Is the point perhaps that the media should check facts more thoroughly?

yes.

Stop giving column inches and airtime to people simply because their views are controversial.

I think this is an important point and almost justifies the prank. Henry was probably about to revel in the non-PC aspect of it all. Hoist by his own petard – sort of. I know that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBzWHudBoiA

Quite liked it as a jape, but I won't claim any worthiness for it.

But I absolutely don't have any sympathy about the fact checking. There are so many bad hats out?

The claim that this is doing the Lord's work is pretty weak when it's obvious that enhancing a comic's career is the main motivation

These motivations are not incompatible.

they make full use of news media's inability to ...check the claims made by people they talk to.

Yeah, I tried to differentiate between that and determining whether someone is a fraud full stop.

In terms of credentials, the difference between someone who has just started a pro-whaling group which?

what I believe is far more important, which is preparing for an interview, and preparing research and facts to rebut the claims the interviewee is likely to put forward

As others have noted, part of this stunt's charm is that Mr Henry could be relied upon to struggle with 'rebutting'?

As others have noted, part of this stunt's charm is that Mr Henry could be relied upon to struggle with 'rebutting' ideas close to his own right-wing delusions.

I don't know that is entirely fair (or even a little bit) Sacha. The fact he stood for the National Party and?

I don't think that should be used of evidence of his pro-whaling agenda either.

He might not be pro-whaling at all but he often pours scorn on liberal 'PC' matters. I don't think he is all bad but when I watched the video of his interview with the prankster, I?

did Stephanie Whatshername from Greenpeace (too lazy to fact check surname here...).

yeehhp

Certainly not on his views alone, which as you point out, are pretty commonplace politically...

that's the joke brother, the sad joke.C'mon man i sometimes wonder if working alongside peolpe makes it hard to recognise obvious slants in their work, an occupational hazard for media maybe but this guy is?

(moustache-gate and retard-gate aren't exactly political)

your lapsed libertarian is showing, sir

It's not Pauls fault his education is so poor on political and economic history but it's not my fault to demand better presenters,?

did Stephanie Whatshername from Greenpeace (too lazy to fact check surname here...).

yeehhp

I think you're the one missing the joke here Jeremy...

I could have been a journalist but I had a paper round.

...Not to mention apparently threadbaiting. Your point?

As to the fact that I work alongside?

I think you are trying to play me and not the point. You do that sometimes.

Have a look at sales, it would make a great story, sales has got it's own decline literally.

(Disclaimer: I think Paul Henry is a talented broadcaster.

Are his talents wasted on morning tele then. I know nothing about his career. I was in many other countries as it evolved. Coming late to his telecareer he seems to be just another motormouth, who works better in a duo.?

your lapsed libertarian is showing, sir

I don't know what you're saying here. My point is that saying, for example, Susan Boyle looks a bit retarded, is not the exclusive provenance of the right wing. Any objectionable fucker could come up with that.

I'm not arguing that Paul Henry?

but i love you damian, we need a day for you, i'm thinking of an hour long sweaty hug session for you.....a whole day of it.

If I've misinterpreted, then please, go ahead and explain your comments about paper rounds,?

So can a drunken bum at the right time, that's no unique quality.

Haha, true. But I watch a little Breakfast every day. I often feel less smart for the experience, but I just can't agree that Paul Henry is a completely unmitigated right wing nut job as seems to?

(I'll be back in an hour or so. I have a TV show to do :)

It is an important profession to everyones quality of life, its special to us all and newsrooms are not all neutral, we know they're not.

So I took a look at the website, commercialwhaling.co.nz. While it has its own domain?

You don't have to?

This is all good info, although to be fair you are trying to prove what you already know – that it's fake.

The .co.nz vs .org.nz for example, would alert me. There are any number of sites out there using the incorrect domain, and users who wouldn't have a?

Media is knowledge, I'd love to have a marketplace arranged so journalists get to use all their talents because I don't feel that from the industry news i to hear, but please educate us?

I just groan a little when every thread on the media on PAS takes about three comments to turn into "what is wrong with TV news these days, everything about it is fucked and the people who work there are all strange idiots who vote weirdly."

Okay, I won't do?

Haha, true. But I watch a little Breakfast every day. I often feel less smart for the experience, but I just can't agree that Paul Henry is a completely unmitigated right wing nut job as seems to be the suggestion

No, he's not. He actually has a very quick mind?

So maybe Guy isn't going to be the new Paul Casserly but hey I laughed at this on so many levels,one being the deadpan, I'm sorry.

I seriously fucking disapprove of that shit.

If you were a guest now on his show he would say, "hey russell you are just so P.C ", and flick his eyes and we'd all laugh at your beard.......a beard, on a man.

Its always very sloppy social commentary, and it seems to get massive promotion and distribution and awards. I see them?

2. I disapproved of Paul Henry re moustache-gate and agree with Russell's comments above. I was?

John Clark is still on our screens, thanks to Radirah or whatever it's called, the skit show on Fridays on TV3. It reminds me it was better John Lennon died when he did.

Really? They've been doing this for years – and it still seems pretty good.

moustache-gate and retard-gate aren't exactly political

Only if you're an individualist – which I think you'd agree is more the province of the right than left in political terms.

I just can't agree that Paul Henry is a completely unmitigated right wing nut job

Paul Henry is clearly capable of?

It reminds me it was better John Lennon died when he did.

No, he was only 40 and a guy shot him. He would have been good to have around.

4. When it comes to the MSM, I think everyone here wants more or less the same thing, ideally. It'd be a LOT easier to achieve if people stopped responding to the lowest common denominator content that has dominated in recent years.

And your not referring to people at the?

I just groan a little when every thread on the media on PAS takes about three comments to turn into "what is wrong with TV news these days, everything about it is fucked and the people who work there are all strange idiots who vote weirdly."

It's odd how that?

vaguely lefty, snooty, intellectual audience of PAS loathes and despises the TV news

Speak for yourself. I loathe it because it's largely crap, and I'm a vaguely righty, amenable ... Wait, what?

I don't think there are lessons to learn in this example about fact/credential checking. I think there are lessons to learn about who and what is news.

Well, yes, if you want to differentiate the two. To me, they are just different aspects of a failure in evaluation of contributors.

It's almost as though the vaguely lefty, snooty, intellectual audience of PAS loathes and despises the TV news

I'd suggest (without classifying anyone) that the TV News has a slot that could actually deal with the news in the order of importance,(to indicate news, not current affairs) then, follow with?

and [Paul Henry] was good fun

I could leave it at what Sacha said but I won't.

Paul Henry is a bully. He uses his power and position to hurt and belittle those who either are simply unimportant to him or who threaten him. It is a pattern of behaviour?

I get your point Damian. You're right the joke wasn't that funny and the target was too easy.

But the flip side is that most of us are kind of saddened that we don't have a stronger media that really has good journalists with the?

"here look and see how many follow me specifically maybe my bosses in the MSM should let me do this on air". Does that in the end work?

It worked for Russell. Assuming TVNZ7 qualifies as mainstream.

Does making fun of less good journalism help? I'm not sure.

I think it does because it foregrounds the weakness of story choice. What was going through the programmer's (?) head when (s)he took up a Sunday Times (!) story about commercial whaling. I don't think it is wrong for?

Disclaimer: I think Paul Henry is a talented broadcaster. He pushes it, and he goes too far at times, but he's got talent.

This is almost word for word what Russell wrote about Veitch way back then and I'm still buggered if I understand what it means.

I can't work out whether people are reiterating what I'm saying, or pointing it out like it's the bit I missed? Because it seems like the latter...?

The whole point of the stunt, I believe, was to illustrate the exploitation of gullibility and increasingly narrow attention spans, and to culture-jam the junk food news barons out?

And apropos of nothing, gee Boy is a great film.

Yes, where is the PAS discussion of NZ's All Time Number One movie? Because I really hated it, but I'm usually a sucker for the powers of persuasion exhibited around here (though you're going to have to work harder with?

The man's a snivelling, childish turd who is unworthy of airtime.

And that Russell and?

Yes, where is the PAS discussion of NZ's All Time Number One movie?

Right here: http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2444,cracker-about-a-boy.sm

Tricking media is like shooting kittens in a barrel.

I agree. The real test will be if the media now keeps going back to this guy for pro-whaling comments in the same way they keep going back to McCoskrie, who also has a website... probably unlikely given how it's been?

laughing at how he could smell cat wee and it couldn't be Ali ...

Damian you should read some literature about bullying in the workplace. The above quote could pretty much be used as a textbook example.

That's a great plan. Until you happen to be the victim of a workplace bully and then folks tell you it's all just fun and you should lighten up.

And yeah it may be that Ali doesn't mind, but that's not the issue. These guys?

And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them. He may well have positive character and professional traits but his bullying is an overwhelming negative and you guys ought to come out and oppose it. It's not OK.

I thought I had done exactly that,?

Although maybe my perception is skewed

Yes, I do wonder if your perception is slightly skewed. And maybe ours is too, for not working in the industry. From where I sit, your expectations of Mr. Henry seem to be incredibly low. I'm happy he's able to meet them, but.

Bart, perhaps you could make an effort to, say, see the item in question, or perhaps accept in good faith the account of some who has, before you get to "there are people who commit suicide over this kind of stuff."

That seems hysterical to me.

And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them. He may well have positive character and professional traits but his bullying is an overwhelming negative and you guys ought to come out and oppose it. It's not OK.

And who's saying otherwise? I'd like to?

Did you actually view this morning's comment on the source of the cat wee smell, before proclaiming it a textbook example of workplace bullying? Or did you just assume?

Because I did see it, hence my original?

And who's saying otherwise?

One does wonder though about the relevance of "he's a really talented broadcaster" or "he's really funny in person". Who cares? When are we going to start to demand more of our broadcasters and newspaper editors than not being babbling idiots or punching children in the?

The real?

Yes, I do wonder if your perception is slightly skewed.

By virtue of having met and (in my case) worked with the person in question? It does make it harder to demonise an individual, yes.

I'm actually quite pissed off that Bart can declare that me speaking about someone on?

One does wonder though about the relevance of "he's a really talented broadcaster" or "he's really funny in person". Who cares?

Pardon my observation. The question was whether Henry is "an unmitigated right-wing nut-job", which I don't think he is.

It does make it harder to demonise an individual, yes.

So: when can we start to demonise what they do? You had the editor of the Dominion Post on your show a few months ago, and I get why you couldn't ask him the only sane question – "So, when?

It never gets attacked, we only nibble at the edges.

Really? 'Cos believe me, it doesn't feel like that.

Step 1: Find a Kingswood panel van.
Step 2: Spray paint it pink.
Step 3: Fit it with hydraulics & loudspeakers.
Step 4: At the next 'March for Democracy', [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4|play "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me" over?

Therefore my enjoyment of him on television is if anything slightly reduced by my personal experience. And I still enjoy him. But apparently I'm 'wrong'.?

Pardon my observation. The question was whether Henry is "an unmitigated right-wing nut-job", which I don't think he is.

Lets agree on nut-job then.

'Cos believe me, it doesn't feel like that.

Can you point me to these sources of strong, sustained, coherent media criticism? It seems to me that the only outlet that is coming under actual attack is the only one that does a good job – RNZ.

Disclaimer: I think Paul Henry is a talented broadcaster. He pushes it, and he goes too far at times, but he's got talent.

This is almost word for word what Russell wrote about Veitch way back then and I'm still buggered if I understand what it means.

I don't recall?

Can you point me to these sources of strong, sustained, coherent media criticism?

No. Other than here. But what I can point you to is how every second person who meets me, and finds out what I do, feels free to criticise my job, my organisation, and my industry. Feels?

It seems to me that the only outlet that is coming under actual attack is the only one that does a good job – RNZ.

Ironically the only one consistently criticised – and IMO not completely without merit – for being a bastion of the left.

But yes, RNZ does?

but it seems evident that he must have had some talent for the job, given that he kept getting work.

or perhaps he just paid off the right people.

The media in this country are in a parlous, embarrassing state. It never gets attacked, we only nibble at the edges. One does wonder if part of the reason for that is that you all know each other and like each other personally and work in the same buildings.

Wow.?

The commercialisation of t.v is another debate Mr Christie, all we can observe is the present model is pretty?

what sense is RNZ "coming under attack"

In the sense the govt is seriously considering ways to cut RNZ's budget. They are critics with big teeth.

Ironically the only one consistently criticised – and IMO not completely without merit – for being a bastion of the left.

Yeah? I'm not?

No. Other than here. But what I can point you to is how every second person who meets me, and finds out what I do, feels free to criticise my job, my organisation, and my industry.

Could it be because there is no other outlet than the entirely misguided one?

But what I can point you to is how every second person who meets me, and finds out what I do, feels free to criticise my job, my organisation, and my industry.

Amen. Even when I check in at Air New Zealand, the woman behind the counter decides it's appropriate?

Could it be because there is no other outlet than the entirely misguided one of losing your rag at the first available journalist?

Other than the phone calls, emails, letters etc that we get on a daily basis?

In the sense the govt is seriously considering ways to cut RNZ's budget. They are critics with big teeth.

Yup, I know about that. It just seemed a stretch to characterise that as media criticism, still less the only criticism received by any media organisation.

Wow. You're actually getting quite offensive now.

So, does the fact that it's such a small industry not factor in at all? Could you, if you were so minded, go all out on Media7 in the manner that, say, Jon Stewart did on Crossfire? Or is the industry simply too?

Amen. Even when I check in at Air New Zealand, the woman behind the counter decides it's appropriate to tell me what bugs her (in this case it was someone calling the PM by his first name).

If we're going to get back to basics – I think TV news?

Other than the phone calls, emails, letters etc that we get on a daily basis?

What good are those? Seriously.

Hm. Possible prank-rating criteria:

– audacity
– cleverness
– spectacle
– message
– target

'Target' to maybe include hatedness but probably?

It just seemed a stretch to characterise that as media criticism, still less the only criticism received by any media organisation.

It's not criticism, it's an attack. That's why I called it an attack.

I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.

This is the first time I've ever talked about being a journalist here on PAS. But if you think for a second I am sitting at my desk quietly every day?

Yeah? I'm not very familiar with this criticism. I do know some people who work there are lefties. But I know a few of those at TVNZ too...

You obviously don't spend much time with righties, it's a favoured topic. And it was a few years ago now, but remember?

One is commercial. One isn't. Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.

So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter?

I meant publicly.

Right, so rather than doing what Megan suggests, and recognising vaid criticism, taking it on board and adapting to it – essentially bettering the medium – you'd just rather it was read out on air.

Why not just bring back the stocks?

Right, so rather than doing what Megan suggests, and recognising vaid criticism, taking it on board and adapting to it – essentially bettering the medium – you'd just rather it was read out on air.

Yes, uhm... that must be what I meant.

...Anyway, I'm outta here, Russ and I have a radio show to do.

Leave me all on my own why don't you??

Actually, I am off too. I'm done for the day and am gonna go and find a banker and ask him to go on public record explaining everything?

So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter of budget.

It's a matter of what would happen to the advertising budget it has if it broadcast stories the same way RNZ does. PAS people?

Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.

We – well, most of us – don't. As you say, the financials preclude it.

That said, news editors choose what international stories (from partner networks) make the cut.?

I'm saying this should be a criticism of Govt broadcasting policy, not the reporters who work for TVNZ.

My criticism is not aimed at the reporters. But just to be clear, are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars and aim its bulletins?

So, does the fact that it's such a small industry not factor in at all? Could you, if you were so minded, go all out on Media7 in the manner that, say, Jon Stewart did on Crossfire?

Which he did, like, once, and not on his own programme.

Tell me,?

Would not spending a lot less money help them make up for that loss in viewers?

Sadly not. Advertising revenue rules.

I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.

I think that's true. When I worked at 3, no one bagged TVNZ much because they knew that, sooner or later, they'd probably end up there.

Tell me, Gio, do you go public with every thought, complaint or criticism you've ever had about the organisations you work within? Do you appreciate unfavourable generalisations about universities and people who work in them?

Are you kidding me? I'd LOVE for somebody to start to seriously criticise how universities?

Which he did, like, once, and not on his own programme.

Actually, on his programme he does it all the time, but I get that it's different.

Last fucking time I blog about the media :)

It was a good post, and a good discussion, for what it's worth.

Almost better than pay-per-view UFC.

A single newsreader who presents like a grown-up, less bells and whistles. For me, the glaring omission is the long-form, one-on-one interview that has been practised on TVNZ by the likes of Kim Hill, Ian Fraser and Brian Edwards historically.

Give me that on Channel One, one hour Media7s and?

glaring omission is the long-form, one-on-one interview

Which you get on Media 7

Are you kidding me? I'd LOVE for somebody to start to seriously criticise how universities are run in New Zealand. And one of the big issues about doing that historically has been the lack of independence of academics and humanities organisations with said universities.

So, just like the media, then?

Which you get on Media 7

You do, and you also get Guyon Espiner on Q and A. But both are more narrowly focused shows than the Hill, Fraser etc ones were.

I'm actually quite pissed off that Bart can declare that me speaking about someone on the basis of experience does me "no credit".

I'm sorry for offending you Russell.

I believe neither you nor Damian would knowingly support a bully. The problem with bullying in general, and I think it?

Interviews with Jon Stephenson (Gaza and the media) and Richard Boock (the darker side of the FIFA World Cup) with backgrounders on both, written and compiled by me.

The show's been a lot of work for me this week and last, but I'm?

So, just like the media, then?

Yes, which is very precisely my point.

If you want a service like the BBC offers it's going to cost about $10 billion per year, give or take

ten billion? For a n.z state run news service. Where the hell did you get that figure?

Ad selling is not a healthy market.

My impression on Henry solidified that he really was a dweeb and I didn't want to support his salary, so I stopped watching. Some time before the Stephanie Mills?

But a lot of jobs are like that — good work is unremarkable and people only get in touch?

* I still have phobic reactions to the telephone ringing years later.

Let's form a support group, man I know that one.

I work in advertising media sales. I sell the ads that pay your salary

I am always interested in how advertising effectiveness is measured. What strategies do you use?
I tend to subscribe to Kellogg's dictum Advertising works half the time but nobody know which half
Is that unfair?

Efficiency of advertsing? Only one has real stats, Online,and onlines click?

Wow. You're actually getting quite offensive now.

You know, I can see now that in the way that I put it that it was both unfair and out of line. I apologise for that. For not other reason that what you've created here is exactly an independent space of criticism,?

I do however remain curious as to whether anybody thinks there is in fact a problem of industry scale in the kind of criticisms than can be levelled from within the established media themselves, rather than, say, on Public Address.

I'm only a media consumer, but looking at the lack?

Lets agree on nut-job then.

Let's agree Russell was perfectly in order calling bullshit on a tendentious man-splain and shouldn't have had to do it more than once.

Have you considered the further possibility that not everyone agrees with you on everything?

This! Has anyone considered the other 4 million odd people in NZ that may want to watch a bit of crap on the box? There is a shitload of telly I don't need and guess what??

Freeview has really helped to personalise needs and eliminate unwanted TV.

Actually, until such time as everybody gets it, no. We're still pitifully served by the state television broadcaster, to say nothing of the only available newspapers, and that hurts us. It's not about indulding in crap in front of?

Seriously, Justine came to NZ for a trip in 1995, brought a tape of the TV One evening news back to Italy and I thought it was satire. I took some convincing.

Some Australian friends visited Golden Bay last summer, and had to be told by the bach-owner that the?

You don't have to agree with them but honestly to suggest their personal view needs correcting

That's not such an outrageous suggestion on a discussion thread.

We're still pitifully served by the state television broadcaster, to say nothing of the only available newspapers, and that hurts us.

Giovanni is absolutely right. The state of "public discourse" in New Zealand is abysmal, and it hurts New Zealanders on every level. We're very much used to it by?

It's not about indulding in crap in front of the telly – that's what Coronation Street is for.

Hey!

I don't friggin watch it. DC can think as he likes about PH. RB can too.It's a democracy isn't it?

You can't watch what isn't there.

Television and papers aren't a democracy. They exist not for the pleasure of their watchers, but for the pleasure of their advertisers.

How's ice hockey?

Not enough of it on TV. Funny you should mention hockey, though. I was just checking out the upcoming Flyers vs Blackhawks game on NHL Ice Time. Best iPhone app eva!.

Thank you. Thank you for saying these things. They resonate with my own thoughts, and prejudices.

I don't think this is the fault of individual journalists. I know journalists, and they work hard within the very considerable constraints they are given. The problem is structural.

And if there is one person in this country who I blame, it is Michael Cullen, who made the Government's decision?

Patience is a virtue,

I admire in other people.

How is the present system set up for failure? And how is success/failure measured, in this view?

I was just checking out the upcoming Flyers vs Blackhawks game on NHL Ice Time.

Er... upcoming? I think you may have been misinformed!

it's not outlandish to think that the next Labour government – if enough pressure is put on it by the likes of, you know, us – could decide

That's plenty outlandish. I don't think there is a single member of Parliament who wears red with the guts to stand up?

That's plenty outlandish.

Okay, you got me there. But it doesn't/shouldn't have to be.

It assumes increasing revenues from advertising which isn't going to happen, in fact when broadband explodes here it will decimate the local t.v spend.

Couldn't that mean we finally get RNZ but with pictures?

And what frustrates me about media discussions in NZ – at least the one's I've had – is that they are underlied by this idea that it's the way things are and nothing can be done. As if deregulation was a naturally occurring phenomenon or something.

Quite. Things are the?

That's not such an outrageous suggestion on a discussion thread.

Bullying? Depends on who you ask see.You can suggest all you like. Go for it. I don't sweat the small shit. My life depends on that.My curious mind however.....:)
Shit this moves along at a pace eh?
@ Marcus, jump?

Taxpayers built the organisation. Whatever happens now would've been impossible without that.

How do you explain TV3 news successfully challenging TVNZ without a taxpayer funded monolith behind it?

but the idiot you see on screen is actually a person.

But why should we care? I mean I care when Damian says that he actually likes his work and his programme. But I neither have any difficulty believing that Paul Henry is a very affable person and fun to?

from wiki,

TV3 failed to gain ground against a recently revitalised TVNZ and was placed into receivership on 2 May 1990.

TV3 badly needed investment during a climate of economic recession, the Government liberalised the rules on foreign ownership of television stations?

Couldn't that mean we finally get RNZ but with pictures?

I think that's a more reasonable suggestion, and one that might be worth seeding in the minds of progressive politicians. Fund RNZ to allow them to provide a greater spectrum of formats, including "television". It already happens, to an extent,?

How do you explain TV3 news successfully challenging TVNZ without a taxpayer funded monolith behind it?

Good point. Mainly, it's by having a much smaller budget.

Still, I think it's a fair call to say that today's TVNZ news operation stands on the shoulders of what came before. It's a?

"He's a talented broadcaster" and "he's fun to be around" seem to me to be red herrings.

In fact, Russell, I found that Veitch quote of yours and you made exactly that point:

It's not easy, not everyone can do it and Veitch certainly has talent as a broadcaster (although?

"At the other end of town MediaWorks is emerging from dark days as private equity owner Ironbridge has restructured to cope with its debt load.

Broadcasting bosses are struggling to predict the state of their industry in 10 years' time?

I have many more questions than ideas.

Do news programmes ever make a profit? Would a newspaper make a profit if it didn't include lifestyle segments etc.?

If it doesn't make a profit, then who will pay for it? If someone is paying for it, will the news programme?

I'm less keen on standing on the moral high ground calling people monsters.

I think part of the problem is exactly that he's not a monster, in the same way that Paul Holmes is not racist. It's the characters they allow themselves to play, because they know they can profit?

I do sometimes wonder about even the BBC

You're not the only one. Their TV news operation is not as awesome as it once was.

Why not just ignore him as one of the very few you don't find agreeable or up to your standard.

So, asking that our broadcasters not bully people on television has become my standard? That's handy to know.

Curse me and my high standards!

I'm very happy to criticise his work, and have repeatedly done so.

I don't even watch television, it's just like you can't escape this guys idiot statements in this country , I don't know him as a person and don't pretend to know him. He certainly didn't show the kind?

Ha! You sure it was blank?

Well, I didn't watch the whole thing, but yeah, pretty sure.

In fact, Russell, I found that Veitch quote of yours and you made exactly that point:

It's not easy, not everyone can do it and Veitch certainly has talent as a broadcaster (although my only direct contact with him on a story, in the 1990s, did not give me a?

Is there any reason why an article about the resignation of Germany's president costs more than one about a goat up a tree

In a sense, yeah it does. Because the ratings indicate more people want to watch the latter. And if a show rates less, the cost of the?

And yes Sofie I did exercise the choice to watch Sunrise instead and now I watch Sky News in the morning instead.

I don't get how you can bear to watch TV in the morning at all ;-)

that he was a workplace bully of the kind who drove people to suicide

aw come on Russell, that's what you hassled me for

I said I think Paul Henry is a bully. I said I think his behaviour towards guests and co-workers is bullying.

And I said, when told?

Er, what? Didn't I just make your point? That's not what you claimed I said.

I remembered you saying that Veitch was a talented broadcaster, but in fact I had the context all wrong – that's why I pasted it once I found the actual quote. You did in fact?

I also take objection to this. I know what at least one of the top anchors gets paid, and it's about the same as various salespeople I know, less than ad people and lawyers I know. It certainly ain't the grand old days of Judy Bailey.

That's a relief. I?

There's a real question here about whether somebody's worth is appropriately measured by the amount they're paid.

I don't have answers, but it may be that a person will do their job for reasons other than money.

I certainly haven't found that the size of a person's salary correlates?

That's a relief. I think Paul Henry's salary did become public knowledge at one point, didn't it? and I seem to recall it wasn't peanuts. Either way, they get more money than Mary Wilson or Geoff Robinson, yes? It's a genuine question, not rhetorical.

Mary Wilson and Geoff Robinson cost?