I realize that the PA conversation these days has moved to Twitter and other social media, but I just wanted to make a note of a complaint that I registered with Newshub today.
On the AM show today, Duncan Garner asked a planted question to Judith Collins. It was provided to him by Collins’ staff. During the day various media outlets have hinted that this is how it happened, with subsequent questions to Collins about her actions, but (sadly) they seem reluctant to make that clear in their reporting. This, of course, is how the players get away with the grubby game. They are not called to account.
I want to make clear that I am not making a complaint about an interviewer’s bias (always a matter of perception) or joining the general grumbles about “the media”. It is about the essential integrity of the interview process, as practised by Duncan Garner this morning.
This was not simply a “tip-off” from a source, a common occurrence. A tip-off is (or should be) followed by further enquiries of relevant parties. This was doing Collins’ bidding, unchallenged. When interviewers are complicit in asking questions that have been given to them by a politician’s staff, then they are no longer journalists in any meaningful sense. I do not expect much from Newshub in response, but in any case I thought I would share it here.
Something everybody knew but some pretended not to: the level 4 lockdown was not the real reason Bauer shut down its NZ magazines.
Today they've shut down the Australian ones too. 70 staff made redundant.
A few apologies would be in order, I think (but don't expect).
Yes, nuanced is a fair description.
It's really an extension of the media mirror game, which is more evident now than ever before. The NZ media report on Ardern and/or NZ, and then they relay international reports on Ardern/NZ (often of dubious merit), and then they comment on the response in NZ to those international reports, and so the cycle continues. Each day a new contribution (today, Bloomberg).
Because we are globally insignificant, this is a new experience for us: what is happening in NZ is being widely reported (accurately or not) not because we are important, but because the virus is. Covid-19 is happening everywhere else, so the different approaches and results around the globe are news. For the most part, this overseas commentary isn't really about New Zealand at all.
I wake up, I stay in bed without guilt. It's my patriotic duty to have a lie-in. Love me a lockdown.
Anyway, this was my morning laugh (from the UK):
Thanks Graeme (and Andrew).
Going in the opposite direction, it would seem less likely now that the PM would call a snap election. I'm sure she has no plans to, but things can change ... NZF could unravel, Shane Jones could push his luck too far, etc.
But all kinds of practical problems then have to be considered: imagine a campaign without people gathering in large numbers (insert ACT launch jokes here). No rallies, no marches, no handshakes ... no baby kissing?
Several options related to the gun laws, but this is probably the headline choice. A news staple for half the year.
(shouting, of course)
Although a well-established word, in 2019 its use and definition became central to political debate.
(and I'll just add my annual grump, to say that it's not "neologism of the year", it's about words being used, not just invented, especially as they often fade fast).
Just a quick note (because I'm not on Twitter) re- Hosking's column today.
When it was pointed out (by Russell, Chloe Swarbrick, and anyone else who has been awake, ever) that Hosking's rant about clean needles was factually incorrect, the piece got changed.
No apology from Hosking. As always. And of course, there's no way to change what is either in print or has been broadcast on radio.
No consequences = no change. That's the NZME model now.
Yes, it was a disappointing follow-up to last week's very good opener.
It's important to cover the health risks, especially for young people, but you can't do that without highlighting that they are all still there while we continue doing nothing.
If a viewer had no background info at all before seeing that final part, then s/he would be understandably tempted to say "oh dear, best leave well alone". But it isn't well, at all. The status quo is not tenable, and Gower's doco did little to address the debate we must have, on what type of changes are safest and most effective.
The AM Show, Project etc are not going to give us anything beyond sound bites. On Weed was a rare opportunity to go deeper - and it was missed.