Would you do 50-60 hour weeks for $50-60K, in Auckland?
I’m a scientist, I spent 9 years earning SFA to get a PhD which got me a job that paid $36k*, we can play this game all day and night if you like.
You can. My partner’s grand-niece is in her first year of nursing studies and I’m sure she’s going to be a damn fine one. But when she graduates (probably with a substantial student loan to service), she’s going to be working more than 50 hours a week in a profession where the entry-level salaries are currently around $47K. If she’s in this just for the money, she’s a bloody fool and I’ve seen little evidence she’s anything of the kind.
And please can people stop saying half of New Zealand voted for National … sigh.
Can we say half of them didn't?
I think, statisticaly, that is more accurate.
Saying that junior scientists aren't paid well doesn't equal journalists are, in general, being paid well. It ain't the case.
Plenty of folks don't get paid well, I get that - but to claim journos are, in general, paid generously, is incorrect.
But anyway, I don't wish to derail the thread, in general ;-)
Can we say half of them didn’t?
I think, statisticaly, that is more accurate.
No, the point is just over a million New Zealanders voted for National on Saturday. In a country of 4.4 million people. That's about 40% of eligible voters and 48% of those who bothered to vote.
Greg: You know what’s getting my panties in a bunch? People who think that just didn’t happen (and it did a lot), who don’t distinguish between reporting allegations and facts, and when it’s politically useful elevate the media to a judicial body.
Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection (not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, just having a brain fail). Can you tell me what "that just didn't happen (and it did a lot)" refers to?
I agree completely that the media in general need to be far more careful than they have been in separating allegations from facts, but I'm not sure that I consider reporting the existence of allegations or uncomfortable facts to be crossing the line into the judiciary.
No, the point is just over a million New Zealanders voted for National on Saturday. In a country of 4.4 million people. That’s about 40% of eligible voters and 48% of those who bothered to vote.
And so ... ? If the point is to be pedantic about figures, then OK ... I guess Graeme Edgeler is busy elsewhere. But if the point is to somehow undermine National's claim to be able to govern alone, then I cry foul.
As was repeated ad infinitum in the run-up to the election, if you don't vote, you can't complain. By the same token, the losers on election day (which, if we're honest, is everyone commenting here except Eric and Craig) can't try to insinuate that the winners don't "really" have a mandate because a whole lot of people didn't bother voting.
We spend millions of dollars telling people how to enrol and vote. We have the easiest ballot access laws in the world. So, yeah - winning 48% of the vote means that half of the only people New Zealand who count supported you.
That’s about 40% of eligible voters
Oh ... and it's not. It's about 29.8% of eligible voters.
So, yeah – winning 48% of the vote means that half of the only people in New Zealand who count supported you.
Also, the calls for a recount are hilarious and ill informed. On the other hand, we can have a productive argument about what that mandate allows them to get away with.
$70-80K is pretty much top dollar nowadays, unless you’re Mike Hosking et al.
When is Hosking a Journalist?
Hosking is a talking head, Nothing else. It is he who puts himself on a Skytower high pedestal. All for money . Money means fame. Got enough? Mike's wallet says Mike Hosking loves Key. If you want money like Key, do what Mike Hosking says. He votes National. Is he part of the machine?
We spend millions of dollars telling people how to enrol and vote. We have the easiest ballot access laws in the world. So, yeah – winning 48% of the vote means that half of the only people New Zealand who count supported you.
I'm always amused/appalled by those people who declare that they registered a protest against the system by refusing to vote. No you didn't, dude. Everyone just ignored you.
When is Hosking a Journalist?
He's not. John Campbell is, however, and he gets TV money. Print journalist money doesn't really compare.
The one that did creep me out was the bookending of traffic reports on Radio Live and ZB with “party vote National” ads. This was in the middle of the news, with the electoral ad spoken by the same announcer who gave the traffic information, almost in the same breath. That really crossed a line for me, but I suppose I’m not a commercial radio listener.
Has anyone made a BSA complaint yet?
On the other hand, we can have a productive argument about what that mandate allows them to get away with.
I know, I know. First coffee of the day rant, I understand how out works.
Be interested to know what they charged and why they didn't go for the wraparound on the print edition. Online more effective?
But if the point is to somehow undermine National’s claim to be able to govern alone, then I cry foul.
No it isn't. The point is this is simple math that is reported incorrectly all the time. I'm not saying National does not have a mandate, those are your words not mine. What I am saying is that repeating endlessly that National have the support of half of New Zealand is overstating the mandate they do have.
The question is why does the media feel the need to overstate the mandate in that way? What benefit is there for the media?
The political arena over the past 30 years has been dragged so far back to the right that the centre has been redefined and even moderate left policies and priorities are labelled as extremist.
The media has played a key role in that – pun intended.
For a start, I wouldn’t believe anything Cameron Slater says without independent corroboration from multiple sources.
One of the better things from his newly-approved journo status is that he'll have to declare his sources by name, not 'a party insider' or a 'reliable informant'.
By the same token, the losers on election day (which, if we’re honest, is everyone commenting here except Eric and Craig) can’t try to insinuate that the winners don’t “really” have a mandate because a whole lot of people didn’t bother voting.
I wouldn't go as harsh as “if you don’t vote, don’t complain” – because I think even if you don’t vote, you’re still a citizen and have a right to curse your employees in the legislature as incompetent malign numpties, fairly or not, even if it gives me a migraine in the process. And as for compulsory voting, I have a one word rebuttal to anyone who thinks that will improve the quality of our legislature – Australia. But I digress.
But while I think turnout is a serious issue, there’s not some turnout tipping point where the results of elections become more or less “legitimate”. I’m sure everyone here, including me, would have a hearty eye-roll at the idea that Lianne Dalziel is a less legitimate Christchurch mayor than Bob Parker was because the turnout in 2013 was significantly lower than it was three years earlier, and it's the awful local body turnouts that depress me because there you don't even have to haul arse to a polling place on a specific day. And I've sure never seen anyone open a rates demand and say "Oh, that's far too low," :)
Indeed, the media failed – or succeeded – in propaganda winning on the day.
And the other big winners of the day were apathy, cynicism and disillusionment.
Um, not so much. Journos tend to be badly paid actually. Horrible hours usually too. Would you do 50-60 hour weeks for $50-60K, in Auckland? Less if you’re a junior… $70-80K is pretty much top dollar nowadays, unless you’re Mike Hosking et al.
You know when desktop PC technicians have slumped in relevance in today’s society, when they’re only worth minimum wage these days. It's the whole reason why I'm looking for work a new industry. Any ideas or openings?
I was taken by a piece in the Herald by Rhonwyn Newson who picked up on Simon Lusk's quote in Nicky Hager's book: that a negative campaign nearly always favours the right. Then there's the issue of studies on cognitive dissonance (where "facts" often don't convince people to change their minds). Both are salient points worth taking into account when looking at the impact (or lack thereof) of the details of Dirty Politics on the elections.
And when Key kept going on about the "international influence" on New Zealand elections, where was the media asking him about his reliance on an international firm, Crosby Textor, on his own campaign?
I'm happy to hear that Fisher and Nippert are both continuing on the case - now that the elections are over, it's time to get back to the real detail of dirty politics.
But like Craig says, exactly why is this the media's fault? What more could they have done?
There's an important distinction between "media has failed" and "it's the media's fault". Even if, as you suggest, people thought the government was taking NZ in the right direction therefore Dirty Politics didn't fly, it is still true that the media failed to hold Collins to account, failed to hold Katherine Rich to account, and more or less failed to hold Ede/Key to account.
And the fact that they tried their hardest is a critical part of this. The solution isn't to "try harder" or simply be better at their jobs. I think the lesson here is that their jobs no longer fulfil the role we need them to. The idea that a mob of journos chasing politicians around sticking a mic in their face could hold them accountable needs to be reexamined.
But of course, that's tantamount to a radical reinvention of political journalism, and I don't expect many/any to take me up on that, so I would rather just leave the failure on the table and hope that the Gallery comes up with its own solutions.
I could be wrong but is it that our journalists simply don;t know how to ask questions.
There are two dimensions to this arms race. 1) Short of waterboarding, if he doesn't want to talk, there no magical way to grill it out of him, 2) Whatever magical way you find to grill it out of him, the people doing it will end up being press sec/media trainers who teach politicians to resist it.
It's like an arms race, 'cept 5% of the media defects every year.
if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.
Oh, bollocks. Many of us are not allowed to vote. And not just us expats who don't get back to NZ often enough. Prisoners and under 18s and probably a few others, too. If you need an address to enrol, how do homeless people vote?
So, I didn't vote, like many, but you're not going to stop me complaining.
Oh, and what Bart said about numbers. 48% of the votes is considerably less than half the population.
If you mean that the media quoted Key, et al saying this, then … yeah. That’s what the media does, unless you really want it to stop reporting things that the journalist in question happens not to believe.
I want them to question BS, spin, mis-direction, smears, and lies. To challenge those who spout them at the time. But more importantly, I want journalists to look into said BS, analyse it, and report on where it varies from the facts. So next time that person spouts BS, they know it won't go out without scrutiny.
That is f*ckin essential to democracy.