Posts by Marcus Neiman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben: You are asking a methodologically individualistic question.
Of course letting in one or another person in as individuals is (usually) not problematic. However nation-states and the human population of the world are not collections of individuals but rather a plethora of social groupings with potentially massive social implications in their settlement patterns in particular places. It is certainly possible to not be racist and to make policy from a non-libertarian perspective.
-
Tze: I am interested in what benefits you foresee a broad brown alliance might deliver (and hence your interest in the Maori Party). I struggle to see how you can hold out much hope in the Maori Party as a vehicle given the huge narrative gulf between contemporary generalised constructions of Maori/Pacific Peoples/Asian interests, (without even exploring conflicts within these categories). It is all very well to be against hegemony etc...
Redistribution?
Recognition?
Veto power in decision-making?
Foreign policy changes?
-
Felix: A short list might include advocacy of any number of simple redistributionary policies that might address growing wealth and income inequality, child poverty, etc... things like an increased minimum wage, increased provision of social housing...
To take a topical example, there has been effectively no discussion in the media that tax rises may be more appropriate on some incomes than than tax cuts... This is not necessarily to say that tax cuts are a bad thing (although I hold that opinion), rather there is no consistant editorial voice in the mainstream national media questioning this for any number of good reasons.
-
Felix: I wasn't referring to the TRN/Clear Channel episode, and I do not believe that its shareholders routinely interfere in the development of particular stories. My point is though there are nonetheless, through its ownership and management certain constraints on what issues and stories can be run - particuarly in relation to the politics of the economy. In any case, my concern is with the national media more widely, not a single radio network.
Stephen: One (relatively minor) website, does not a vibrant national media make.
In any case I am interested in journalism in NZ more widely, across all media, not just the newspapers, and despite your rallying around the flag, it is clear that 1) we are more poorly served than elsewhere between radio, TV, and print, and more importantly 2) we could do much better.
On TV, Eating Media Lunch shows that scale is not an outright bar in terms of talent and cost in producing usually thought-provoking (if sometimes just provocative) current affairs coverage. In any case, it could be bought in by editors or programmers. We live in an affluent society with people who want intelligent reporting from accross the political spectrum - with certain choices this could happen.
-
Joanna: Blog/webpage... you could defensively quibble over definitions, or you could engage with the bigger issues...
-
Merc: Putting aside the question of your rather glib moralising - a good part of the issue is that, politics aside, even the art of journalism in terms of written experession is very poorly practiced in NZ. If we had right-wing arguments of the quality, of say, The Economist I would be somewhat happier.
-
Russell: I am highly mindful of the impacts of market-rationalities and ownership plays on the NZ media - hence my comments above about the media barrons - I realise that journalists are compromised by the ownership and management strucutures that they operate within.
As an aside, it seems that even the market rationality of reducing to the lowest common denominator is not working even in the crudest sense of public efficacy of increasing circulations and the spread of debate and information - as Graham Reid notes today, the Listener is continuing to lose readers. I suspect NZers are willing to pay for interesting content, they are clearly increasingly not willing to pay for drivel. While there is no centre-left national newspaper, weekly or monthly in NZ, there is clear case of politically-driven market failure.
That said though, some blame for the current situation must rest with the journalists - for allowing themselves to be collectively bullied as professionals by their employers, and I genuinely believe, a fair amount of simple complacency in their recognising and supporting talent as a profession.
-
Joanna: Read the music reviews on your blog, then go read the music reviews at the Guardian Online by way of comparison - it is not cultural cringe driving me, or some desire to bait journalists for the sake of it. As the writing in (for example) the Guardian demonstrates, another world of public discourse is possible, above and beyond the right-wing hackneyed rubbish that you find on and in NZ TV, radio, and newspapers.
I am sorry if you and the other journalists, spin doctors, and hacks are taking this personally, but I do consider the generally poor writing and analytical skills of NZ's journalists an issue of public concern.
-
Felix: You appear to work for Newstalk ZB are apparently unreflexive about what your station does and the wider political and social projects that it is engaged in. This is exactly why the NZ mass media is so contemptible.
-
Joanna: I am particuarly referring to Communications grads - but that said, my observation about three-year undergraduate programs could probably be applied to any tertiary institution and most courses. I guess I blamed AUT simply because that is where, from my personal experience, a lot of journalists come from.
More generally, undergraduate tertiary education in NZ does not seem to produce sharp, errudite graduates.
Russell: While there might be a few exceptions, I guess I am just saying that I enjoy seeing NZ journalists-qua-journalists, getting a good kicking now and then (almost regardless of the circumstances) - they have collectively earned it.