Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Getting out of the archives | Dec 11, 2009 09:59

The major news angle out of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill has, understandably, been its shooing-out of the Charter in favour of only the most vestigial of public broadcasting obligations. But there's something genuinely innovative there too: Part 4A --TVNZ archived works.

This part of the bill aims to smooth the way through the mass of uncleared rights that have been keeping hundreds of hours of heritage public television off our screens. It requires a fund to be established from which compensatory payments may be made to rights holders, and sets up process for rights holders to register and interest and receive a compensatory payment from that fund. Holders may also seek a review of any decision on compensation.

NZ On Screen has shown in the past 18 months that rights holders will generally be reasonable in allowing programmes to be made available on a public good basis. But clearing programmes for actual broadcast is a different matter. Sometimes, rights holders can't even be located. This new process should help to unlock the archive.

Happily, the bill even includes a provision for TVNZ to grant screening rights to Maori Television of the programmes it clears -- and to "enter into arrangements with NZ On Screen to screen archived works," so long as they are screened free of charge.

---

The chattering classes are seized by the question of the hour: is Sean Makes Crafts a hoax or what?

Well, clearly, it's not a hoax: there's some solid craft advice there, although Sean's harsh words about Spotlight and praise for the "far superior" Goldings may be seen as controversial; provocative, even.

The question ought to be, is Sean Plunket actually writing it? Nah. But it's clearly someone who works at Radio New Zealand, and it's brilliant. Still puzzled? Start with the Welcome post. You'll need that before you even think about taking on pasta diaramas.

---

Fancy an analysis of New Zealand's economic challenges that actually contains some, well, analysis? You may like Economic geography, globalisation and New Zealand's productivity paradox, a 69-slide presentation (PDF) by Phillip McCann, Professor of Economic Geography University of Groningen, The Netherlands and Professor of Economics University of Waikato.

Unlike Don Brash, McCann notes that New Zealand enjoys a transparent and largely corruption-free business environment, good-quality institutions, a sound regard for property rights, light regulation and a relatively small public sector – and yet its economic performance is markedly worse than other countries that do not enjoy these apparent advantages. Why?

--

A New Zealand version of the Atheist Bus Campaign seems to be off to an excellent start. They're seeking $10,000 in donations and are already closing in on $4000. The funds raised will cover a series of bus advertisements (same message as the UK: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

But the campaign also aims to promote debate on issues such as God, religion and religion's influence on society. Religion should not be a taboo subject that no one brings up at dinner parties – we should be discussing what we believe and why."

Should you be so moved, you can donate at the site, and also follow the project on Facebook and Twitter.

---

Last night's Media7 show is here on TVNZ's website. It's the first of our summer series, recorded at Artisan winery in West Auckland. Of particular interest in this one are Simon Pound's report on the new boutique ad agency Rascals, and my interview with Australian media buyer and general legend Harold Mitchell. 95bFM listeners can also check out Fabian Fanboy in his guide as Dominic Corry.

Simon and I dined with Harold Mitchell after we shot the interview this week, and that was very pleasant; he's an interesting, and interested, man. His book, Living Large, is a combination memoir and business manual which (unusually for that genre) doesn't suck, he's the chair of the new Melbourne franchise for the Super 15 and, as Drinnan notes today, he is likely to shake up the comfortable practices of the local advertising industry in the coming year.

---

Amplifier's staff have named their Top 20 local albums for 2009, and the toppermost is Lawrence Arabia's Chant Darling. Naturally, I approve of this.

---
And, finally, that nice man Mike Hodgson has a couple of passes to give away to Pitch Black's Auckland or Wellington shows with International Observer, next Friday and Saturday. Just email me with "Pitch Black" in the subject line.

(213 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

See you Latta, Bob ... | Dec 07, 2009 17:45

I was unduly rude on Twitter when I heard Nigel Latta had been appointed to John Key's commission on the smacking law. I should have been able to separate Latta's professional competence from his entertainment work, which I don't greatly like.

It is clearly that professional competence on which Latta has drawn in offering what ought to be a final repudiation of Family First's dishonest campaign against the child discipline law.

Latta declared he didn't find the actions of police and other agencies inappropriate in any of the cases he examined -- and indeed would have wanted to know why those agencies had not intervened if they hadn't.

He was also kind enough to provide notes:

Father charged for shoulder shake of defiant daughter refusing to get out of bed.

What was reported by Family First: Father had been having problems with 15-year-old girl stealing money, sneaking out and coming home late. One morning after coming home at 4am shouting match took place when father tried to wake her up at 6am. Father shook her, she alleged father punched her at least three times. No medical treatment was needed, but father was taken away in handcuffs and eventually convicted and discharged on condition of counselling.

Agency information: Police called by daughter who accused father of punching her. Police attended and took father to station. CYF investigation identified breakdown in relationships within the family and the daughter was seriously challenging her parents.

Parents did not want support and said they would handle the situation by laying down clear boundaries. CYF took no further action, but advised daughter on what action to take if there was another incident.

Father was dealt with by the courts.

*Step-father charged for smacks

What was reported by Family First: A mother and step-father were having problems with 14-year-old and secretive behaviour with boyfriend. When the step-father tried to confiscate ring, she started to scratch and he had to physically restrain her and gave her three smacks on the bottom. Daughter complained to teacher she had been put in a headlock, tied to a post with a dog lead and hit with an electric fence pole. Step-father was advised to plead guilty to smacks and other charges were dropped.

Agency information:Police received complaint that 14-year-old had been beaten up by step-father, put in a strangle hold and tied up with a dog lead. Step-father admitted attempting to tie girl up and hitting her on the bottom. Step-father charged with assault and discharged without conviction.

CYF investigation identified significant concerns about the safety of the girl and she was removed from her mother's and step-father's care.

* Grandfather charged and convicted for tipping child out of a chair to get a "move on".

What was reported by Family First: A grandfather was convicted of assault after tipping his grandson out of a bean bag after the 11-year-old refused to turn the TV down. The boy called 111 and despite protestations from the grandson and grandmother the grandfather was arrested and held in cells for two nights. The man was advised to plead guilty to avoid cost and hassle by lawyer.

Agency information: Police called over alleged assault by grandfather after he acted aggressively and tipped boy off chair causing him to heavily strike his head on a metal pole.

It was also alleged that the grandparents argued and he hit her with a pair of trousers. The grandmother feared for her safety and that of her grandchild.

The grandfather was removed from house and charged with assault and convicted.

CYF said there had been previous involvement with the family, but there were no ongoing concerns for the boy's safety.

The case notes provided by Family First to the inquiry vary markedly from the accounts it touted in newspaper ads and shopped to journalists; the CYF notes even more so.. None of this is going to move the zealots. But Latta has demonstrated to himself what he perhaps ought to have known already – that self-serving testimony in cases of family violence is often not to be trusted. And neither, frankly, is Family First.

The Prime Minister's task force has made some sensible suggestions about improving communication with some parents, and I think now is the time for journalists to focus on those. And, it goes without saying, to stop getting Bob McCoskrie on the speed-dial as if his opinion counts for anything at all.

(138 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Not in front of the children | Dec 07, 2009 10:19

A Herald editorial attempts, in unlovely prose, to consider the issues embodied in the furore around Paul Henry's unpleasant comments about Susan Boyle. It is justifiably cautious about a call by Special Olympics New Zealand chairman David Rutherford for the Broadcasting Standards Authority to ensure that the use of the word "retard" is unacceptable.

In response, the Herald's editorial writer quotes Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression:

There are exceptions for the likes of defamation and criminally unacceptable circumstances but the law cannot be clearer: New Zealanders enjoy freedom of expression.

That freedom is frequently under threat. Too many people want to constrain it. This week Special Olympics New Zealand called for the word "retard" to be banned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority after its puerile use by TVNZ presenter Paul Henry to describe singer Susan Boyle.

The global Special Olympics movement wants the word to go the same way as "nigger", reviled and abandoned from usage. As a voluntary goal, through education, that is commendable. The next step, urging a regulator to declare a word unusable, is fraught with danger.

Broadcasters, other media and individuals do not need the state's direction on what can be said. They need sensitivity to public and private feelings and the judgment to know when a term exists purely to offend. TVNZ has indulged this offence.

Let's start with the word in question. My younger son uses it occasionally, in the context of geek culture. A user interface might be described as "retarded" -- but never, so far as I can recall, an actual person. The bullying, sneering sense in which Paul Henry used the word may well be quite unknown to my son.

The irony there, of course, is that two or three decades ago, he and his brother could have been diagnosed "retarded". Public health records in California show quite a tight correlation between the collapse in diagnoses of "retardation" and a rise in autism diagnoses. It is a term that carries much unpleasant baggage.

Clearly context is important here, as it is in the case of "nigger", a word the Herald believes has been "abandoned from usage" if not outright banned. Clearly, leader-writers don't spend a lot of time hanging out with rappers. You don't need me to veer into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of culturally reclaiming such words as "nigger" and "queer", but it is worth noting that the BSA does not, and cannot, ban words.

What it does do is survey the public in order to determine shifts in community standards. As this Herald news story from February explains, the most recent survey found a softening in attitudes to swearing on television:

More than two-thirds of people surveyed in 2006 were offended by the C-word, but only 58 per cent baulked at the F-word, down from 70 per cent in 2000. "Bugger" bothered only 16 per cent.

According to the BSA, even the C-word doesn't necessarily breach standards.

It's all about context - the programme's timing, tone and target audience.

So even the "worst" word is acceptable in context. I should know. I uttered it, and "nigger", in a Media7 programme this year on the topic of offensive language and standards. Our discussion was prefaced with clear warnings as to its content, and we dropped in a substitute episode for the single daytime screening.

Which is where the Herald's argument gets really, well, retarded:

Another concern is the BSA finding this week that One News' coverage of the Clayton Weatherston trial was offensive for airing the accused's own words of his gory stabbing of Sophie Elliott. Authority members declared the item should have been preceded by a warning.

Here, a regulator is playing at editor and censor, determining how a factual court report of clear public interest should be presented. Section 14 is compromised, again.

The decision in question is here. The complainant, Shona Thomson, claimed that the use of Weatherson's explicit, leering testimony in the 6pm news was a breach of Standard 1, covering good taste and decency. TVNZ disagreed, and certainly has the right to a robust argument about the reporting of court proceedings.

But even the broadcaster granted that the report could have been better handled in the context of the bulletin:

However, the broadcaster said that its news department acknowledged that throughout the reporting of Mr Weatherston's trial, verbal warnings prior to such footage could have been better utilised. It stated that its news staff had learnt from the experience and that more robust processes had now been put into place to ensure warnings were used when appropriate.

The authority's determination is hardly unsympathetic, and it acknowledges that "choosing which footage to include in reports on the trial would have been a difficult editorial decision. It also accepts that it was important for the public to see Mr Weatherston giving evidence in order to reflect events accurately."

Three of the authority's four members concluded that Standard 1 would have been met had Weatherston's evidence been prefaced with "a warning advising viewers of the explicit content the item contained. In this respect, upholding this complaint clearly promotes the objective of Standard 1, and therefore places a justified and reasonable limit on TVNZ's freedom of expression. The Authority upholds the complaint that the item breached Standard 1."

No penalty was ordered and the authority expressed the view that its decision would merely provide guidance for the future. Essentially, everyone has come away with the lesson that such unpleasant content should be flagged to viewers in advance.

Everyone, that is, but the Herald's leader writer. This wouldn't be quite such an oafish stance if the editorial didn't insist on depicting this all as some sort of dangerous new regulatory overreach. Look, here are the codes and standards for free-to-air television. And here are the guidelines on Standard 1:

1a Broadcasters will take into account current norms of good taste and decency bearing in mind the context in which any content occurs and the wider context of the broadcast e.g. programme classification, target audience, type of programme and use of warnings etc.

1b The use of visual and verbal warnings should be considered when content is likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers except in the case of news and current affairs, where verbal warnings only will be considered. Warnings should be specific in nature, while avoiding detail which may itself distress or offend viewers.

Anyone who can read should be able to tell that the BSA's determination here was not only in line with the standards it is required to apply, it was reasonable.

If the Herald wants to rail against "a regulator is playing at editor and censor," it should direct its ire at the broadcasting standards themselves, not the empanelled authority. It would be buying a fight there, though.

Alternatively, the paper could employ editorial writers who have a clue what they're writing about.

---

And then, this morning, we have what looks to be a moral beat-up around a free Downstage performance of An Adagio Christmas for children in CYF care, in which one swear-word and a couple of mildly suggestive moments were somehow deemed important enough to lead the 9am news bulletin on Radio New Zealand.

I haven't seen the play, but Alan at the Wellingtonista seemed happy enough to have taken his kids to another performance, and David Farrar described it as "a superb hour of entertainment, and I really can't think of anyone who would not enjoy it – from kids to grandparents."

But, because it was CYF, the moral outrage that no one actually seems to be expressing is news all over this morning. Including, ironically, in the Herald.

PS: Thanks to everyone who contributed to the success of the Orcon Great Blend on Friday night (and I regard just turning up and having a good time as a contribution). It's been a demanding couple of weeks, but that was a great way to finish up. But wait! There's more! As promised, Christchurch gets its own book launch, this evening. David Haywood has the details here.

PPS: We were making a TV show on Thursday evening, so I wasn't able to get to the Attitude Awards, which I found moving and inspiring last year. But Peter Williams did go, and it appears he hit the mark with his comments about his Breakfast colleague, Henry.

(199 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!