Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Reasons to be cheerful | Jan 23, 2009 11:50

I had planned to announce this earlier in the week, but Wellington's power cut put paid to that. While half-crazed civil servants wandered the streets of the CBD in search of coffee, I steered the family north to the Kapiti Coast. We can recommend Nga Manu Nature Reserve.

The news is: the Great Blend is back. It's now the Orcon Great Blend, because Orcon has stepped up to sponsor several events for this year. The first of these is on Saturday, February 21 in the Auckland CBD. I'm not yet at liberty to announce the talent, but take my word for it, we have top-notch international guests, and some tasty music for afters.

Sadly, we won't be able to get to Wellington, scene of some memorable past Blends -- the budget doesn't allow it. But we should have good video coverage, so you won't entirely miss out in the rest of the country.

---

John Drinnan detects "a real antipathy" between myself an Bill Ralston in my post earlier this week. Well, it's his job to see such things and report them -- he is, after all, a media industry gossip columnist, and people are, presumably, talking. But personally: not really. I was intentionally rude about Ralston's arguments, but I don't feel personal antipathy toward him. He can write thoughtfully and well. I just wish he'd do it more often.

Drinnan declares himself:

… with Ralston on those social engineering ads. I know the messages are valid - but the Nanny State connections are so pervasive: Driving Is In His Blood, The Grim Reaper intersections, the slob who throws his kid around the room, the female at after-work drinks being sexually accosted.

We are warned not to fry up after a night on the booze. All failings that are not a problem for the vast majority of viewers and could be mentioned once in a while.

But viewers are whacked with them every night. Ad campaigns keep a lot of advertising people in jobs and bolster television revenue. But sometimes they make free-to-air TV impossible to watch.

Really? I find the mute button and the MySky both work quite well. Certainly, social marketing campaigns do not always get it right: ALAC reaped the whirlwind with its ad last year implying sexual assault as a consequence of poor drinking choices, and I'm not sure if the often-horrifying ACC safety campaigns hit the mark. But for so long as the state cleans up the mess with our tax money, it is entitled to advocate.

In the case of family violence, we're talking about behaviour that not only imposes substantial costs on society, but blights the lives of victims. Last year, I wrote a post titled The Policeman at the Dinner Table, in which I noted that the people making the most noise about a series of stabbings in Auckland seemed the least inclined to acknowledge that all but one of these homicides were incidents of domestic violence: they took place in homes, between people who knew each other. Even the exception -- the tragic case of Austin Hemmings -- was a domestic dispute that had lurched onto the public street.

We cannot directly police such violence; we do not even want the policeman at the dinner table. But we can apply social suasion.

But that wasn't actually Ralston's argument anyway. He claimed, unsustainably, that man-hating feminists had ignored evidence as to the equity of violence between men and women, and constructed a campaign that demonised men. None of that was true, as the lively and useful discussion here has demonstrated.

---

Our family's thanks are due to Jack Elder and Judy Alley for our tour yesterday of three parts of the Peter Jackson complex in Miramar: Weta Workshop (not so much a tour as a guided look at Weta Cave), Park Road Post, and the operation's impressive new data centre (we saw the render walls!). It's intriguing hearing movie sound in a world-class reference facility like the audio suite at Park Road -- it takes on depth and shape. They don't call it "sound design" for nothing.

---

In my absence, Simon Pound stepped in and made a nice job of hosting a potentially tricky Media7 show on the media and the reporting of conflict in the Middle East. What's the proper balance of context and breaking news? He gets David Zwartz and John Minto at the same table, which is no small thing.

I think I also forgot to link to last week's show, which featured an interview with Carroll du Chateau (she's about to embark on a six-month contract writing speeches for John Key) that might not please Tony O'Reilly, and 3 News' Angus Gillies talking through the decisions around 3's use of pictures of Sonny Fai's family at Bethell's Beach.

The other versions of the video are here at our microsite.

Next week, we're back at The Classic with out new 47-minute format, looking at the media coverage of this week's US presidential inauguration; and sizing up the book trade. If you'd like to join us next Wednesday evening for the recording, hit "reply" and let me know.

---

On the topic of the Obama nation: it is hard to over-emphasise the significance of the new president's first executive order:

President Obama moved swiftly on Wednesday to impose new rules on government transparency and ethics, using his first full day in office to freeze the salaries of his senior aides, mandate new limits on lobbyists and demand that the government disclose more information.

Mr. Obama called the moves, which overturned two policies of his predecessor, "a clean break from business as usual." Coupled with Tuesday's Inaugural Address, which repudiated the Bush administration's decisions on everything from science policy to fighting terrorism, the actions were another sign of the new president's effort to emphasize an across-the-board shift in priorities, values and tone.

"For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city," Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for senior officials at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. He added, "Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

As Joan Walsh says on Salon, no journalist wants to be seen to gush:

I am aware that the joyous (and probably inappropriately awestruck) tone of my inauguration coverage hasn't faded away. I promise to try to regain my critical faculties, but the scope of what Obama accomplished in his first 48 hours in office has been stunning.

I don't want to gush either. But it does look like America's back.

Perhaps you can think of additional reasons to be cheerful ...

(363 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

It's not OK to just make stuff up | Jan 19, 2009 16:24

In the past year, Bill Ralston has frequently seemed to have more words to write in columns every week than he has ideas to write about. But I'm not sure if he's written anything as poor and tendentious as his column in last weekend's Herald on Sunday.

He meanders through an intro about the new government's "willingness to give some of the country's top businessmen a big hug and bring them in on finding solutions to the recession" and suggests that:

If National is willing to change the mindset Labour adopted when dealing with business and the economy it might also want to look at changing how the last government approached social policy.

The thick streak of political correctness that underlay Labour's approach to social issues is worth reappraising. It often produced illogical, inefficient, wasteful and downright silly outcomes.

For example, take one of my pet hates, the "It's Not OK" campaign against domestic violence in which a collection of earnest men smugly entreat other men to not give their partners and kids the bash.

That'll be me, then.

Ralston continues:

The last government's strategy was to place the burden of responsibility for domestic violence always on men. To suggest otherwise was heresy, so the bureaucrats produced advertising campaigns solely targeted at stopping men being violent towards women.

Sadly, domestic violence continues unabated. This may well be because the government doctrine of "Blame the Bloke" ignores some very real scientific research that questions the conventional thinking on the issue.

The research Ralston was referring to comes from the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which is one of the most important longitudinal studies of its kind anywhere. In February 2006, Professor David Fergusson announced the publication of research from the study suggesting that "amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study."

This, said Fergusson "suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focusing on male perpetrators and female victims to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship."

Fergusson, Ralston declares, was "ignored". He produces no evidence for that claim, or for this leap of logic:

The only rational explanation is that Fergusson's advice was politically unacceptable to Labour. They were cemented into a blindly feminist position of "women good, men bad".

The truth is, both sexes can be bad and trying to attribute blame to just one sex is senseless and futile.

Hey, you know what? I can think of quite a few "rational explanations" that the family violence campaign wasn't oriented around a single study. One is that the study is limited in various ways: the oldest subjects in it are 25 years old; younger than the age at which most people are in family domestic relationships.

Another is that Professor Fergusson has something of a knack for marketing his research to the media -- beyond, perhaps, what that research sustains. (For example, his findings about the risks of cannabis use for early teens were compelling; his attention-grabbing claim in the press to have proven the "gateway drug" theory far less so.)

A third, and really obvious, point is that Professor Fergusson himself explicitly acknowledges that his findings do not tally with those from "other sources dealing with severe violence, such as Women's Refuge or police complaints [which] report a predominance of male perpetrators," and that it "only applies to young people, and domestic violence tends to decrease with age." He suggests further research.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence, summarised in a fact sheet from the Family Violence Clearing House, that suggests that Professor Fergusson's research should not be regarded as the final word by policy-makers.

Principally, the Christchurch study used a measure known as the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), which has been questioned as a useful measure for many reasons, including the fact that as a simple hit-count, it seeks no information on the context, motivation or results of violence. It doesn't count sexual violence or the role of "controlling tactics".

No one is denying that women commit violence in relationships or families. It happens. I've seen it. But the fact sheet notes that that six times as many men in New Zealand are apprehended for family violence offences as women and that 92% of protection orders are sought by women. And that a string of findings from the 2001 New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims bore out the perception that women face a greater risk of partner violence from men, that women were more likely than men to suffer repeat violence in relationships, were injured more severely, and were more likely to fear their partners. The differences were even more significant among Maori.

The fact sheet also quotes a major US study that found that "93% of all kinds of violence experienced by adult women and 86% of all violence experienced by adult men was perpetrated by men," and one of the original authors of the CTS research declaring "it is categorically false to imply that there are the same numbers of 'battered' men as battered women."

We might also look at the 2001 study Domestic violence as witnessed by New Zealand children, which was based on interviews with subjects from the Christchurch study's counterpart, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, on their experience of family violence as children. Only 16% reported partner violence perpetrated by mothers only, 28% by both parents and 55% by fathers only.

[NB: Graeme Edgeler points out that the paper unhelpfully obscures the fact that the percentage of the overall sample who reported mother-only violence is actually 3.9%. He observes: "When you're trying to discuss the prevalence of domestic violence, it would be nice for the write-up in the medical journal to make a little more of the fact that more than three-quarters of respondents reported that there was not a single act of violence during their entire childhood, and that for over 80% the most violent it ever got was a threat."]

The results were in some cases strikingly different to those found by Fergusson in his study of the young adults, in part, the authors theorised, because they didn't use the lower threshold of the CTS, as Fergusson had, and focused on more serious incidents of "violence victimisation". It also found mental illness to be more of a consequence of experiencing family violence as a child than (as Fergusson did) an indicator for it.

There's plenty more to read if you wish, but I think that's enough to debunk Ralston's fatuous claim that the "It's Not OK" campaign was a plot by man-hating feminists from Helengrad.

It might be a reasonable criticism to say that the TV campaign itself would have benefited from a more explicit mention of violence committed by women, but a quick look at the website shows it addresses (non-gendered) "partner violence", violence against children and elder abuse.

And Ralston's declaration that the campaign was "a waste of money" appears to be as idle as the rest of his blathering. According to the last monitoring research on the campaign, 95% of New Zealanders were aware of it, and more than two thirds of those interviewed said that, as a result of the campaign they had spoken to family of friends about family violence. And, of course, the reporting of family violence to police jumped 29%.

Ralston is welcome to think me "smug". And I will have no choice but to regard him as a fool until he stops writing like one.

(443 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

The Big Day Out, Auckland, 2009 | Jan 18, 2009 17:22

It felt odd to be walking out on such heavenly dance music as Hot Chip were playing in the Boiler Room, but we had an appointment in the Big Day Out's main arena. And as we walked down the stadium steps, hey, Neil Young was playing …

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The day began with me going to take a photo of my rock 'n' roll companions, Paul and Andy, outside the gates of Mt Smart -- and discovering I'd left my iPhone back in the car. So I walked all the way back to get it and my bros proceeded in to Lilyworld to see the Wellington International Ukelele Orchestra. But Lilyworld is a bar area, and the queue for a bar pass (even though Paul is fiddy) was impractical.

So we met up and proceeded to the Lehman Brothers table (David Slack has a bleak sense of humour) for a little sit-down. We went out for …

The Ting Tings, who were much better than I thought they'd be. There's a big whack of 80s Manchester in the way they play their quirky pop music live: sounding like New Order (yes, really) here, loping along like the Happy Mondays there. Having arrived at the top field for the last half hour of Luger Boa (who made me think of The Saints), we were 20m from the stage when the Ting Tings came on. And in very short order, so were a thousand extremely excited young persons. The crowd closed up tight and I thought for a few minutes that it was becoming a bit unstable and someone might get hurt, but in the way that Big Day Out crowds do, it sorted itself out. The fact that the considerable potential for chaos is so rarely realised is a testament to the good faith of those who attend.

We walked back over to the stadium. As a rule, it would be practically impossible for any band called Bullet for My Valentine to actually be good: it's just such a complete loser name. And so it proved.

Pendulum … it would be wrong to say that Pendulum's music is devoid of intellectual content -- there are, after all, some words in the songs -- but it's, well, vestigal. Pendulum exist solely to make the kids crazy. And crazy they were, for an hour of breakneck heavy-metal-drum-and-bass. Unlike most of the people I was with I had actually heard of Pendulum -- I just had no idea they were so huge. Watching that crowd go nuts was an unexpected highlight.

There was some debate about from whence exactly Pendulum hail. Britain, Sweden and New Zealand all came up as guesses. I thought they were Australian, and it turns out I was right. But they're not just Australian, they're from Perth. I think that explains a lot. Anyway, they were, like, awesome.

Graham Reid wasn't quite so impressed: "they're like gymnasium music" he said. Well, that would be a pretty weird gym. But yes, it's fair to say it's utilitarian music. In conjunction with powerful audio-visual technology, it makes the people dance and have a crazy time. And that's okay.

Thereafter, TV on the Radio were always going to be a bit underwhelming, and poor sound and a major energy loss as the Pendulum masses vacated the stadium didn't exactly help the vibe. The Datsuns seemed to have a happier time.

We caught the end of Lupe Fiasco in the tent (it sounded pretty cool), and stuck around for Zane Lowe. I was interested to see what the Tastemaker General of British indie-dance would drop: after a slow start, it turned out to be a no-agenda set of floor-fillers: mash-ups and remixes of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', 'I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor', 'We Are Family' and the Incredible Bongo Band. Good fun, but too heavy on the mash, my friends felt.

We decamped to the top field, where My Morning Jacket were completely lost on me. We couldn't be bothered getting far forward enough to properly experience the Mint Chicks, so we caught some Simian Mobile Disco back at the tent. The dance music, I think, was much, much better this year.

We needed a rest, so we went to sit down back at the Lehman Brothers table. Which meant we got to see The Living End. If there was a hackneyed rock 'n' roll trick they didn't pull, it was only because they ran out of time. Their comprehensive crapness became a source of some mirth amongst us.

The Arctic Monkeys weren't really projecting, so we went back to the Boiler Room for Hot Chip. Who were, as noted above, a delight. Their fined-boned songs had their themes extended in arty, party jams. It was a happy, happy disco.

In these festival settings in particular, I think rock and dance moves are starting to merge. The Ting Tings dropped a monster bassline at the start of 'Shut Up and Let me Go', and, of course, there was Pendulum. Hot Chip, ostensibly a dance act, were more of a real band than Pendulum.

As we descended the steps, just in good time, we had that "hey, Neil Young's playing!" moment, which, as Danielle put it, "lasted for... the whole set."

I'll throw down right here and now and say it was the best mainstage performance the Big Day Out has ever seen. It brought home to me what major American compositions the likes of 'Powderfinger' and 'Cortez the Killer' are. Young's tremendous band went with him through a setlist (personally texted live to a web guy in Australia by Public Address reader Tony Parker of Napier!) that also 'Hey Hey My My' and 'Cinnamon Girl' and 'Heart of Gold' (played straight as a happy little folk song that everyone sang along to) and the new song 'Singing a Song Won't Change the World' (good song!). They finished up with an appropriately rockin' 'Keep on Rockin' in the Free World', and everybody danced.

Then … they encored with 'A Day in the Life'. Yes, the Beatles song. If I'd researched it, I'd know he's been encoring with that song for a few months, but it was better as a really good surprise. The Beatles' original is purely a studio creation: two songs, a Lennon and a McCartney, patched together. The orchestral section that Young re-created with his guitar was four different takes overlaid by George Martin. And yet Young and his band conducted an exploration of it that was so artistically valid there are barely words to say so.

It helped that the sound was crystal-clear without even being all that loud, and the sense of intimacy was enhanced by the better-than-usual direction of the big screen video. It touched on little details; a hand on the piano keyboard, and Young and his bass player convening like a pair of old witches over a cauldron. And it also demonstrated why Young chose to do this particular tour, and play an unabashed greatest hits set. Every now and then there was a shot of the crowd at the front of the stage. Clearly, not all the party kids had gone to the Boiler Room. And they were enthralled.

One more thing. I may have bored everyone I spoke to with this already: but Neil Young is cool.

By the time we got ourselves out of the stadium, the Headless Chickens were winding up with 'George' and then 'Leave that chicken alone'. Clearly, they'd got a lot sharper since I saw them at the Power Station last year, and it was a shame not to see more of the final show of their reunion.

I was up for a look in at The Prodigy, but my companions were not, so we headed for the gate. As we left, the Prodg's breakbeats thundered across from the tent, and we heard Keith Flint say "odoo-boodoo-doo-doo!" and "ack-ack-ackadakka!. Or something.

---

The festival is a much easier place to get around with 42,000 people there rather than 47,000. Let's hear it for Big Day Outs that don't sell out. (my apologies if it really was a decision to limit capacity by 5000 -- let's see it next year!). Sure, the TVNZ guy whined about not being able to get near the Boiler Room for the Prodigy, but them's the breaks. They were never going to appear on the mainstage, because it was Neil's night there.

Another welcome development: the overdue installation of a platform for wheelchair users at the foot of the East stand. Among those enjoying it on the day was Erin, a 16 year-old with cerebral palsy who keeps a blog. She wrote that she was going along knowing her startle reflex was going to get "quite a workout" and admitted to being "anxious and really really nervous" about what she was embarking on, but seems to have had a fantastic day:

AND THEN came the much anticipated NEIL YOUNG who of course got quite a reception. When he started playing his hits, all these oldish people were standing up and dancing in their seats. It was quite funny to watch really. It was such an honour to watch him though. He played hits like Heart of Gold, Hey Hey, My My, and then near the very end, Keep On Rocking in the Free World, which is my favourite song of his. Pretty much everyone sang and danced along to his songs.

The symmetry here is that both Neil Young's sons have cerebral palsy, and he and his wife organise annual benefit concerts for a special-needs school. If the promoters are reading this, Mr Young might like to know that a young woman had a rockin' time on Friday.

Not seen on the platform, but clearly having it very large was the bloke in a wheelchair I saw in the Boiler Room during Zane Lowe. He looked about 30 and had half a dozen friends with him. They were all totally mashed. People gave them space, and they clearly had a great time. I hadn't thought before about what someone in a wheelchair does when they're on E at a club. Answer: lots of hands in the air, but also a lot of zipping backwards and forwards with your front wheels up. It looked fun.

---
Some clips:

58 seconds of 'A Day in the Life' …

8 Seconds of 'Heart of Gold' …

Pendulum from the back of the crowd …

And up the front …

Dude warming up for the BDO with a quick round of Melbourne Shuffling …

P Money …

And a bright-eyed David Farrier does a live link to wrap around his clever BDO story for Nightline . He starts riffing at the end and that nice young chap they have reading the news doesn't really handle it.

One final thing. How unlucky, stupid or both do you have to be to be the sole person arrested for possession of illicit drugs at the Big Day Out ?

(73 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!