Cracker: A Whale of a Tale
348 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
vaguely lefty, snooty, intellectual audience of PAS loathes and despises the TV news
Speak for yourself. I loathe it because it's largely crap, and I'm a vaguely righty, amenable ... Wait, what?
-
3410,
I don't think there are lessons to learn in this example about fact/credential checking. I think there are lessons to learn about who and what is news.
Well, yes, if you want to differentiate the two. To me, they are just different aspects of a failure in evaluation of contributors.
-
It's almost as though the vaguely lefty, snooty, intellectual audience of PAS loathes and despises the TV news
I'd suggest (without classifying anyone) that the TV News has a slot that could actually deal with the news in the order of importance,(to indicate news, not current affairs) then, follow with all the fluff they want, and call it the News and Current Affairs. I doubt very much that the family victims of horrific murders want to be first up and hounded for the evening, or the weather. The facts, and not speculation from the niece of the neighbour over the back fence.Or the go to shot in the dark to talk about the weather because we need to see the rain that is everywhere.
I think if we just need current affairs (where laughs are de rigeur) as I assume Paul Henry does (I find it difficult to watch TV in the morning, so don't) and he gets ratings that TVNZ want, their choice, simple as that really, and one knows just what to do if you find him a dirty little grub. Change the bloody channel! , then ratings could change and so could he.
Yes, I do want and like the News ,just don't want to lower my expectations and respect that these worldly issues deserve. -
and [Paul Henry] was good fun
I could leave it at what Sacha said but I won't.
Paul Henry is a bully. He uses his power and position to hurt and belittle those who either are simply unimportant to him or who threaten him. It is a pattern of behaviour all too common in New Zealand and all too often defended as "good fun". It should not be tolerated in any environment. The fact that it is displayed on our national television channel and supported by management is disgusting.
And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them. He may well have positive character and professional traits but his bullying is an overwhelming negative and you guys ought to come out and oppose it. It's not OK.
-
As for spoofing Breakfast TV.
I get your point Damian. You're right the joke wasn't that funny and the target was too easy.
But the flip side is that most of us are kind of saddened that we don't have a stronger media that really has good journalists with the resources to do what society needs journalists to do.
We lack the power to change the MSM. We can support those journalists who do a good job by reading and paying attention to them but it's hard to see how that helps much. Does making fun of less good journalism help? I'm not sure.
To some degree having more options help, good journalists who blog can create an audience that responds to them directly in a measurable way. That allows to Journalist to say "here look and see how many follow me specifically maybe my bosses in the MSM should let me do this on air". Does that in the end work? It seems not because you'd expect people like Henry to be gone from the air if it did.
-
"here look and see how many follow me specifically maybe my bosses in the MSM should let me do this on air". Does that in the end work?
It worked for Russell. Assuming TVNZ7 qualifies as mainstream.
-
Does making fun of less good journalism help? I'm not sure.
I think it does because it foregrounds the weakness of story choice. What was going through the programmer's (?) head when (s)he took up a Sunday Times (!) story about commercial whaling. I don't think it is wrong for me to say that such a stance would never get traction in NZ. So why even go down that track. Was it to provide some non-PC "balance" to the Peter Bethune story. He was an anti-whaling nutter who made a good cause seem a little crazy???? Throw in a pro-whaling story to feed into that emotional current????
Do you remember Mark Sainsbury interviewing a right nutter who criticised DOC and wanted to farm endangered birds to save them?
These stories are a waste of our air space because they are very weak and have no future but they provide a weak flutter of indignation or agreement. A sort of news porn or something.
-
Disclaimer: I think Paul Henry is a talented broadcaster. He pushes it, and he goes too far at times, but he's got talent.
This is almost word for word what Russell wrote about Veitch way back then and I'm still buggered if I understand what it means.
-
Until a few years back the Listener ran a dry little column entitled (to the best of my recollection) Radio Review. The task of finding something interesting to say about commercial radio can't have been enviable. At least twice each year there'd be a piece about Paul Holmes, which invariably went I know you urban liberals can't stand the bastard, but as an industry insider I can tell you from my position of expertise that the man's a genuine talent. Here are further reasons why. Yawn, column inches filled.
Inside the enchanted circle of media pixie dust the failure of self-appointed elites to acknowledge Paul Henry's supposed talent may be a burning issue. In the light of common day, all that's apparent is that there's a ready market for ego-driven natural-born motormouths. Perhaps we also need reminding that, despite his godawful shortcomings, Tony Veitch was another of those jewels of nature.
-
Hmm. Posted that before I read your comment Giovanni.
-
Heh, nice one though.
-
@Cecilia - as I said before, that is exactly my point. That's the point of the post. That's the conclusion I came to.
I can't work out whether people are reiterating what I'm saying, or pointing it out like it's the bit I missed? Because it seems like the latter...
But putting that to one side, having mulled it over overnight, I still think that there is a big and important distinction between fact checking, and credential checking. I think we (as journalists, but also just in society in general) have to assume that for the most part, people are who they say they are. Because assuming the opposite is just scary. It's kafka-esque or something.
If it means that someone who really wants to fool us can, on occasion, do so, then I'm okay with that. Just like I'd rather someone can occasional freak out with a knife on a provincial flight than have ridiculous security there too. Pros vs Cons.
However that doesn't mean we should accept what people say is correct. I'd rather we spent all our time researching the facts, the arguments etc, than tracing the geneology of proposed interviewees.
And yes, one more time, I'd also rather we didn't interview people who are controversial just for their own sake.
-
While there's funnier stuff than Jay Pryor's interview, it was even funnier seeing Paul Henry effectively hoist on his own petard.
The whole point of the stunt, I believe, was to illustrate the exploitation of gullibility and increasingly narrow attention spans, and to culture-jam the junk food news barons out of their complacency. Up until that moment, there was a sense of powerlessness among us.
-
We're still powerless. Garth McVicar is really not substantially less fake or uncredentialled than Jay Prior but still gets on the air at will.
-
And apropos of nothing, gee Boy is a great film.
Yes, where is the PAS discussion of NZ's All Time Number One movie? Because I really hated it, but I'm usually a sucker for the powers of persuasion exhibited around here (though you're going to have to work harder with Paul Henry).
-
@Andin - no I'm not linking lowest common denominator programming to poverty, and I think it's vaguely offensive you'd even assume I'd make that link. Although as Paul's coffee mug states, poor people are stupid...
The man's a snivelling, childish turd who is unworthy of airtime.
And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them.
I don't know. Maybe I watch a different bit of Breakfast (I watch usually from 7.30 onwards, I think they dump the 'current affairs' interviews earlier than that, it's pretty much all lifestyle when I'm up.
I honestly don't see this bullying bogeyman that everyone else does. Childish? For sure, he spent a few minutes this morning laughing at how he could smell cat wee and it couldn't be Ali and it turned out to be the flowers.
But then I saw him interview this hippie-ish guy who lives in the back of beyond with his family. He's off the grid, has (or at least had) long hair and a beard, his kids do correspondence school. He has no TV.
It's the sort of interview I think you'd all expect some snide remark, some soap-dodger comment, some deliverance remark. And Paul did a really respectful and I found, intelligent interview full of admiration for the guy's decision and lifestyle.
Once again, I found the bit of Breakfast that I saw this morning very watchable. Which is why I continue. I'm not defending Paul Henry, I'm just giving my opinion on what I see vs what you see. If this is somehow not to my credit, well so be it.
-
Yes, where is the PAS discussion of NZ's All Time Number One movie?
Right here: http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2444,cracker-about-a-boy.sm
-
Tricking media is like shooting kittens in a barrel.
I agree. The real test will be if the media now keeps going back to this guy for pro-whaling comments in the same way they keep going back to McCoskrie, who also has a website... probably unlikely given how it's been so clearly revealed a hoax. (Actually in McCoskrie's defence it looks as if he's finally published a Board of Reference that lists other actual real people who agree with him.)
-
laughing at how he could smell cat wee and it couldn't be Ali ...
Damian you should read some literature about bullying in the workplace. The above quote could pretty much be used as a textbook example.
-
@Bart - lighten up. Seriously. Did you see it? I assume not. He said he wondered if it was Ali and then realised that Ali was pretty much the last person who would ever smell like cat wee. It was childish, but I don't think anyone felt bullied. Certainly not Ali. But I can ask her if you like.
-
Although maybe my perception is skewed, because this industry is filled with arseholes who yell at you and call you a f***ing useless prick if you fail to deliver a story they want. So having someone say you smell like wee for the purposes of on-air humour doesn't really rate.
-
Lighten up... hmmm yeah Ok.
That's a great plan. Until you happen to be the victim of a workplace bully and then folks tell you it's all just fun and you should lighten up.
And yeah it may be that Ali doesn't mind, but that's not the issue. These guys are on TV displaying a pattern of behaviour that is really damaging. There are people who commit suicide over this kind of stuff. And those that are more resilient just quit and find another job or stop putting in the effort, great for productivity.
You may not like my criticism of you but to respond with "lighten up"??
Seriously Damian do some research on workplace bullying in NZ and the damage it does and then come back and look at Paul Henry.
-
And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them. He may well have positive character and professional traits but his bullying is an overwhelming negative and you guys ought to come out and oppose it. It's not OK.
I thought I had done exactly that, actually, when I used the words "discourteous and unprofessional" and and "seriously fucking disapprove".
I'm sorry you found my observation that he could be quite fun in person, back when I occasionally appeared on Breakfast so objectionable.
Would you prefer that I just lied about that, so you can have your villain in monochrome?
-
Although maybe my perception is skewed
Yes, I do wonder if your perception is slightly skewed. And maybe ours is too, for not working in the industry. From where I sit, your expectations of Mr. Henry seem to be incredibly low. I'm happy he's able to meet them, but.
-
Good grief.
Bart, perhaps you could make an effort to, say, see the item in question, or perhaps accept in good faith the account of some who has, before you get to "there are people who commit suicide over this kind of stuff."
That seems hysterical to me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.