Liz Gunn is strikingly frank about what it was like to work with Mike Hosking.
Thanks for the link.
Stuff published this story today, according to my RSS feed, but they had deleted it by the time I clicked through!
They had a story based on that or Gunn's original facebook post last night. Lasted about half an hour before it got lawyered.
I wasn't paying attention at the time but it looks as if it wasn't plain sailing when she was there. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=383926
Thanks, but was that reproduction on all10things auto-translated to some other language and then back to English? The grammar is terrible to the extent that some parts seem to make no sense.
I have to say I have found this vanishing Liz Gunn comment on Hoskings illustrative of how self censoring our media is nowadays. Commercial imperatives are all, and grafted onto that are journalists like Barry Sopher, a long past it hack who still uses meaningless and hackeyed 1980s memes like “pen pushers” and “long suffering taxpayers” and who anywhere else would have long ago been kicked upstairs or out but instead in NZ is allowed to cling to the ridiculous pretence that an old man long institionalised still understands the pulse of the nation. It seems to me the MSM isn’t only dead in NZ. Much worse, it has turned into a zombie.
Good points, its like soper has been writing the same story his whole career, do they read, do they challenge their ideas, do they know what suffering feels like?It's just too comfy for a guy like him. It's a sad joke,
To top it off Stuff has, today, reported on the petition and mentioned very briefly that he once worked with Liz Gunn, but said nothing about Liz Gunn's comment.
It's filed under Entertainment.
Happily, at least, there is no comment thread. Hopefully it stays that way.
Hosking is just idiotic. He makes no sense. It’s even more disturbing to read he is a bully. I can’t think of a more despised person in media. In a way I feel sorry for him because I feel he has no idea how much his simple dribble is hated . His legacy will be the most hated broadcaster in the history of this country. It’s bizarre to hear him try to relate to issues he doesn’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to fully understand. His housing commentary is so painfully woeful, contradictory and fiscally ignorant he really needs to just shut up and let the knowledgeable adults speak.
I feel he has no idea how much his simple dribble is hated
I'm sure he does. It's no secret that many people despise him. But he's also there because quite a lot of people seem to like him. He represents that demographic.
I'm resigned to the fact that we have people like that in our society. He's not going to change. But my main issue is the way in which he's being given so much room to air his opinions, especially when it's in contexts that masquerade as journalism, and which displaces real journalism. He doesn't just say what he thinks, he tells other people what to think in an insulting Jerry Springer-esque conclusive segment every evening.
By comparison a big portion of people dislike John Campbell too, and I'm also not so much a fan of his campaigning style. But the difference, and why I still happily listen to JC on Checkpoint, is that he actually gets out there and talks to people and learns about and reports stuff. His opinions which he expresses are derived from actual exposure to the real world.
Hosking's paid, in all his roles, to continuously blurt out his opinion. There's no evidence that it's based on anything besides disturbing sociopathic tendancies combined with sitting on his arse all day in front of a camera, microphone or keyboard and being required to make stuff up and express it with resolve. Even he agrees that he's not a journalist, when he's backed into a corner, and yet TVNZ chooses to both present him in a role as if he is, and let him displace real journalists. I'm mildly relived when I see that television ratings are dropping generally, if it's a sign that fewer and few people are willing to put up with this crap, but I'm also grieving the apparent displacement and starvation of what used to be there.</AntiHoskingRant>
I don't normally go for signing petitions, especially online petitions. But last night I had a weak moment and signed the anti-Hosking petition. I don't expect it to make any difference.
Good points, and yes he has been able to ride the coat tails of a well developed Paul Holmes audience , a silent majority (in reality a loud monied talk back minority) sick to death of an invisible, non -definable p.c that apparently controls their world .
Yes, Campbell has his flaws but his positives are massive.
It's the soft fascism of hoskings that makes him very ugly and I am glad that word is back because its a real condition amongst our right wing zealots, there really isn't any other way to describe such an ugly worldview of the supposed limitations of other less monied citizens. Hosking has no understanding of the wave of shit that is building up to hit him. Unusually I find an increasing amount of moderate conservative friends voicing amazement at his paranoid ramblings , not just the poorer half of the nation he seems to genuinely despise.
Ignorance is just so blissful, and I really need a bombastic self-serving National Party propagandist on TVNZ to tell me what to think about things neither of us have any clue about.
Stuff stuffs up in a mega-way ...
New Zealand-based Kim, meanwhile, is in a protracted legal battle with the United States Department of Justice, which accuses him of criminal copyright infringement through his now from his defuncted Megalupload file hosting service.
Pfft, spell-checkers, who needs 'em when you can stuff up grammar so easily.
I don't suppose the savvy folks at PAS need telling, but just a heads-up: when you see "Brexit" stories prominent on the NZ Herald website, scroll down to the bottom and check the source. They've been leading with recycled rants from the Daily Mail, instead of actual news.
Cut out the middleman, and read the Guardian.
Yeah, that's the same logic as saying "Off switch!" whenever a talkback host fails broadcasting standards, or a TV network cuts its current affairs. Of course I have other options - but not everything is about me.
We have few media outlets, and are set to have fewer. Their quality matters - whether I personally bother with them or not.
…read The Guardian.
that’s a sneering fantasy world according to Matthew Hooton (obviously a Daily Mail reader)
at about 8 minutes in
Really? The irony barely needs to be mentioned.
Why would anyone seek to be informed by listening to talkback radio? You may as well base your actions on posts on the Trademe messageboard.
We have few media outlets, and are set to have fewer. Their quality matters …
Fairfax don’t give a toss, the truth is always mutable – case in point this morning they reprinted their print editorial on line – an all over the place support piece for developer bullies CCCL – in which it is hard to discern what is quoted speech from developers and what is The Press’s editorial stance
It ran online at 6.15am
Last updated 06:15, June 27 2016
and read like this:
At first glance the project certainly appears at odds with Christchurch’s grand plan. In fact, some say the $50 million redevelopment of the old McKenzie and Willis building goes as far as threatening the integrity of the city’s rebuild blueprint.
Details of an inner-city stoush over the number of shops being included in the Richard Peebles-led project have been revealed by The Press.
The 6500 square-metre McKenzie and Willis development on the corner of High St and Tuam St sits within the innovation precinct, as designated by the 2012 blueprint. A modicum of “boutique retail environments” is considered compatible in that zone, but those who have come out against the project say the plans go far beyond “boutique”.
Earlier this month it filed High Court proceedings seeking a judicial review against that company and the Christchurch City Council over resource consents that have been granted.
CCCL brings considerable experience and gravitas to such matters. It is composed of prominent property developers and business people, including Antony Gough, Michael Ogilvie-Lee, Philip and Tim Carter, Roger Bridge, and Warwick Isaacs.
None of this line-up could be accused of not wanting, nor working towards getting the best results for the city’s redevelopment. Neither could the Peebles Group. The sticking point is over the process and at the lack of public input on development plans that clearly jar with the intended use of that part of the city.
Peebles says he is “very disappointed” about the legal challenge and intends to staunchly defend the consents he has been given. Beyond that he is not prepared to say more, given it is before the courts. The city council is declining to comment at all.
Gough is exercising no such caution. He says those in the innovation precinct went there thinking they would be part of a larger innovation community. He also says while there is some flexibility on the kind of developments within the precincts, it is not as loose as some might imagine. CCCL consider 55 shops will turn 181 High Street into a major retail hub. Gough also says the court action will establish how much authority the blueprint carries - whether the intention is for the city to stick with it, and developers to play by the rules, or if it is something “we throw in the rubbish tin”.
CCCL is to be congratulated for bringing this disparity to the public’s attention. There is great public interest in making our new city centre the very best it can be.
While 181 High Street looks good and would be an attractive destination for many, it is incompatible with the intentions of the blueprint.
What concerns us most is that consents were granted for the project when obviously the proposal was inharmonious with what was going on around it. Why were the public not given the chance to make submissions, given that discrepancy?
Unless we want to start revising what has already been done, we think the blueprint has to remain as the central city’s authoritative and over-arching recovery document.
I placed a comment at about 8am, ripping this 'rah rah' piece to shreds, by 11am that had not appeared so I placed another comment marvelling at the lack of comments on such a ‘red rag’ of an editorial, also suggesting they not bother having comments enabled if they weren’t going to accept any (or close them rapidly if they don’t get the comments they want) and lo and behold, next time I checked the comments were off and the whole editorial had been gutted and the emphasis changed –
while the last updated line still says 6.15am!!
the court action will establish how much authority the blueprint carries -
Since we need to rip up the 'blueprint' and start again, I sincerely hope the challenge loses- and badly.