Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #6: Afternoons with Jim Mora
64 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme, I really value your fact checking, but you seem to be parsing opinions here rather than checking specific facts. And your second reviewed comment, by Matt Nippert, takes him to task for an implication that MMP requires more than 50% voter support to get things done, but the comment from Nippert doesn't have any such clear implication. And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?
-
And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?
That depends. If you think out of touch and conservative middle aged whites discussing issues with carefully picked right wing commentators demands serious consideration, then the answer would be yes.
If, on the other hand hand, you dismiss the entire panel as a little more than a reflection of Jim Mora’s ability to channel Kiwiblog, then no.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?
Hardly the point. It has a fairly substantial audience which benefits from any informed commentary on its content.
-
Dave Guerin, in reply to
Tom, I find the Panel broadly leftwing, but whatever political complexion it is on the day, it's not the stage for our finest political and social debate.
-
I find the Panel broadly leftwing,
That's right, because David Farrar asking Jordan Williams questions is the very dark heart of radio socialism.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?
Yes I do, Dave. I really really do. Hell, it's all very nice to sign up to 'Save RadioNZ' Facebook groups, but if public broadcasters can't, or won't, elevate public discourse over Paul Henry on Radio (Brain)Dead asking pols who they'd rate as post-apocalypse pootie-tang, what's the frigging point of it?
-
Oh for goodness sake. The panel is there for light entertainment. Holding it to any kind of standard is pointless - it has never existed in any other realm.
what's the frigging point of it?
I ask myself the same question every time I change the station. Mind you, when Morning Report puts Hooton and Pagani on, I wondered if I'm being trolled.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Graeme, I really value your fact checking, but you seem to be parsing opinions here rather than checking specific facts.
That is often the case. I think that was what I intimated when I did my first fact-check. Sometimes it's correcting errors, sometimes it's providing context or further information, and sometimes is pointing out ill-considered argument.
And your second reviewed comment, by Matt Nippert, takes him to task for an implication that MMP requires more than 50% voter support to get things done, but the comment from Nippert doesn’t have any such clear implication.
I was perhaps reading too much into it, but on it's face, what was said was that under MMP, you needed a majority in Parliament. That statement is so trite, that I considered Matt must have had a broader point, other than the false implication that under FPP you could pass laws without a majority in Parliament. I asked myself 'what is he getting at?' and concluded he was likely drawing a distinction between FPP Parliaments where you needed a majority, but that majority was made up by one party, even though the party itself didn't have majority support and an MMP Parliament where you need a majority, but that is made up by parties that between them do have more than the minority support of governments of old.
And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?
I don't listen to it enough to know generally, but I thought these were pretty good, especially the SM vs STV discussion that has been sadly missing from elsewhere.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Oh for goodness sake. The panel is there for light entertainment. Holding it to any kind of standard is pointless – it has never existed in any other realm.
My fact-checking has never been intended to be about holding people to account for their statements (except maybe my last one on Vote for Change's misleading ad). Instead it has been about letting people know information. If you listened to the panel, or if you didn't, you might read my post and realise something new, or have a misconception corrected, and be able to make an-ever-so-slightly more-informed decision. I don't pretend a lot of people will read it, or that I'll have a big impact through my blogging, but if the sum of knowledge about issues of public importance increases, I'll consider my time well-spent.
-
3410,
Oh for goodness sake. The panel is there for light entertainment. Holding it to any kind of standard is pointless - it has never existed in any other realm.
Depends what they're talking about. If it's Kim Kardashian, then WGAF?
If it's Jim Mora giving incorrect information about asthma medication - as happened last week - that's actually quite dangerous.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Oh for goodness sake. The panel is there for light entertainment. Holding it to any kind of standard is pointless – it has never existed in any other realm.
Well, it's supposed to be a "magazine format" -- which doesn't have to mean empty-headed. Kim Hill - and the weekend afternoon shows - does a pretty good job of mashing up "lifestyle" fluff with more meaty fare; Nine to Noon has always been a similar hybrid, more awkwardly IMO. Chris Laidlaw is one of nature's sphincter relaxers, but at least his show tries to be reflective and substantive.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
The panel is very right wing, and overwhelmingly male, middle aged or older, comfortable and smug. And women are represented by those like Michelle Boag and Rosemary McLeod. The fact that they have Jordan Williams and David Farrar as if they are independent commentators shows how far public broadcasting has gone from reflecting the public. (I noticed JM et al weren't even calling for 'balance' by having Sandra Grey on as an alternative voice, which would have happened had they had just Sandra Grey as a commentator.)
Once we had Sunday Supplement where people with left wing and feminist views were occasionally allowed access to the airwaves. When it cut that option Radio NZ promised there would be even more opportunity for the public to contirbute - but I have yet to see it.
-
merc,
Internet kills the radio star.
Oh and here this guy bares up under scrutiny, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/blogs/david-farrar-by-the-numbers/5927172/Don-t-work-and-get-more-money -
Hilary Stace, in reply to
If I could bear to listen more often to the Panel I would tally up the regular contributors. My guess is 10% female, 1% under 40, 1% not pakeha, 90% centre right to extreme right (increased since Bomber was fired).
-
merc,
We could always ask for their programming sheets. Same with the Herald, it's an easy enough analysis. They tighten the electoral advertising funding thingy, I reckon there's now more stealthy ways they push their messages, and yes, they do need to be held up to scrutiny.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
The fact that they have Jordan Williams and David Farrar as if they are independent commentators shows how far public broadcasting has gone from reflecting the public.
It was made clear that Jordan was spokesperson for a lobby group. It was never even implied that he was an independent commentator.
Also, I consider that the other panellists provided the required balance to the discussion on this point. Jordan's views were challenged and dissected.
If I could bear to listen more often to the Panel I would tally up the regular contributors. My guess is 10% female, 1% under 40, 1% not pakeha, 90% centre right to extreme right (increased since Bomber was fired).
David Farrar totted them up when the Bomber stuff was going on. He http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/diversity_at_radio_nz.html listed Panel regulars as follows:
What I have found interesting is the comments by some that Bradbury is the only left wing voice on The Panel or that it is somehow dominated by voices from the right. I decided to check out the panelists from the last month or so, and have categorised them on their leanings based on my knowledge of them.
Lean Right
1. Me
2. Neil Miller
3. John Bishop
4. Michelle Boag
5. Sam Johnson
6. Stephen Franks
7. Deborah Hill-ConeLean Left
1. Michelle A’Court
2. Matt Nippert
3. Martyn Bradbury
4. Jeremy Elwood
5. Simon Pound
6. Duncan Webb
7. Anna Chinn
8. Brian Edwards
9. Mike Williams
10. Gary McCormick
11. Tim Watkin
12. David Slack
13. Islay McLeod
14. Chris Trotter
15. Don Donovan
16. Liz Bowen-Clewley
17. Finlay MacDonald
18. Gary Moore
19. Scott YorkeNot Known
1. Irene Gardiner
2. Rosemary McLeod
3. Tony Doe
4. Graham Bell
5. Jane Clifton
6. Ali Jones
7. David McPhail
8. John Dunne
9. Chris Wikaira
10. Richard Langston
11. Joanne BlackFeel free to declare which 34 of these panellists you consider centre right to extreme right.
-
we could decrease the number of MPs in the South Island (the Royal Commission recommended 15, not 16), if an larger Parliament was that much of a concern
I don't get this rule. Is that what it took to massage the concerns of south islanders in the early 90s? It seems bizarre that we don't:
1. Have a fixed number of MPs, and redraw the electorates as required with movements. OR
2. Have a fixed population range for electorates (voter population I guess) and then increase the number of electorates as total population increases.Having a fixed number of SI electorates, and then determining the overall size of the by the relative population of north vs south island? Whacked.
I live in the south island, I don't care if we have 16, 15, 14 etc MPs. Just as long as we get a fair number based on how many of us there are.
-
I don’t pretend a lot of people will read it, or that I’ll have a big impact through my blogging, but if the sum of knowledge about issues of public importance increases, I’ll consider my time well-spent.
I'm enjoying them. Always like a good pendant.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
So the National Party says that National Radio doesn't have a right wing bias, and we must believe them.
A core aim of the right-wing discourse is to cast conservative opinions as "apolitical". Having journalists from domestic magazines is not balancing the right-wingers, it's reinforcing them.
And you'll notice that Farrar's analysis doesn't look at the time people got, just the fact that they appeared..
-
Sacha, in reply to
Joanne Black 'not known'? Puhleese
-
James Francis, in reply to
And Graham Bell
-
The argument that "MMP needs 120 MPs" is based on the assertion that the maximum practicable size for an electorate is 1/70th of the population. Thus, the current 70 electorates are already as large as they could possibly be. To be kind, the evidence for this notion is less than overwhelming, especially when one considers that (a) NZ has never actually tried having larger electorates than that; (b) other countries have, with results that don't seem unworkable.
If we accept this "1/70th rule", then FPP and PV could both work with a Parliament as small as 70. If you don't really care how politicians are chosen, but are just holding out for the slim chance of reducing their numbers, then these are the options to go for.
For STV (where every electorate has at least 3 MPs) a Parliament of at least 210 is required, although perhaps we could argue that larger electorates are more feasible when they have multiple MPs to service them.
For SM, Parliament needs to number at least 94 (if we are to maintain the ratio of 1 list seat for every 3 electorate seats).
And for MMP, we need 120 MPs.
-
Sacha, in reply to
how do you get from 70 to 120 rather than 140? Maori seats?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Isn't there also some (entrenched?) rule about the South Island having to have a certain number of seats. Because they're special, you know, and if we upset them, they'll go off and form an independent federal state with Tasmania.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Thanks Graeme. I should have known that my comment would become a challenge to a fact checker. But I disagree with David Farrar (who justs 'leans right' - yeah right). And Jane Clifton - not known - hasn't he read her Listener columns of the last two decades? By far the greatest majority are right wingers with that first lot veering to the far right, and the 'not known' all at least leaning to the right.
Of that list I would be more interested in classifying who is very mild left (on a good day), although several of them are unpredictable at times (none are what I would call staunch left although Michelle A'Court probably comes closest - and strangely enough is the only woman).
But less than a third of the whole list are women and I still bet none of the regulars are non pakeha and/or under 40.
Note that this is only my opinion as a disenfranchised occasional listener to the Panel so I hope no one sues PAS.
Left leaning (on a good day)
Michelle A’Court
Jeremy Elwood
Duncan Webb
Brian Edwards
Mike Williams
David Slack
Chris Trotter
Finlay MacDonald
Gary Moore
Scott Yorke
Post your response…
This topic is closed.