Hard News: Onwards and upwards
214 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
As far as I'm aware, we operate under exactly the same broadcasting standards as apply to Radio New Zealand. Or is there some section of the Broadcasting Act that established a different, lower bar for commercial radio I should start exploiting now?
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that (for instance) talk radio inherently has lower standards than TV1 and should be treated more leniently as such. Breaches of good taste, decency and so on can happen anywhere, but my point was that you might wish a national state-owned broadcaster to be particularly sensitive to these issues and perhaps even try to set some kind of standard.
I am trying to envisage some kind of moral guest boycott of Breakfast, or other shows with similar issues. All I can imagine is either the host reduced to slagging off some poor soul in the paper (or on FaceYouTubeSpace), or soul-destroying slagging matches between the host and whatever emptyheaded publicity junkies come to fill the gaps that more reasoned commentators have decided to leave unfilled.
Wouldn't it be better and more productive to arrange things such that guests don't need to worry about completely outrageous personal attacks when they appear on public TV?
-
Regards to Onwards and Upwards, wasn't Backbenches fascinating last night? Jeanette was her usual stoicly accurate self, Dr Cullen managed to keep it pretty factual and good natured and still pop in his old "we did that" sales pitch, Sir Roger just yelled at everyone in the end and Stephen Franks was baseless and offensive.
So not fascinating at all I suppose... =) -
why do you suspect that?
is this programme subject to a lower set of standards under the regulations? (versus other news and current affairs/interview programmes. etc.)No.
1. This wasn't news/current affairs - not everything Breakfast TV does is current affairs - and the balance standard only applies to current affairs/factual-type material. If they're contrasting Tim Tams with Mint Slice (both Arnott's), Griffins can't complain that there was no balance because Toffee Pops didn't get a look-in.
1b. Even if the balance standard did apply, the coverage was balanced - they presented both sides - those who thought it noteworthy, and those who thought it offensive. Everyone got their say, and people watching could make their own mind up (which is what the balance standard is aimed at)
2. As George notes "Good Taste and Decency" isn't aimed at this type of material - it's mostly about gratuitous violence or sex - really offensive material, not this. Complaints under this heading are almost never upheld - except to the extent that the material wasn't preceded by a an appropriate warning - "the footage in the following news story includes ... etc."
-
1b. Even if the balance standard did apply, the coverage was balanced - they presented both sides - those who thought it noteworthy, and those who thought it offensive. Everyone got their say, and people watching could make their own mind up (which is what the balance standard is aimed at)
so broadcasting sexist, insulting, ridicule is ok as long as you have a panel on hand in which some are in favour of and some are opposed to the public humiliation of an interviewee based on their appearance but not the news-related interview?
-
so broadcasting sexist, insulting, ridicule is ok...?
No, those things are covered by section 6 f and 6 g of the code.
-
I wasn't saying that the item in question breached fairness, balance, good taste and decency; rather that these are qualities that one would more readily expect from a state-owned broadcaster than a commercial radio network in the US or Ian Wishart's magazine, to use two examples cited. Both Limbaugh and Wishart have well-known, clearly signalled bias and play or publish to narrow audiences; One News is expected to have no biases and to reach mass audiences. And for all its infotainment trappings, this show is still part of the publicly-funded news division of TVNZ.
And Craig: Jonathan Ross was never purporting to be a news co-host; the prank call to Andrew Sachs was during Russell Brand's radio show. Sure, it was on the BBC but not on a news programme. Clearly there is a difference. I've never heard the show that you, Damien and Russell do so I wouldn't know if it carries the same level of journalistic responsibility that a show like Breakfast should.
-
Yes, and I wouldn't get too high and mighty about the moral superiority of state-owned broadcasters.
I care not whether they're morally superior. Just that the state broadcaster should follow the standards set out in the BSA. Which they didn't appear to do this morning.
The person going on should have those expectations that they'll be treated professionally. That wouldn't be the case if Obama went on Limbaugh's radio show, because their systems are different.
-
There's a huge difference between a market with only two shows to choose from and the situation in the US of A.
Mr Henry is an indefensible dick and even though I suspect a helping of ADHD comes into the picture, I don't think much of those who support him or employ him when there are talented alternatives.
-
Again with the Jonathan Ross example, I would be hugely impressed if TVNZ had the balls to suspend Paul Henry as the BBC did Ross and Brand while it "investigated" the incident. Doubt it will happen though.
-
I would be hugely impressed if TVNZ had the balls to suspend Paul Henry
I don't recall ever seeing something like that on our tv, so I sure hope something happens to him. The closest might be poor Dennis Connor being baited by that other over-rated buffoon. At least Kofi Annan was only referred to in his absence.
-
Give them the YouTube link
It is, after all, TVNZ who edited the thing together and put it on YouTube.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority's jurisdiction does not extend to the internet. So if you complain about a clip you saw on YouTube or even the broadcaster's website, the BSA can't rule on it. It has to be in relation to the original broadcast on TV or radio.
-
so broadcasting sexist, insulting, ridicule is ok as long as you have a panel on hand in which some are in favour of and some are opposed to the public humiliation of an interviewee based on their appearance but not the news-related interview?
No. It's just not imbalanced.
I noted on a comment a while back that I thought a complaint that the material was unfair - particularly under guideline 6f (I think 6g is a bit of a stretch) had good prospects.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority's jurisdiction does not extend to the internet. So if you complain about a clip you saw on YouTube or even the broadcaster's website, the BSA can't rule on it. It has to be in relation to the original broadcast on TV or radio.
Yes. Complain about the broadcast. When they ask you what time and aspect of the broadcast, use the on-line video as a guide - I'm complaining about the bits in this YouTube video ... when they aired.
-
I only watch the bit with the brilliant gadget guy. Cos he's awesome.
Ignoring the nepotism for a moment (but I always love a good nep!), I get more comments about Paul's interruptions and strange comments than I do about the actual gadgets.
He's a fairly normal guy in person (for a given range of "normal"), but I do get the impression that you need a particular personality type to be a "light entertainment" host in this country
-
He's a fairly normal guy in person (for a given range of "normal"), but I do get the impression that you need a particular personality type to be a "light entertainment" host in this country
Yes, normal hmmmm. Is normal in the eye of the beholder.
Is normal even something worth aspiring to anymore?
Are the cultural parameters of normal becoming distorted or does the new normal include a dose of perceived anti PC, a childish poking of teh tongue saying " Ooooh look that person isnt Normal."Or maybe hes just
an indefensible dick and .........
a helping of ADHD comes into the picture -
Is normal even something worth aspiring to anymore?
Yes, this is what I was hinting at. "Normal" for cultured lefties is suburbs away from "normal" for league-obsessed westies.
-
Oi!!! Watch it, Gracewood or I'll publicly ridicule your facial hair. ;-)
-
What Stewart said
Grrr!
-
league-obsessed westies
.. have no more sympathy for rude effete tossers than any other demographic.
-
Yeah. I have a lot of Qualities O' Bogan (westie, own a Subaru Impreza and a big-ass dog etc), but a douche is a douche is a douche. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein.
-
own a Subaru Impreza
Wannabe - where's ya Holden?
-
Wannabe - where's ya Holden?
On blocks, in the front yard, where it should be :P
-
If Danielle is referring to Paul Henry as teh recurrent douche, I'd just like to say, as a bit of a westie, that I am in full and complete agreement of her assessment.
And if you weren't referring to him as a douche-bag, Danielle, then I really think you should have.
I had no idea that he had been the beaten candidate when Georgina Beyer won her seat, but if I ever happen to meet said "gentleman" I look forward to really giving him some serious crapola about it.
-
Paul Henry: Recurrent Douche
It could be the title of his biography! -
Or epitaph for his career?
-
Oh crap. Apparently I have come across all troll-ey towards Westies. Some of my best friends are westies...
Actually, I was brought up in South Auckland, so I'm not claiming to be a born-and-bred westie, but I live in Te Atatu (Peninsula), and am planning to buy tickets for next weekend's home game against the Rabbitohs.
And as a software guy, I prefer Recursive Douche.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.