Red Alert
Archive for the ‘media’ Category
Cuppa Tea gone sour
Posted by Clare Curran on November 14th, 2011On the Stuff website last night:
Key, campaigning in Hawke’s Bay, said he wasn’t in the “slightest bit concerned” about what was on the tape. He said the conversation was “bland” – but has refused to make public what was said.
I don’t know all the circumstances of the taping of John Key’s and John Bank’s cuppa tea conversation. But I make these points:
- The event was stage managed by the National Party. It was a hyped up event. Media were invited to film the meeting of Key and Banks, but not the actual conversation. There was an enormous amount of spin around it.
- National’s intention was for Epsom voters to know that John Key thought they should vote for Banks.
- The meeting was recorded without their knowledge. The journalist responsible owned up and fronted the media himself.
- The Herald on Sunday did not publish the contents. They reported they had the tape.
- John Key is now spinning it as News of the World tactics. He asserts that the journalist deliberately set out to covertly record a conversation. That’s a big accusation. I’d like to know if he wants the journalist charged? What about the Herald on Sunday?
- Key says the conversation was bland. But he won’t provide the nation with the contents.
- There is enormous public interest in this issue. It could result in an Act/National coalition arrangement.
- If National allowed the cameras and the media part way in for their own ends, then they’ve now got to front up and tell the nation what was said.
- I cannot fathom what the privacy argument could possibly be that outweighs the public interest on this. There’s an election in 13 days time. These two men were discussing an arrangement between their respective parties. Surely the public has a right to know what it is.
A private conversation is held privately. Not stage managed in public. Tell us what you promised John Banks, John Key!
A new public broadcaster
Posted by Clare Curran on November 1st, 20111. There is no public television broadcaster in NZ. Our public broadcasting environment is depleted. Labour believes a strong, independent, free public media service NOT driven by commercial interests is essential to an informed democracy.
2. A Labour Government will immediately start a debate to establish a new non-commercial public broadcaster. It will include the functions of Radio NZ and TVNZ7. It will consider other functions. So to be clear we will keep TVNZ7. Radio NZ will retain its autonomy. We will strengthen them and may add services. We will ensure the governance of the new broadcaster is more arms length from government.
3. It will exist in the digital environment. Therefore it spans the traditional broadcasting telco industry and internet realms. This is called convergence. Labour has already signalled a converged regulatory environment for broadcasting and telco sectors.
4. A public and industry (broadcasting and telco sectors) debate will take place on the final shape and funding mechanisms. There are a range of options to be canvassed. The debate is important because it will be a New Zealand broadcaster that belongs to all of us and is about us. The lack of a public broadcaster has been debated. The shape of a future one has not. That debate has been sorely missing.
4. We don’t anticipate any extra cost to the taxpayer. We will asking the sectors how they think it should be funded. The outcome could be a mix of options. We are not prejudging or anticipating the outcome of this. The debate hasn’t been had. Many stakeholders are keen to have it.
5. The debate will be concluded within a year and it is anticipated that decisions will be made and any regulatory and other changes underway.
This is a significant policy. It marks an important change towards a contemporary Kiwi approach to protecting and promoting our culture in the 21st Century. It’s a commitment not made lightly and it’s a commitment we will see through.
I hope you agree.
Even the cheerleaders are turning on Key
Posted by Trevor Mallard on October 13th, 2011Transtasman today :-
Govt agencies seemed slow to react to the ship running
aground on the Astrolabe reef. They did not appear to spring
into action, nor anticipate worst case outcomes. Local
residents, understandably appalled by the sight of toxic oil
sludge washing ashore, have complained of a lack of leadership.
They were incensed when Ministers said the salvage and cleanup
should be “left to the experts.”
Where are the wise heads?
Posted by Clare Curran on October 9th, 2011Martyn Bomber Bradbury has been banned from Radio NZ for criticising John Key.
Media Watch (about 26 mins into the programme) this morning confirmed the was banned for an unacceptable breach of Radio NZ’s editorial policies of fairness and balance.
What did he do? On Thursday’s The Panel segment on Jim Mora’s afternoon show, he criticised John Key for appearing as host on Radio Live for an hour at their invitation pretending it wasn’t political. He also criticised the Prime Minister for his behaviour in parliament this week in blaming Labour during the well publicised incident where a man tried to jump from the public gallery into the House. Both issues have been widely reported in our media.
Bomber is a bit out there.
Like other commentators across the political spectrum he tends to speak his mind rather freely. He’s a “left” commentator. Not attached to Labour or any other party directly that I know of (maybe Mana).
He expresses his views stridently. Presumably that’s why he’s on the programme regularly. Along with others who are also fairly strident at times.
I’d like to know what editorial policy was being breached? And who made the decision to ban Bomber Bradbury?
And to be reassured that there was no external influence brought to bear on Radio NZ management and editorial staff to make that decision.
I think it’s valid to ask that if they can make this decision how come commentators from the Right haven’t been banned on a regular basis for regularly criticising Phil Goff on the Jim Mora Show, on Nine to Noon’s political slot and other RNZ shows? If I trawled through Radio NZ’s afternoon show I wonder how many times I’d find a commentator who lambasted Phil Goff and the Labour Party for this or that action or policy.
I’m not suggesting other commentators should be banned. Yes I’d like to see more commentators on Radio NZ and other media who didn’t regularly bash the Labour Party. But I’m not complaining about it because it’s Radio NZ’s right to choose their commentators. And all NZ should trust them to do so with fairness and balance.
But once they choose the commentators, banning one for criticising the Prime Minister is a bit rich.
As we head into the election it’s important that the coverage is fair and balanced. But that doesn’t mean media outlets should prevent criticism. Especially shutting down criticism of the government of the day.
Our state broadcaster should know better than that.
The Radio NZ charter includes these principles:
Programmes which provide for varied interests and a full range of age groups within the community, including information, educational, special interest, and entertainment programmes; and
Comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs, including items with a regional perspective;
What Bomber Bradbury said was not news. It was commentary, on a programme, on a section called The Panel where people are invited to vent their spleen about an issue they care about and is bugging them.
Wisdom and experience is what’s needed by our media organisations during an election period. We need to know it’s there. And to trust the judgement calls being made.
PS: Why has the relevant part of The Panel been removed from the Radio NZ website? It’s ironic because the Prime Minister’s spot on Radio Live got taken off Radio Live’s website last week after a complaint was made to the BSA and the Electoral Commission.
Crossing the line
Posted by Clare Curran on October 5th, 2011Popularity and power go together. I think we all know it. Whether it’s in the school playground, the boardroom, the big screen or the bear pit of parliament.
If you have the gift of the gab and a brain, then you’ve got an “x factor;” something that others want to be near and have a part of.
But with power comes responsibility and judgement. The more popularity, the more power, and the risk that good responsible judgement goes out the window.
That happened last week I believe, when the Prime Minister was a DJ on an hour long show with no editorial control on Radio Live interviewing celebrity guests and generally chatting about (supposedly) nothing to do with the election.
It was less than 8 weeks before the election. he is the Prime Minister. A politician. His Party wants to be returned to power. It was an opportunity not offered to the Leaders of other parties.
The National Party’s election strategy is based around John Key’s popularity. Brand Key. All its election hoardings bear his picture. Activists and candidates wear t-shirts with “I’m a Key person” on them.
An hour long show on Radio Live in a prominent Friday afternoon slot was about cementing Brand Key in the minds of listeners. It was a clever marketing idea. It was not a clever political strategy. And it was not “fair”.
Radio Live is owned by Radioworks, which is part of Mediaworks. In 2009 the National Government provided Mediaworks with a $43 million loan to defer payments for their radio spectrum licenses.
This issue has been covered extensively in the media since March this year when it came to light. There is, at the very least, a perception that Mediaworks was provided favourable treatment by the government. In that case it is even more important for Mediaworks to ensure they are extremely balanced in their election coverage.
On Monday, Labour submitted a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority over the PM’s show. Another complaint was lodged with the Electoral Commission.
Labour contends that the New Zealand electoral system is based on fairness, responsibility and impartiality to order for Kiwis to make their voting choices without pressure or misleading information.
We believe the show breached the Broadcasting Act and the Electoral Act.
I was completely gobsmacked when I heard that Mediaworks had given the Prime Minister a free hour. I believe, as I think all new Zealanders do that we are all entitled to a fair trial if we are accused of something and charged. I also believe that New Zealanders are entitled to a fair electoral system.
It doesn’t matter how popular you are. None of us are above the law. There’s always a point when the popular guy crosses the line and takes too much for granted.
The right to a fair go is a deeply held belief in our country. It doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re on. I think that’s the test here.
It has resonance for all our media and I reckon they aren’t happy at being put in this position.
Where’s your socialist streak?
Posted by Darien Fenton on August 26th, 2011I bet you didn’t know that New Zealanders are really just a bunch of socialists.
John Key said we are, so it must be true.
According to Wikileaks cables in the media today John Key met with visiting charge d’affaire Glyn Davies in 2008 and told him National could not adopt conservative policies because a “socialist streak” runs through all New Zealanders.
Next time Alan Peachy rails against Labour as “those socialists” in one of his raving speeches in the house (which always reduce me to fits of laughter), I will enjoy reminding he has a socialist streak too.
More on wikileaks in the media here.
Politics should be about ideas
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011Politics should be a contest of ideas. Increasingly it’s becoming more and more focused on tactics and personalities. More column inches have been devoted to analysing whether Labour’s tax policies have moved our poll ratings than have been devoted to detailing what the policies actually are and whether they’re a good idea or not. Plenty of publicity has been given to John Key’s Rugby World Cup forays, much less attention to the fact that under his watch unemployment has sky-rocketed and the cost of living is rising at the fastest rate in over 21 years.
But that’s the reality. We can complain about it, or we can get out there and redouble our efforts to promote the ideas we believe in. I want to be part of Labour government after this year’s election because I think we’ve got the best ideas for turning our economy around, giving hard-working Kiwis a break, and securing a brighter future for our country.
I hate comparisons between politics and sport, but there is one analogy with sport that I do find useful from time to time. In politics, as in sport, it’s important to “leave it all out on the field”. We compete fiercely with our opponents, we think our ideas are better, and we think we’re better able to manage the challenges we face. But we should never forget that our opponents are also driven by decent intent, however misguided we may think that they are.
Nobody is entitled to power, or to claim ownership of a particular constituency. In a democracy, it’s a right that has to constantly be earned. Likewise, I think it shows total contempt for voters to declare the electoral race all but run before the starting whistle has even been blown. There are still three months to go before polling day, and I, along with my colleagues, intend to campaign for the ideas and values that Labour represents right up to the last hour. This one is too important.
Can of worms
Posted by Clare Curran on August 16th, 2011Phone hacking: News of the World reporter’s letter reveals cover-up
Disgraced royal correspondent Clive Goodman’s letter says phone hacking was ‘widely discussed’ at NoW meetings
The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman’s allegations.
Tweet of the Week
Posted by Clare Curran on July 24th, 2011Moana is unable to post this week. I am the ring in. So I shall start with a King and end with a Queen (yes I will)
PS: I don’t think my layout is as good as hers
These words give us all strength and courage
NorwayUN NorwayUN
King Harald of #Norway: “when the nation is tested, the strength, cohesion and courage of the Norwegian people becomes evident.” #Utøya
15 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
and these
@andy_williamson Andy Williamson
RT Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg: “The answer to violence is even more democracy. Even more humanity” Hope our world leaders are listening
23 hours ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
Retweeted by Roselady64 and 100+ others
and these
olavkjorven Olav Kjorven
Deeply saddened by senseless attacks in Norway. Thanks for outpouring of support from around the world to a hurt but sturdy people.
17 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
then there was this. Not so good
homebrewcrew Home Brew
‘Key uses Norway massacre to justify NZs military involvement in Afghanistan’. Can we please do something bout this guy in November people?
9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
and the clash of stories
mingyeow Ming Yeow Ng
Via @dcurtis: Norway was attacked, Amy Winehouse is dead, Greece has defaulted, the US is about to, and New York melted. What a week 
7 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Billy Bragg had this to say about the 27 club
billybragg Billy Bragg
It’s not age that Hendrix, Jones, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common – it’s drug abuse, sadly #27club
14 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
and the final word goes to Her Majesty about “that other story” which, am pretty sure, won’t go away easily
@Queen_UK Elizabeth Windsor
No, Mr Murdoch, you cannot “pop round” after you’ve finished at the Commons.
Diversion: that hacking thing is a beat up (says Fox)
Posted by Clare Curran on July 18th, 2011Fox News’ take on the the News of the World hacking scandal.
Hacking is a big problem they say, but it’s foreign govt hacking that we should worry about not Murdoch empire hacking (ie a US media empire hacking into citizen’s phones to get stories)
They say it’s the hacking that’s a problem, protection of privacy. Well yes that is a problem, but the fact that a media empire is seriously implicated in a phone hacking scandal is and remains very serious.
Fox found a PR guy to create a diversion.
He says that for some reason the public keeps going over it again and again…. And we should now move on and talk about the important topics of the day. Yeah right
We’ll see.
Breaking News: Rebekah Brooks is arrested in London
The slippery slope
Posted by Clare Curran on July 13th, 2011Public television broadcasting ended in NZ last night. The TVNZ Amendment Bill passed which kills the TVNZ Charter. TVNZ is now required to be a commercial broadcaster. it remains State owned for now but is likely being prepared for sale by a government that has no commitment to public broadcasting.
While the National Govt axes the Charter and drives a stake into public TV broadcasting, there’s a mounting crisis in the media world; in the relationship between media and politicians which could severely impact on the Murdoch media empire and the UK Govt.
The News of the World phone hacking scandal has reverberated around the globe. The Murdoch empire has tentacles in many countries.
There’s some important lessons here.
Independent public media, not captured by vested interests is critical to the health of a nation. The public needs to know that politicians and media aren’t in bed with each other, that there’s standards that media adhere to and lines that wont be crossed. If they are crossed, that the judicial system will investigate and prosecute. And wont be captured and muzzled by fear of powerful media.
But the passing of this Bill takes NZ on a slippery slope to a place where vested interests rule our media. Hopefully not our politicians.
But.
We’ve already seen the government fork out $43 million to bail out Mediaworks. It’s pretty clear that TVNZ is being prepared for sale and meanwhile Sky gains a bigger slice of the unregulated broadcasting sphere. Unfettered. Not good.
Labour is committed to a strong independent public media. If you have had any doubts about the need, just look across the hemisphere.
All governments are susceptible to media influence. Especially big media empires. Which makes for a compelling case for independent publicly funded media which is arms length from government.
Damage control
Posted by Clare Curran on July 9th, 2011Just watched an Australian (part Murdoch-owned) Sky News report where The (Murdoch-owned) Australian newspaper is forced to “deny” phone hacking activities aka those undertaken by the (Murdoch-owned) News of the World (NotW) newspaper.
Interesting.
And think I agree with the Telegraph editor David Hughes (did I say that?) who thinks that the decision to close News of the World is not only about protecting News International’s chief executive Rebekah Brooks:
“Most of all, this move is designed to ensure that News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB goes ahead. That is at the heart of Murdoch’s strategy, not the fate of Britain’s best-selling red top.
The BBC has gathered a series of opinions on it which is worth a look.
Murdoch’s decision to close NotW is all about damage control. It’s certainly a disaster for him re NotW. But there’s a much bigger play happening. UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s response today yesterday to call an inquiry into the phone hacking shows just how big that play is.
David Cameron is now very exposed. Andy Coulson, his former press spokesman, has been arrested in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking.
Cameron has been busy covering himself. Shows what can happen when those with the levers of power over-reach themselves.
It appears the NotW demise is the fall guy. I believe they will attempt to ensure that the BSkyB network remains in Murdoch hands , but events may overtake.
Chickens coming home to roost.
Makes you wonder about our patch.
Update: And this just takes the cake. Cameron, calling for an inquiry into the phone hacking, calls for the end of close relationship between politicians and the media. Only when it doesn’t suit!
What we’re missing out on…
Posted by Clare Curran on June 26th, 2011Statistics before culture….
The Chaser’s War on Everything has been cutting edge TV in Australia since the mid 2000s. It’s stopped for now though they tried to bring it back during the Royal Wedding (got squashed by the BBC).
It’s irreverant, it pisses off politicians, celebrities, people in high places. But it’s comedy, it’s clever, it’s out there and it’s taking the piss.
We used to be funnier here. We used to do this sort of stuff. But we seem to have lost our ability to do it. Or pretty much.
Why? We’ve got to sort this…
The inequality of news
Posted by Clare Curran on June 18th, 2011Came across this just now on Twitter. From the UK’s Financial Times. It seems relevant.
Two extracts below and you can read the whole piece here
Now the rich are always with us …
By Simon Kuper
Published: June 17 2011 22:14 |
Forty years ago, the typical person in the western world read the local newspaper. It told you which local butcher was retiring, who had celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary, and it covered the local politicians, athletes and business owners. Twenty years ago, the typical person read the national paper. It covered the national elite. Today that person gets news or Twitter feeds from websites that cover the global elite: everyone from Lady Gaga to Barack Obama.
This shift – from local news to global – is well-known. Less well-known is one of its consequences: news has become news about rich people. Today’s economic inequality is reflected and driven by inequality of news.
and this:
Second, we forget the poor. They may always be with us, but not in the media. The perhaps 2.5 billion people with less than $2 a day get ignored, due to the triple whammy of being poor, non-white and non-Anglophone.
For instance, there’s a new treatment that stops the spread of Aids, but rich countries are reluctant to fund it. This has generated a few worthy editorials in highbrow publications, but otherwise is considered too boring to tweet.
In this country we know there’s need and that the cost of living is way too high for vast numbers of us. Not just the people who are described as the traditional poor. But the new poor; the people who have lost incomes, houses and quality of life and are struggling for their very existence. They are growing in number.
Let’s not hide the increasing desperation and hardship many people are feeling. And when considered ideas and solutions get put up, let’s not brush them aside and hide them behind a slogan put up by the other side.
Politics and the media sideshow
Posted by Clare Curran on June 12th, 2011Mediawatch this week is worth listening to.
An interview with Lindsay Tanner, former senior Australian politician who recently released a book called Sideshow; dumbing down the media and politics. I wrote a blog post about this a few weeks ago titled The trashing of politics and media which excited some interest.
The classic thing is that last week I participated in such a sideshow by stealing the headlines by wearing a Highlanders top into the Chamber and getting thrown out for not wearing appropriate business attire in the House. I was making a silent statement of support on behalf of an issue my constituents cared about. Its called representation. I didn’t expect to get thrown out. Once I did it became the major story of the day.
I’m not sorry for wearing the rugby shirt or for the resultant publicity. Hard to justify when there are so many other important issues. But that’s the media/politics sideshow. Not blaming the media. That’s the way things are. Have a listen. It’s good stuff.
A strong, independent public media (including TV) might help provide more balance in the media coverage. If we had one.
Glad we’ve got RadioNZ and Mediawatch though.
Lobbyists and Transparency
Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 4th, 2011Tracy Watkins has an interesting column in this morning’s Dominion Post about the rise of lobbyists and the lack of rules and transparency around them in the New Zealand political sphere. I agree with a lot of what she writes. Now unlike my friends and colleagues in the Greens, I don’t think a Minister’s decision-making is going to be swayed by a ticket to the rugby and a few sausage rolls, but I am concerned about the increasing number of lobbyists who seem to have unrestricted access to Parliament buildings and the lack of transparency around that.
I’ll be upfront right here and now and say that I’ve been to several sporting events at the invitation of corporate box owners, often joining MPs from other political parties. But I think MPs, and particularly ministers, need to be careful about which invitations they accept. For example, it would be a very bad look for Steven Joyce to be seen in a Telecom corporate box around the time he is making significant decisions on broadband. On the other hand, I can’t see there being any issue with National backbenchers accepting corporate hospitality from government banker Westpac. They’re not going to have any influence over whether the government banking contract is renewed anyway.
I think New Zealand has come a long way in recent years on issues around transparency. Our elected representatives are now subject to a quite stringent declaration of interests process, and some of the loopholes (for example the ‘annonymising’ trusts that Tracy refers to in her column) have actually been closed so that MPs can’t hide where they have their money stashed, unless they truly don’t know where it is themselves (in other words it’s in a blind trust, although I myself remain skeptical about just how ‘blind’ those trusts actually are).
However, I’d also point out that those who report on our activities aren’t subject to any such transparency, and I think that’s an area that we should also look at. I’ve met just as many press gallery journalists in corporate boxes at the Westpac Stadium as I have other MPs. Given they have huge influence over what the public get to know about the decision-making of elected leaders, why shouldn’t the journalists also have to be transparent about that? When journalists receive free travel, which they often do from the airlines, why shouldn’t they have to declare that? (I do acknowledge that many will put a small statement at the end of an article of someone else has paid for their airfares, but they are not obliged to do so by anything other than their own ethical standards).
With the government increasingly using military aircraft to get around the country and around the world, why shouldn’t the journalists who travel with them on those same flights have to be transparent about that? If we as the Opposition were to critiscise a Minister for using an airforce plane rather than a commercial plane, and the journalist covering that critiscism had also been a passenger on said military aircraft, surely their readers are entitled to know that?
I’ve had quite a bit to do with a number of press gallery journalists in my time working in politics and, for the most part, I think they’ve got incredibly high ethical standards. But I think most politicians do as well. If the fourth estate want to argue, as they do, that we can’t rely on a politician’s word and sense of ethics and we do, in fact, need more rigid and transparent rules around personal interests, why shouldn’t the same argument apply to those who report on our activities?
I think this is a really interesting area of discussion, and I congratulate Tracy for bringing it up. I’m looking forward to the phone ringing off the hook over the next 24 hours as her colleagues stampede to report my call of greater transparency on their part. Oh wait…
A rich media
Posted by Clare Curran on May 25th, 2011Somebody alerted me to this interview on RadioNZ’s Ninetonoon yesterday. Pleased it’s being discussed. Realise it might be a bit weird for a dastardly politician to be continuously pushing for a stronger media. Shan’t ever stop.
Listen.
Here’s the link to my post that Denis Welch talks about.
Not sexy but real.
The trashing of politics and media
Posted by Clare Curran on May 15th, 2011I’ve been writing for a while about the degradation of quality media in this country and building a case for strengthening it.
I have also written at various times about how cynicism towards politics and politicians has become like a cancer in our society. That it creates distance and distrust between people and politicians and has made the practice of democracy somewhat of a farce.
A couple of weeks ago a former senior Australian politician, Lindsay Tanner released a book called Sideshow, dumbing down democracy, which delved into both these subjects. Lindsay was Minister of Finance in the Labor Government and unexpectedly resigned at the last election. I have enormous respect for him as a man and a politician.
He writes of the mass disillusionment with politics in Australia and describes how politicians have become increasingly robotic, with scripted stunts and gimicks.
He talks of the pressures on media to be competitive and the impact of technology-change which has squeezed out much of the commercial media’s ability to be serious and considered about national politics. Instead, commercial media has become a zone of ultra sensationalsim, personalities, celebrities, trivia and gimicks. And politicians have responded by becoming more defensive and robotic to protect themselves.
He says nobody is particularly to blame, it’s the market pressures. But that two crafts; politics and serious journalism, have been trashed in the process.
Sound familiar? I think it’s worse here in NZ because we don’t have the diversity of media that Australia has. But the hunger for trivia is increasing.
And as Kris Faafoi said in the debate in parliament last week on the Bill that axes the TVNZ Charter, the news on TV is becoming less important than the ad breaks in between news items. One could sometimes say indistinguishable from ad breaks.
We need serious debate about these issues in our country. If you’re interested; listen to Lindsay Tanner being interviewed on Australian Sky News by political editor David Speers.
And then watch the ABC’s MediaWatch clip which lays out in frightening detail the subsequent media coverage of Tanner’s book launch, in precisely the way he predicted it would play out in the media. As an attack on the government of which he was previously a part. Despite him trying to generate discussion about how the media interacts with politics.
How do we get critical analysis and discussion back into our public discourse in this country? That’s a pretty important and urgent question I think. It’s unlikely to come through commercial broadcast media. That leaves the depleted public broadcast media. And print, which faces similar issues. The demise of NZPA has raised some critical issues for our news media generally as we will soon no longer have a national news agency.
Do New Zealanders care? Jonathan Coleman, the undistinguished Minister of Broadcasting, thinks they don’t. He reckons we all want to exist on a diet of reality TV. Do we really? And what do we do when our news and reality TV become indistinguishable?
Whimless
Posted by Clare Curran on May 12th, 2011Doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re on, we should all be able to cope having the piss taken. Unfortunately we don’t seem to do it much anymore on TV. What’s happened to all our great comedians? And all our great shows? They’ve gone or given up I reckon.
John Clarke please come home
