Speaking of reality TV did anyone hear the brilliant CEO of the Italian cruise ship attacked by pirates describe the event as the next level of reality TV, with priates wanting to be stars of their own reality shows
Here about 6:16 in
Could anyone imagine any NZ CEO taking such a philosophical approach in an interview. Not only that, he answered questions intelligently and articulately. Wow. I wanna work for him.
i'm with Russell on Tracey Island. We got rid of ours recently - a sad moment and it was second hand.
As for Christchurch, more southern madness. This illustrates the dangers of a supercity even more. THe council should not be trying to manage people's lifestyles in such a way and, from what I have read, on some shaky assiumptions. If our central people find this kind of analysis difficult why would trust some council officer.
A good example of unnecessary rates expense
Back to Survivor...
Most memorable thing for me was that blue, woolly, short cropped jacket the dark haired girl with the bucked teeth and sibilant wore. We must have had a new fangled colour tv (unfortunately not one of those ones with an adjustable green line - any green lines we had were likely due to valve failure and involved a call to Tisco) which is why I know it was blue, though I have a memory of B&W episodes, which could have been due to the strikes the BBC used to have.
Oh and the mad mad welshman with the really bucked teeth
And the opening credits.
hmm student bribes. So much for the cupboard being bare and any big promises being reckless and having to be funded by cutting public services...
Wonder how many heart ops or state houses this might have bought?
And why do we need a 'mini budget' so soon after the election if Cullen and co are so trustworthy and such proven managers? What little surprises lurk in the govt accounts?
What I don't get re Quinn etc, is that TVNZ appear to market research everything to death. I mean, why do they change their sets and bring back Jim Hickey? It's surely not just on a whim.
So who are these people who say they really really like Keith and Co talking non stop through every single event? Same for the rugby and cricket commentaries.
What is it that drives them to fill every second of a visual medium with chatter?
Oh and Kim Hill - generally incredibly well informed but please remember at times that you are the interviewer not interviewee...
I'm a major NR listener. Download podcasts all the time and still can't keep up.
One of the problems with MR and Checkpoint is that I think they are pushing them too hard. MR starts at 6am and Checkpoint goes for two hours. They are stretching both programmes yet retaining the shortish interview format - a lot of fluff starts to creep in as a result. Most of the time we just don't have enough hard news to fill the space. Cut CP back to one hour or use features more to fill out space.
MAry Wilson - biggest critism is her regular "who's to blame?" approach. Sometimes it is better to just explore an issue and allow the listener to decide who is credible and where responsibility lies. BTW I spoke to her on the phone recently and she was really lovely - not the scary wilson persona at all.
Plunket - can let his ego get in the way. Shouting 'answer the question' is not always the best interview option and should learn to move on.
Geoff R -always considered him the most dangerous interviewer as his cuddly approach can lower defences allowing him to slip in the stilletto
kathryn Ryan - she is great. Smart, dogged and mostly doesn;t tolerate BS or drift off topic.
Lynn freeman - always struck me as a bit too slow witted for NtN and often not well researched. Could be because she is often a fill in but I don't think she is searching in her questions. Far to willing to accept unchallenged interviewee's assertions - generally a problem with many Nat Rad feature interviews IMO - I think this is where the Radio Left Wing criticism becomes valid as it seems to be that these interviewees come from that end of the spectrum.
Simon Morris is just great. I love that he is willing to say that he enjoys movies like transformers as pure entertainment, and that he doesn't think every film has to be 'art', something Jonathan Dennis I don't think could do.
When people say it is "only $5m", they seem to forget that is "only" more than a $1 per man woman and child in this country.
Those 'onlys' soon add up, because it is not 'only' one department doing it, there are effing dozens of them all in the name of "social marketing" and done more to please the fashion sense of the policy advisors and the self interested advice of their marketing suppliers.
Sorry I have sat in meetings with some of these people saying it is 'only x million' and it is so frustrating as a taxpayer to listen to 20 somethings with bright ideas and no experience, and no sense of budget control let loose with some of my money, only to then come back a couple of months later to find their big ideas were an effing disaster and the money has been washed down the loo with no consequence, because the next big idea is on the horizon.
you left out what I think is a pretty critical piece of information. John Key was actually opposition spokesperson on transport. It was his job to ask the Transport Minister questions about its thinking on transport issues such as, say, any secret plans to buy back the railways.
If that is dodgy then it must be also dodgy for him to ask about petrol taxes because he has a car, or interest rates because he has a savings account and a home loan etc.
To think and imply that any commercial advantage could be gained from the non answers given to PQs just shows how stupid some people are and how grubby this election campaign is getting. And of course we now know who to blame - Helen Clark beacause she is the self declared chief Labour strategist, so it must be being done at her behest.
Interesting today that Cullen repeatedly refused to say what economic or business analysis had been done in support of buying the trains. This guy is in charge of large dollops of yours and my money, and it appears no-one has sat down and asked "does this add up?". I think that is more scandalous than parliamentary questions that are published and open to scrutiny.
Interesting Craig. Compare and contrast with the much overhyped gangplank for Brash. Will depend on the poetic license of the journalists concerned I suppose.