I was also critical of what I called 3 News' "lazy" habit of featuring John Key as commentary talent in their stories, sometimes to the extent of using the Prime Minister to explain the angle of the stories. Gower said they've also had complaints about the frequent use of Russel Norman in a similar context.
"It's something we always have to keep watching. We always have to go and get comment, you always want a counter-comment. And, for want of a better description, you get guys having free hits.
"It's one of the true weaknesses of television that in order to achieve balance you have a counter-soundbite. So we have to watch how much we use Key, we have to watch how much we use Norman or Cunliffe, we have to watch free hits full stop. [But] we also have to have the opposite person in there."
I'll grant Gower that, as far as he goes which is both too much and not enough.
Sure, Cameron Brewer screeching for Len Brown's head on a pike every time he farts in public is "balance" but where's the news value? And yes, the Prime Minister of whatever day gets a lot more media attention by virtue of the office. It was true of Helen Clark -- who, IMO, sometimes got herself in trouble by compulsively having an opinion on everything, even when she really shouldn't have. It's going to be true of whoever the next Labour Prime Minister will be, and Key's successor isn't going to like it one little bit.
I guess the Reader's Digest version is this: Do your soundbites -- all of them -- have actual nutritional value, or are they just empty calories filling the space?
But I am troubled by this framing of this question and I really think 3 News reporters have to stop using the Prime Minister to articulate their story angles, especially when the subject is Cunliffe. Key’s great talent, as we say in the trade, but it’s lazy and creepy.
More or less lazy than (surprise!) going to Cunliffe for an entirely predictable "boo suck!" soundbite whenever the Government announces something? It's (pseudo-)balance, I guess, but I struggle to see any actual news unless Labour is going to articulate a position or some actual policy.
As for Gower -- yeah, I'm not buying the "National propagandist" angle either. He's not a Labour (or Greens or New Zealand First or Conservatives) one either. He's equal opportunity offensive, and I don't see that changing until everyone gets over their far from new obsession with being "first" or "setting the agenda" with a load of empty calories instead of nutritious reporting.
"The missionary position's always been alright for us, so why change?"
John Drinnan politely opined that Patrick Gower is "sun struck" by John Key.
Well, I'd not at all politely opine that Drinnan could more usefully ask when the fuck Bernard Orsman is going to get professional help for his Brown Derangement Syndrome but I guess speaking truth to the power that signs your pay cheque is too much to ask.
“Do you personally think Judith Collins should remain a cabinet minister following the Oravida conflict of interest allegations?”
Since I do not now, never have and never will get to dish out ministerial warrants why does it matter?
No, it's the question. "No" could mean a whole range of things. It's a bullshit polling question.
And since we don't directly elect our executive branch of government, what's the point of asking the question at all? Seriously. I'd like to know -- if I dropped my wallet in the street I'd trust both David Cunliffe and John Key to return it without *cough* helping themselves to a finder's fee. Doesn't really signify when it comes to casting either of my votes.
Is there any part of his maths you question? Because that post is really just maths.
No, because that kind of maths is well above my pay grade. But, yeah, I would like pollsters commenting on political polling (and how they are reported) to be more forthcoming about any potential or actual conflicts of interest they may have in their client lists. If it's a good enough bar for David Farrar, it's good enough for everyone else.
If you haven’t already, it’s worth reading UMR’s Gavin White in the historical accuracy of the major political polls.
I'm not picking on UMR in particular, but one thing I'd like to see more of in pollsters commenting on polls and their reporting is full disclosure of their political/media clients. And, frankly, FUCK "COMMERCIAL SENSITIVITY". You're been presented as expert opinion, you don't get to pretend you're a disinterested party in how your industry is perceived.
I followed your instruction, and it seems to have taken. For the time being. Thanks, Jackson. Yet again, the PAS Massive keep levelling up the awesome.
I remember seeing Take 3 when it came out. But where; as a short in a film festival, perhaps?
Almost certainly -- one of the less remarked upon glories of the Film Festival is how many short films (foreign and domestic) get shown. And bloody oath that, as you say, it's as relevant as ever.
Anyway, fixed it for you. Hopefully that's Ok. :-)
It would be churlish to say otherwise, but I'm going to have to go away and practice shifting for myself. Can't expect you (or Russell or a lovely Cactus Chap) to keep covering my Luddite arse.