I would expect the minister concerned to now come on here and respond, or at least apologise!

It'll be interesting to see whether anyone regards it as a news story. You'd think.

So I predict the attitude will be "pfft,?

Perhaps we'll at least get him to admit that, as Lew says, it's an ideological decision, as his "factual" argument falls to arithmetic and thought.

Not that the Nats?

It's also worth noting that audience size wasn't?

This is such a common response from senior journalists.

Even from here, it's a daily vindication of?

The 6 o'clock tv news is useful for that. I draw the line at commercial radio, though.

Thankfully there are still pockets of NZ that see pendantry as a positive trait. Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, I'm looking at you.

Can't tell if trolling or just stupid.

**Down for the?

Before downsizing of newsrooms, verifying facts used to be someone else's job I guess – especially for?

And a bloody weird and defensive one in this instance, since I rather doubt O?Sullivan gets ?final cut? (as it were) on the graphics, photos and headlines attached to her stories. You?d think senior journalists would care a little more because,?

You really believe that's in any way the role of the Herald (or any other NZ newspaper)?

They *are* the 'power'. The newspapers support the government, the government supports the newspapers.

And the latest from John Drinnan on TVNZ7:

__Television New Zealand and?

I'm not totally disinterested here, given Drinnan's inexplicable (and one-sided) feud with our host and my friend, but it would be wise to take everything he says with a grain of salt and added tequila to taste.

Personally, I wouldn?t promote someone who was (I suspect) forced by APN?s laywers to sign his name to this.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the then-editor of the Herald on Sunday admitted running a story with fabricated direct?

yo.. opposition parties..to the clerks office with this?hop to!

And some more detail further down under the heading "CHURCH AND STATE" about NZ on Air's involvement in political documentaries.

question for parliamentary junkies: why do Questions always say "if not, why not" rather than this positive construction?

Because working with drainage made you think of The Herald?

Seconded here, and so was the tv show. Just imagine, you've got an issue about statistics, and one of your guests is ...a statistician.

And an informed commentator about television. Now that right there is some top panel talent.

Because otherwise they could just say "no" and have answered the question adequately?

Framing advantage. Propose a positive — preferably something no reasonable person could disagree with — and then ask your foes to explain why they didn't do it (no matter how impossible or?

Yes? I'll own that the way Drinnan's treated you is a biasing factor, but he's chronically careless with facts and has a nasty habit of cherry-picking other people's work without attribution or credit. But,?

I confused. Isn't one answer to the present concerns about the disappearance of public broadcasting that NZ on Air funding is available to make public interest programmes? and aren't documentaries kinda at the core of that?

I thought you handled the dual role of moderator/interested party incredibly well ? especially when you volunteered information about the listings issue.

It just made me realise how pissed off I am with the whole host-as-every-man-stand-in-for-uninformed-audience approach in?

The board of New Zealand on Air have always been "political?

Hi Jim!

But yeah, I think we?

professional pride, ethics, and regulated standards?

I have minor quibble on precision of?

nice

Fair call. I actually agonised over how to express that this morning.?

I generally only check when I'm quoting the exact?

Sure – especially when, as Geoff Lealand and others could explain in great detail, the uses and abuses of media audience?

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Journos seems to have an innate capacity to make a mess of percentages. Typical is 'numbers have fallen 300%' when what they really mean is 'numbers are only 25% of the previous level'. Averages and other stats measures too.

I'm stealing that.

It?s not just statistics and percentages. It?s simple multiplication. What does?

And we have a winner! Innumeracy is as big a factor here (if not more so) than some terrible political conspiracy; and there's nothing innate about statistical literacy. Like any other skill it has to be learned?

Indeed not. I see people get percentage changes wrong all the time. Unfortunately the correct way is not intuitive (although simple), so you relly need to understand the basic formula.

ME: decision? based on flawed data.

GD: That?s an assumption.

From the original Herald story:

"Dr Coleman said the Government had no new money, and a channel that pulled in about 207,000 viewers a week – compared to the 600,000 people who tune in?

Sure – and they also don't reflect how people's consumption has fundamentally altered. Take Media7, for example, I very?

Point of fact, Merc: Unless I'm seriously confused, TVNZ7 has no advertising revenue to misrepresent because it don't carry any ads other than?

"Euan,
I believe that the decision was not based on the figures, but was an ideological decision, rationalised by the dodgy figures."

Yes, You and George may well be right about this, but the best way to challenge ideology cross-dressed as rationality is to refute the dodgy rationality. After?

Bwahahaha!

except for sporadic promises of torture :)

almost always civil

Then there's the fourth dimension: news-os (yes, Fairfax's West Island subbies strike again.) As I was saying, newsos report on square acres / square hectares. Um, it's already a measure of area. Don't need to square it.

Heh! Love that! Ur, did his surname have a ?y? or ?where/when/who? (optional) attached? (Maybe a different newso Frank I am remembering...)

and spreading it

Yeeek!

But I?m now very sure we are not speaking about my Frank – but probably Hebe?s Frank-

Indeed, and I recommend Language Log's prescriptivist poppycock tag for hours of fun reading descriptivists rip into prescriptivists and their non-existent rules that they themselves frequently break.

An awful lot of what is written there is directly relevant to my job, and almost every academic writing textbook I've come across has been full of prescriptivist poppycock – and almost all American for some reason. I suspect correlation rather than causation. So it's a?

If you have a media column in the Herald you have got to expect stick – that is what comes from working on a?

You know what, Mr. Drinnan, I'd be willing to accept a morals lecture from you if you hadn't greeted the commission of Media7 with a rather shitty passive-aggressive insinuation that the host?

I appreciate both Fran and John joining the conversation. Good on you.

Ditto – and if Fran and John are still around, I think I can speak for a few people around here in saying this:

I'm tough on you guys because neither of you are irredeemably stupid. (Certain Herald?

It is NOT favourable.
Honour certainly doesnt come into it, at least in my personal experience.

I presume this is a response to what I wrote above.

Clearly, we do have a very different view of journalistic integrity, factual accuracy and other matters. I could say more, but it?s probably best to leave it at that.

__To write weekly, to write daily, to write shortly, to write for busy people catching trains in the morning or for tired people coming home in the evening, is a heartbreaking task for men who know good writing from bad. They?

Paul Holmes will be back on Q&A soon moderating debates on political issues – including about Maori and race relations.?