pound piece. It made my skin crawl as well.

    Simon was aware of the response to that track on the night. But I can assure you it was done in good faith and I think "skin crawl" is taking it way too far. And it did give Jay the opportunity to raise the point.

    Also the tone of Pound's narration in the interview piece with the "gay theorist" was so condescending. This appears to be his style - to mock and condescend.

    I really couldn't see it in that one, sorry. I don't think it was disrespectful at all.

    I wonder if you tried to cover too much ground ("segment 1: we'll do this; segment two, we'll move to this"). There was a point where you asked Johnny to "hold that thought" because you had to go for a break, but what was he holding for? When you came back, you followed your script and his point was lost. I think you would have been better served to continue the discussion. And that could be a guide for all your programmes. Start the discussion, have stuff to fill if the discussion goes nowhere, but let discussions that are interesting develop.

    Unfortunately, we have a requirement to record the programme in three parts, so I was obliged to cut of Johnny as he got rolling (I had my director barking "gotta go" in my earpiece). That's TV, and Johnny, as a TV professional, wasn't in the least offended by it. I'm a bit surprised you've chosen to focus on that rather than all the good things that happened in the programme.

    But, as of next week week, Media7 will have only one break. It's only another 30 seconds (taking us to a 25 minute runtime), but not having to go in and out will give us more time to talk, and to let discussions run.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • Tristan,

    The Barzini edit page is a gold mine of embarrassing edits...

    I like how in October 06 he edited the national party entry to replace the "racist" line:

    The National Party presently advocates policies of ...**ending what it sees as special privileges for Māori**

    to the utter spin of...

    promoting one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders ("One law for all")

    they edits are so clumsy he will have the whole PR community giggling into their cocktails

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 221 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Unfortunately, we have a requirement to record the programme in three parts, so I was obliged to cut of Johnny as he got rolling (I had my director barking "gotta go" in my earpiece). That's TV, and Johnny, as a TV professional, wasn't in the least offended by it.

    Oh, sure, I'm aware of that. My point was not that he was cut off but that he couldn't come back to it, and the discussion was starting to get interesting. Your viewing audience is not made up of TV professionals and wewere left hanging on that.

    I'm a bit surprised you've chosen to focus on that rather than all the good things that happened in the programme.

    I'm not trying to get you to "fix" all the good bits, and I agree that the programme as a whole was good. ;-)

    But, as of next week week, Media7 will have only one break. It's only another 30 seconds (taking us to a 25 minute runtime), but not having to go in and out will give us more time to talk, and to let discussions run.

    Excellent news, thanks

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I'm not trying to get you to "fix" all the good bits, and I agree that the programme as a whole was good. ;-)

    Yeah, no worries. I've addressed similar qualms over at GayNZ today as well. I think part of the problem is that this kind of show is so bloody rare that people, understandably, want everything addressed in case it never happens again.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Stevens,

    well Russell, the show was ok, but could have been better with more research, and perhaps one younger panel member would have been a good idea. Everyone there was well over 50.

    And Simon's piece was utter shite - that was the reaction from everyone I talked to as we left.

    But overall it was good and I'm glad you aired those issues. I gave it 6/10, and I'm a very hard marker.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 230 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Comments that are abusive, snarky, off-topic and/or silly in nature will not be published.

    I think the horse has bolted on this one.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    Purely out of curiousity, is Aaron Bhatnager any relation to Roger Bhatnager, the Auckland businessman that owns (owned ?) Noel Leemings, etc ?

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 760 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    is Aaron Bhatnager any relation to Roger Bhatnager

    Is that Sir Roger? If so, it'll be his father (I only recall that his father is titled).

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    And the bizarre things a quick confirming google can turn up...

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    And the bizarre things a quick confirming google can turn up...

    Oh lord.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    <smirk> well you have to don't you. </smirk>

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    well Russell, the show was ok, but could have been better with more research

    Just out of interest, what do you think we could have researched better?

    My original script for the set-up piece covered Circle and Gay News in the 70s, as well as Squeeze, but we couldn't get good enough visual material in the time we had (I tried to get copies of Circle during the weekend), and it was too long, so that part went.

    I'd have loved to have the Truth front page that printed the proposed lesbian takeover of Carterton (it was a joke in Circle) as news. But that kind of stuff deserves a series of its own.

    A series, say, like the recent brilliant BBC4 three-parter, It's Not Unusual ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    A very interesting show and Douglas Jenkin, especially, is always good value.

    One thing about Judith Halberstam -- that shift from old-Disney conformism to Pixar-era rebellion seems a little simplistic. There's an interesting book by Douglas Brode called From Walt to Woodstock that argues that Disney films actually seeded the 60s counterculture in the US rather than being one of the cultural institutions that was reacted against by it. Some info here:

    http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/brofro.html

    Unsurprisingly, it's a pretty controversial position.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    Russell

    Bhatnagar and his friends can grouse as much as they want. But when they're done with rolling around the floor whimpering and playing victim, they might want to consider how it looks for a city councillor to behave like an out-of-control man-child and then try and cover it up.

    He ain't playing the victim, right wingers generally don't. The gross stupidity of Christine "regulation to control...wikipedia" Caughey is apparent for all to see - this he highlights.

    As you've pointed out in this post Aaron has messed with Christine's profile on wikipedia on numerous occasions. His edits show up a pattern of pettiness and bullsh*t. You have highlighted this well and are going to piss off Aaron/Barzini. Well done, you are a smart political operator.

    Chistine Caughey missed all this easy opportunity to attack her opponent and instead shoots herself (and her associates) in the foot. Suggesting she would like to regulate the editing of wikipedia is about as stupid a suggestion as anyone can come up with - it is not only obviously unworkable, but also it is gauranteed to piss off every wikipedia editor.

    Politics is pissing off the least number of people. You piss off Aaron - good politics; Aaron pissed off Christine - good politics; Christine pisses off people who edit wikipedia - stupid politics.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Robert Fox,

    He ain't playing the victim, right wingers generally don't

    What an utter crock.What about Key bleeting like a little injured lamb everytime anyone attacks his integrity. And just take a look whats happening at the scary republican convention in the states. In defending Palin against the rabid media those mad shitbirds are taking victimhood into the stratosphere!

    Since Nov 2006 • 114 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Rowe,

    Thank you Angus, for an outstanding example of jumping the shark.

    Lake Roxburgh, Central Ot… • Since Nov 2006 • 574 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Stevens,

    Well Russell, as I said, it was a good show. Regarding better research:

    You talked about the Pink Dollar and the idea of gay affluence. This has been shown to a myth - I don't have the data to hand, but there have been a couple of very well-researched papers on this showing at best equivalence and often a worse financial position for gays and lesbians. It's actually an important point, as it is so widely held and so wrong. Some gay men and lesbians are affluent, but many are not, and having us all put in this category of "Rich" is both unhelpful and false.

    I see on gaynz you were informed Pink Triangle was a magazine not a newspaper, ok, I'll pass that one, but I disagree, I always saw it as a national newspaper when I was a lad in the 80s. Minor point but it was around way before mtm and express

    Up was published from Wellington early this century for around 4 years I think. jack from Auckland for about 2.

    The lesbian newsletter has been running for over 20 years now I think. But women didn't get much of a look in. Maybe if you'd framed it as being about the gay male world it would have been better?

    And the drag queen interview - *sigh* it's not the the equivalent to putting whites in blackface to know what Maori think, but nearly.

    But all that aside, yes, you have to fit it into the time limits of tv, and overall it was good, I gave it a pass ;-)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 230 posts Report Reply

  • Carolyn Skelton,

    I don't have anything much to add to the good and bad points others have commented on. I did like that one guy pointed out the nuclear family/heterosexual message embedded in most mainstream TV news in NZ - i.e. the continual pairing of a male and female host. This has long irritated me.

    In a similar vein (but a bit OT) re- deeply embedded tropes of gender & (hetero) sexuality on TV, I was mildly irritated by the chair/interviewer on Backbenchers (on before Media7) today. He welcomed the female members of the panel by commenting on their appearance - said they looked smart or stunning (can't recall the exact word). Nothing that wrong with saying people look smart as a welcoming thing, but there noticeably weren't any similar comments about the males on the panel - not even a comment on Peter Dunne's improved hair-do.

    I would welcome a series of 2 or 3 episodes on LGBT people on NZ TV.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    He ain't playing the victim, right wingers generally don't.

    Are you kidding? The more alarming the wingnut, the greater the chance you'll find them writhing on the floor if someone barks at them. See: Redbaiter and Whaleoil.

    As you've pointed out in this post Aaron has messed with Christine's profile on wikipedia on numerous occasions. His edits show up a pattern of pettiness and bullsh*t. You have highlighted this well and are going to piss off Aaron/Barzini. Well done, you are a smart political operator.

    Excuse me. I am not a "political operator". I'm a journalist and this is a story, albeit one of a kind most journalists aren't going to get.

    I'm actually really pissed off that DPF came down like a ton of bricks on Caughey without even hinting at why she might feel that way. And I can't believe he didn't know. It's just deliberately deceptive, and David knows enough about the internet to know better.

    Chistine Caughey missed all this easy opportunity to attack her opponent and instead shoots herself (and her associates) in the foot. Suggesting she would like to regulate the editing of wikipedia is about as stupid a suggestion as anyone can come up with - it is not only obviously unworkable, but also it is gauranteed to piss off every wikipedia editor.

    She thought there should be electoral rules governing this sort of crap. I think that's unworkable, but I also think that good Wikipedia editors are going to be much more exercised about a politician deliberately and over a long period abusing the good faith at the heart of the Wikipedia process by turning it into a sewer or a soapbox than they are about the person who copped it spending two sentences telling a committee that something ought to be done.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    You talked about the Pink Dollar and the idea of gay affluence. This has been shown to a myth

    I sort of said that, but in a different way: if there is a Pink Dollar, it's not apparent to ad agencies. It is very different overseas: Vodafone, Virgin Airlines, Absolut, etc, all make TV commercials specifically targeted at gay men (I couldn't find a lesbian ad). Here, niches seem to be too hard to deal with.

    And that does have implications for local gay media -- the pool of potential advertisers is bloody small. Ask my friend who used to sell for both Express and GayNZ -- it's hard work, and the ventures wind up depending on a small group of gay businesses and the Aids Foundation. Hence the turmoil at Express.

    I see on gaynz you were informed Pink Triangle was a magazine not a newspaper, ok, I'll pass that one, but I disagree, I always saw it as a national newspaper when I was a lad in the 80s. Minor point but it was around way before mtm and express

    Fair enough.

    Up was published from Wellington early this century for around 4 years I think. jack from Auckland for about 2.

    I know both David and Julian who produced Jack, but I couldn't fit into the backgrounder. David also loaned us the original film poster for Squeeze (which he was in!) but, again, we couldn't fit it in.

    The lesbian newsletter has been running for over 20 years now I think. But women didn't get much of a look in. Maybe if you'd framed it as being about the gay male world it would have been better?

    In retrospect, yes, you're absolutely right.

    And the drag queen interview - *sigh* it's not the the equivalent to putting whites in blackface to know what Maori think, but nearly.

    Yep, Simon got that. He was sitting in the audience and felt the energy go all dark ...

    But all that aside, yes, you have to fit it into the time limits of tv, and overall it was good, I gave it a pass ;-)

    Thanks. But one thing I've come away with is the view that someone has to make that documentary. Not just one part, but three. The stories are too good and too important to squander.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22811 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.