John & Fran: Irrespective of viewpoint, it's good to see you engage in the debate, because a lot of your compatriots don't - or won't.
Seconded. To have senior journos respond to criticism is a very welcome development. And disagreeing with criticism is everyone's prerogative. I hope this becomes a conversation.
Now if we could just get a few MP's on board responding to criticism /in hell = cold day/
Oh sweet Jesus, sorry for the variation on a theme but does John Drinnan have any shame or sense of irony? This is way too good not to quote almost in full
Paul Holmes will be back on Q&A soon moderating debates on political issues - including about Maori and race relations.
After his column in the Weekend Herald telling Maori what he thought, TVNZ has received a nice bit of promotion.
What sort of state broadcast company is happy to have one of its main current affairs hosts promoting his personal and controversial views?
Maybe it's time TVNZ forgot about its marketing people and went back to the rule book on credible current affairs.
Holmes' opinion piece attacked protesters at Waitangi Day commemorations. There are some who will agree with his view, but has current affairs got to the point it will sacrifice credibility because it is grateful for the promotion?
Holmes did not carefully differentiate his views on the transgressions of Waitangi protesters and what he thought of Maori as a whole.
Some of us will assume the best - that his anger was addressed against protesters. Others will think the worst.
"Never mind the child stats, never mind the national truancy stats, never mind the hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies. No, it's all the Pakeha's fault. It's all about hating whitey," Holmes wrote.
The Herald published a carefully becalmed response from Mana Party leader Hone Harawira.
Many would agree both men have a right to express an opinion.
But how does Holmes the racial commentator step into his role as a moderator and interviewer on Q&A?
How can anyone take him seriously running a debate about racial issues, or even the SOE sales, and pretending that he does not have strong - some detractors would believe ugly - views on race?
TVNZ current affairs boss John Gillespie said: "An occasional opinion piece for the Herald is not going to undermine Paul's performance as presenter of Q&A, given his experience and professionalism.
"Paul will continue to treat all Q&A guests with equal rigour, fairness and balance."
So TVNZ is another step into the netherworld where it views its journalists and interviewers as people who are talking to a constituency and not remaining objective.
So nice passive-aggressive swipe at the state broadcaster without asking the obvious follow up when it gets too close to home. If Holmes 'the racial commentator" is unfit to front Q&A, then why is he a fit person to be a brand-name columnist for the Herald stable?
“Paul will continue to treat all Q&A guests with equal rigour, fairness and balance"
That’s a nicely ambiguous statement. “Equal fairness and balance”, eh?
One reading (probably unintended, but very likely in practice) is simply that “Paul will continue to show the same biases, no matter who he’s interviewing”. How very reassuring.
Speaking of repulsive broadcasting decisions (your mileage may, of course, vary), Tony Veitch has picked up 2 weekend radio sports shows. Oh, well, I never listen to Newztalk anyway.
Too late, too late… we start to get the numbers on TVNZ7 viewing, and they are far more favourable than TVNZ ever fessed up to.
Former broadcasting minister Jonathan Coleman announced in February 2011 that TVNZ7 would be canned. Two months later, he justified his decision by saying it had a weekly audience of only 207,000.
Why did he choose to ignore the more recent information when he got it - what drives these people?
These bastards have no scruples, and seemingly care not a jot about their legacy to the Nation.
I am becoming incandescent...