Hard News: If you can't say something nice ...
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
And URL embedding is broken now - can someone please sort that out along with the recent video embedding failures. Bribe those cactus lads with whatever it takes.
I tend to agree with Christopher that Craig must be reading something different (link by all means) than Trotter's Dominion column, cos there's nothing there about kupapa. Instead there's a marked repudiation of his loudly professed beliefs:
Are we socialists, in our drive for an absolute equality of outcomes, really willing to descend to the level of a certain species of crab which will, when collected in a bucket, seize and haul back into the doomed mass any individual that attempts to escape its fate by climbing out?
-
Pardon me if I find the outrage four months after the fact somewhat less than convincing.
I'm not sure why it's come out now, but it's possible that the TV show agreed not to talk about it until after the election.
But umm, eye on the ball. Future Act MP drunk and disorderly and talking crap.
-
And URL embedding is broken now - can someone please sort that out along with the recent video embedding failures.
Testing URL embedding:
http://publicaddress.net/index.sm
Working fine for me.
The Flash embedding is a pain. Flash 10 seems to have broken a bunch of things, and not in a consistent fashion.
-
Thanks, Russell. :)
-
Sacha - I believe that comment you link to is from an earlier article (midweek I believe it popped up on Stuff) that saw me hope that Trotter had moved beyond the vitriol of the election campaign to a more balanced view.
I believe the article Craig is referring to was in the print version of the SST yesterday and shattered those hopes - it basically accused "Maori" of being traitors for not backing Labour (by ignoring National) after all they'd done for them. It was cringeworthy stuff... -
Ta for clarifying, Gareth. I figured it must be something like that.
-
For goodness sake, Craig: Claudette Hauiti, who is a very hard-nosed producer, had to make a last-minute call as to whether her programme could go on as planned.
So the show couldn't have gone on with the panel light one person who added precisely nothing to the show anyway? At the risk of sounding like an arse-kisser, Russell, Phil Wallington's nose isn't made of marshmallow either, but I find it hard to believe he'd rather force you (and the rest of the panel) to work with an abusive and disruptive drunk. Have you considered that Media7 and Public Address Radio attracts talent, because of your reputation? That guests trust you're NOT setting them up for a Jerry Springer freak-a-rama?
If David Garrett ends up as ACT's very own Brian Connell, then that's a reflection on their judgement, and voters will pass their judgement. But I think it's entirely legitimate to ask questions about Hauiti's judgement, and what the hell it says about whether Eye to Eye wants to be more than talkback radio with pictures.
I sure wouldn't blame Deborah Coddington (who was a very pleasant surprise with her relaxed and sparky on Media 7's election day special) if she was more likely to return your call than Hauiti's.
-
That guests trust you're NOT setting them up for a Jerry Springer freak-a-rama?
Personally, I'm waiting for the Media 7's 'tuxedoed little person leaping from a great height directly into a wedding cake while the rest of the guests throw spaghetti at each other' episode. Pull your finger out, Russell. ;)
-
But I think it's entirely legitimate to ask questions about Hauiti's judgement, and what the hell it says about whether Eye to Eye wants to be more than talkback radio with pictures.
It just felt like you were, y'know, trying to change the subject ...
The fault in this episode lies squarely with Mr Garrett.
I sure wouldn't blame Deborah Coddington (who was a very pleasant surprise with her relaxed and sparky on Media 7's election day special) if she was more likely to return your call than Hauiti's.
I just don't think she'd be blaming Claudette for Garrett being an oaf.
-
And getting back to saying something nice.. Shane Taurima (on Marae and TVNZ7) and Julian Wilcox (along with the rest of the election coverage on MTS) were doing real work that put the big boys to shame. Just proves that, as often as not, less is more.
-
It just felt like you were, y'know, trying to change the subject ...
Well, Russell, you might, y'know, want to step back from that. Equating homosexuality with kiddie-fiddling is so beyond the pale, I thought it was stating the obvious to say (drunk or sober) anyone who thinks that is a fragging moron.
I'm not blaming Hauiti for Garrett being a cock. He's responsible for his actions, and if he's going to turn into ACT's own Brian Connell, then they're going to held responsible for that at the next election.
But if she wasn't responsible for giving him a platform to be one on national television, who the hell is?
-
But if she wasn't responsible for giving him a platform to be one on national television, who the hell is?
Let me get this straight, as it were: besides not being allowed to record politicians when they talk in public, are we now supposed to not allow them to go on scheduled TV appearances if they look like they might make fools of themselves? Is there anything else we should do to preserve their precious image? Tell them they've got something on their chin? Wipe their arses? You need to give us further instruction.
-
Equating homosexuality with kiddie-fiddling is so beyond the pale
That's not really what he was doing.
As much as he murdered his point and sounded like a dick, he was trying to say that:
1. Homosexuality used to be thought of as a disease that could be cured.
2. Paedophilia is currently thought of as a disease that could be cured.
3. Neither of them are diseases that can be cured, we think about these things the wrong way.In this basis he was trying to agree with some other members of the panel. He didn't equate the two things, he equated their perception. Whether or not he would equate them in another time/place or with a bit more to drink, who knows.
He really lost it with his points about "since they make up 10% of the population we don't think of homosexuals that way anymore".
Incidentally, if you enter 'Paedophilia' into dictionary.com, the page returned says:
Unauthorized
The page you requested requires proper authorization.
We apologize for any inconvenience.
— Dictionary.com
A thing so bad, we won't even let you know if you're spelling it correctly.
-
Giovanni:
Garrett wasn't even on the ACT list back in July, but it suddenly seemed to become terribly newsworthy when he became an MP. One might think it was also newsworthy when he was a spokesman for a high profile 'Laura Norder' lobby group, but never mind.
If the whole purpose of EtE is to make people "look stupid" then get everyone liquored up in the green room before hand. Put out some P pipes too, because a good psychotic break followed by an all-in brawl would be great television too. I'd rather have bad policy -- and the Sensible Sentencing Trust is a running buffet of that -- be made to look foolish through reasoned debate and rational analysis, if you don't mind.
On the other hand, if you wanted a semi-rational discussion on an already tinder-dry issue like child abuse, perhaps it would have been helpful if everyone on the set was sober and not being abusive and distuptive.
You might also want to consider that the crew and production staff might have had better things to do with their severely limited time and money, than have shooting come to a halt because the talent is fuck-faced.
-
Garrett wasn't even on the ACT list back in July, but it suddenly seemed to become terribly newsworthy when he became an MP.
Er, come again? Of course it is more newsworthy now that the guy is a member of parliament. What an extraordinary thing to say.
You might also want to consider that the crew and production staff might have had better things to do with their severely limited time and money, than have shooting come to a halt because the talent is fuck-faced.
They could have made the call to not let him appear on the show, I suppose, although I imagine it's not something that they can do very lightly, but to claim that they had a responsability to do so seems extreme. Since when are journalists the handlers of spokespersons, or entrusted with guarding the public from protecting the public from the outbursts of idiots?
-
I imagine it's not something that they can do very lightly, but to claim that they had a responsability to do so seems extreme.
Gio: Last time I can be bothered saying this, but if Eye to Eye just wants to be talkback radio with pictures carry on -- the more obnoxious drunks the better. If it has any pretensions to be a serious contribution to news and current affairs, then you're damn right the producer has a responsibility to act like it.
Since when are journalists the handlers of spokespersons, or entrusted with guarding the public from protecting the public from the outbursts of idiots?
I think that straw man has got mice in it. On reflection, perhaps I am naive and standards where content is more important that sensation are as passé as wearing hats.
-
But... I still don't see how it's Eye to Eye's fault that he was a douchebag...
-
But... I still don't see how it's Eye to Eye's fault that he was a douchebag...
...because the show was going out live and uneditied and since television is a world of teetotallers, the thought that someone who was well-toasted could have gone off at any moment never crossed anyone's mind?
-
I still don't see how it's Eye to Eye's fault that he was a douchebag...
You're not creative enough with your moral equivalences.
-
__But... I still don't see how it's Eye to Eye's fault that he was a douchebag...__
...because the show was going out live and uneditied and since television is a world of teetotallers, the thought that someone who was well-toasted could have gone off at any moment never crossed anyone's mind?
It wasn't live or unedited -- it never is -- and the HoS story said the recording was stopped and restarted several times because of Garrett's behaviour.
Claudette made a decision to go ahead with the show as planned, and she will also have made the decisions to stop and restart the discussion. I just can't see even a whit of equivalence with Garrett's conduct.
-
...because the show was going out live and uneditied and since television is a world of teetotallers, the thought that someone who was well-toasted could have gone off at any moment never crossed anyone's mind?
Presumably these were all things that crossed the producer's mind, which is why they spoke to him before the show. I don't think the conversation took place because he was 'a bit of alright'.
And decided that she was happy for him to go on air. And he didn't vomit up his lunch or punch anyone.
I've never heard anyone say that the footage of Muldoon announcing the 1984 election should never have made it to air, after all.
-
You're not creative enough with your moral equivalences.
Is *that* what it is? Sometimes I find myself reading Craig's posts and, with the best will in the world, there will be a moment where everything seems to spin madly around in my head and I have no idea what's going on. :)
-
Is *that* what it is? Sometimes I find myself reading Craig's posts and, with the best will in the world, there will be a moment where everything seems to spin madly around in my head and I have no idea what's going on. :)
I think you took a left turn somewhere in your life Danielle. That must be where you went wrong.
-
Muldoon announcing the 1984 election
to be fair, a different time.
a different attitude to alcohol. drunk driving was still practiced as a discretionary law infringement in some quarters.
pretty irresponsible to turn up at a tv talk show plastered, and like wise irresponsible to inflict him on viewers if you're trying to establish your show as one of intelligent debate. tarnishes the brand, how ever amusing it is to see a drunk person make a dick of himself. -
pretty irresponsible to turn up at a tv talk show plastered
I think if you watch the show, you'll find that he wasn't actually rolling around in the gutter.
And given his background and the organisation he was representing, I'm not sure if he would have made much more sense sober.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.