Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales
182 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
I suppose that's Auckland's fault as well Bruce....that you can't come up with a rational response.
-
Bruce Ward, in reply to
Now who is touchy? Suppose away ...
-
Rather than this tit-for-tat nonsense, let me say that I prefer to listen to and believe in what Gerry Brownlee has to say on the overall subject.
He can't get it right all the time. Nobody in this sad, unprecedented tale in our history could be expected to.
But I do know that he is a decent, fair, hard-working Cantabrian who is giving it his very best shot.
If he had the time to take on board each and every view of each and every local, he would need to extend his life-expectancy by a further 200 years.
He must balance the demands for action with the need to listen.
I suspect the fact he is the member of a National Government does not advance his quest for respect amongst most of the contributors to this site.
If he were a Labour/Green minister, I'm certain he would be extended more tolerance.
And before any of you feel the need to abuse me, count to 10 and dwell on the fact that debate is the lifeblood of democracy. -
nzlemming, in reply to
debate is the lifeblood of democracy
Debate requires factual evidence. Your posts are significantly lacking in this area. As well, they are offensive, and not just to the people who are living through the "rebuild". If you haven't got the evidence to back up your claims, have the decency to shut the hell up.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Oh no Barnaby. You can’t get away with describing Gerard’s article as not being “negative about people outside of Christchurch.” Comments such as “Aucklanders were just not interested” and “the Auckland-based networks were just not interested” are implicit in the disparaging negativity and xenophobia that themes the article.
They're descriptions of his experience. He is entitled to air them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And before any of you feel the need to abuse me, count to 10 and dwell on the fact that debate is the lifeblood of democracy.
Which implies that people can and will question your reasoning. That’s not abuse.
And can I also ask that you try and show a little empathy? The people you're having a crack at have been through trauma and they do feel mistreated and ignored.
-
Barnaby Bennett, in reply to
Jeremy, I completely agree that any minister would have found this all difficult, and in part I do quite respect how Brownlee has managed some extremely difficult problems. While the communication was not always the best the redzoning was really quite a significant move that was well handled. (apart from the 50% thing but that was small numbers).
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and correct the problems that we see. I really despise this either all for or all against model that many commentators have. Critique is an act of care, and our attempts to critique and criticise and bring into light what is going on is because we want the best, not because we dislike any group (Aucklander) or any person (Brownlee).
The sad reality is that we have little ability to critique and contribute to the big decisions being made because we have no facility to do that. The public has been excluded from this process by the Government, and as a professional in that area, it deeply concerns me. Its both undemocratic and really really bad for city-building. I've got an essay I will put up on line in the next few days which explores it all a lot more.
-
jeremy botham, in reply to
I made a request for no abuse on the back of a 100% abusive reply from one of your major contributors, Ian Dalziel. If that wasn't abuse, then I've lost it.
And please Russell, with abundant respect, don't use the sympathy card to deny me or any other contributor the opportunity to disagree with a lot of what I've read on your site.
Inferring that I lack empathy because I do have opposing views is not fair play. I do have empathy. Oodles of it.
My association with the maligned Auckland-based media prompts my relies.....not a lack of sympathy for Christchurch. -
jeremy botham, in reply to
I look forward to your essay Barnaby.....but could somebody please explain the oddity that is CTV in regards to its tiny audiences that watch earthquake related stuff? I'm keen to learn.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Inferring that I lack empathy because I do have opposing views is not fair play. I do have empathy. Oodles of it.
My association with the maligned Auckland-based media prompts my relies…..not a lack of sympathy for Christchurch.If you're a media person, then perhaps you could try listening instead of talking. This is not about you, it's about Chch and what Chch people are going through.
Auckland-based media, with few exceptions, have given almost no space to Chch issues. This is not an emotion, it's a fact.
PAS is a place where civility and mutual respect can build bridges between people with differing views. If you want a flame war, please go elsewhere.
-
Barnaby Bennett, in reply to
Its a fair question and I don't honestly know the answer. I don't think the CTV problem is a uniquely Canterbury thing though is it, as hardly any of the regional TV stations have much of an audience do they? They also don't have the capital to make the high quality productions that mainstream TV affords.
You are also probably right about there being a kind of fatique with everything. After four years of dealing with a thousand problems people are tired. But this doesn't make the problems go away, and it doesn't make the governments handling of them any better.
We launched our book at the writers festival last week and the session of well over 150 people was sold out, and the book launch had a similar amount of people turn up. There's no lack of interest or engagement with what we are doing from what I can see.
-
jeremy botham, in reply to
"Auckland media, with few exceptions, have given almost no space to ChCh issues."
That kind of fabrication sums up precisely my frustrations. It reeks of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
It's sweeping, emotional clap-trap and cannot hope to pose as factual.
-
Bruce Ward, in reply to
My association with the maligned Auckland-based media prompts my replies.....not a lack of sympathy for Christchurch.
Then perhaps you would comment on the information presented in Gerard's post:
Over these three months Christchurch appeared on national screens on average for 33 minutes a week. Aucklanders saw themselves for 659 minutes – twenty times Christchurch’s lot. And this was after we had had an earthquake.
I am disturbed by the apparent discrepancy, and at a loss to see why this has occurred. It's not because of relative population size. Is it because of relative financial clout? Was there something nationally more important happening in Auckland over those 3 months?
In the absence of evidence one way or another, perhaps it is not surprising that people at least consider that possibly the reason is that Auckland-based national media just aren't interested in Christchurch unless there is some controversy. -
jeremy botham, in reply to
Thanks for that considered reply Barnaby. Food for thought. I do suspect though that earthquake fatigue as with other disaster-related fatigue is a reality in Christchurch as much as anywhere else.
That can explain obvious apathy and inaction....all part of the human condition I suppose. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
“Auckland media, with few exceptions, have given almost no space to ChCh issues.”
That kind of fabrication sums up precisely my frustrations. It reeks of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
"A good story"? Could you be any more dismissive? C'mon. You've just acknowledged the newstime numbers in Gerard's post. How is saying the same thing a "fabrication"?
I honestly do think you're really lacking in empathy here. I think you haven't been there, you don't know how hard it is for people and you you're fixating on some perceived offence to Aucklanders as if it's the main point. It just isn't.
-
st ephen, in reply to
You left out this crucial lead-in to that quote:
Over a three month period they watched and categorised all publicly funded programmes, with the exception of news and current affairs, that were broadcast...
So the Auckland vs Chch hours have nothing to do with news or documentaries on the earthquake or any other issue, and presumably everything to do with Go Girls, Nothing Trivial, Shortland St, The Block etc.
-
jeremy botham, in reply to
It may not suit your conspiracy theories Bruce but "the Auckland-based media" is not some one-off, perverse, antagonistic organ....hell-bent on victimising Christchurch.
Stories come and go.....whatever their magnitude.Do you similarly blame the world press including our own for having lost interest in the whereabouts of the missing Boeing? I bet the families wish that wasn't the case.
Do you blame the world press including our own for not regularly detailing the awful plight of those poor folk in Gaza....now that the Israeli onslaught is over? I bet Gazans wish the publicity remained.
At the time of the quakes and for many weeks afterwards, the situation in Christchurch was extremely prevalent in all national media.
Now, undeniably, it's not as big a story. That's the way media works. It always been the case. C'est la vie. -
jeremy botham, in reply to
I visit Christchurch regularly Russell. I know the situation well. Very presumptuous of you to assume otherwise.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I visit Christchurch regularly Russell. I know the situation well. Very presumptuous of you to assume otherwise.
My apologies then. I also grew up in Christchurch, I get down there several times a year, and this place has been a sounding-board for Christchurch people since the first quake. I don't take offence at their frustration.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Do you blame the world press including our own for not regularly detailing the awful plight of those poor folk in Gaza….now that the Israeli onslaught is over? I bet Gazans wish the publicity remained.
But these are our fellow New Zealanders, and our government. That's the difference, surely.
-
Bruce Ward, in reply to
Sorry if this gets under your skin, Jeremy, but I am not looking for a conspiracy. I was looking for a reasonable explanation in the questions I asked and which you have ignored.
Perhaps I was thinking more of current affairs, but as st ephen pointed out that was left out of the analysis.
So, do you have any explanation as to why the national media are so Auckland-centric? -
jeremy botham, in reply to
Surely Russell, with your insight into the workings of the media, you're aware that events that are now over two years old, however monumentally tragic they were, have now lost significant traction outside of Christchurch.
It's arguably not fair, but most of life isn't. -
Lilith __, in reply to
But these are our fellow New Zealanders, and our government. That’s the difference, surely.
Thanks Russell.
Says something if this thread also becomes all about Auckland. Kind of proves the point, eh.
-
jeremy botham, in reply to
Because most of the media headquarters are based here Bruce. Simply a reality.
As it is in the UK with London. The USA with New York. France with Paris. etc etc etc etc etc. -
And whoever said size isn't important was lying !
Post your response…
This topic is closed.