I don’t think regarding the Herald as monolithically terrible is fair or accurate. On balance, it’s the best paper in the country
Which is really not saying much, as anyone who has been out of the country can testify. Besides, I think 'monolithically terrible' is a misrepresentation. No-one is saying that the Herald is as bad as The Daily Mail. But since, unlike in Britain, we have no alternatives, the fact that the Herald is so stupefyingly thin and shallow is an issue. I grew up in a two-newspaper household. I've always loved reading the paper. Always watched the news on TV. The fact that I materially cannot do this in New Zealand is a problem for me.(*)
As for whether constructive criticism is the answer, boy, I’m not so sure. You expressed satisfaction that the Herald online changed a bad headline on Lorde after feedback from Twitter, and that is well and good, but this is the same paper that is proud to publish confirmed rape apologist Bob Jones, and had no qualms running Paul Holmes' Waitangi Day column two years ago, to say nothing of the reactionary tosh that fills 80% of its columns. How’s constructive criticism working for you there? And really, to echo Danielle’s earlier point, the occasional ‘fuck this shit’-type response is perfectly justified, when essentially all you have is the power to express a frank opinion, and vent some frustration. Because if anyone here really thinks that we’ll improve journalism in New Zealand by praising the good reporters so they don’t develop a siege mentality, the outlook isn’t good. I’d rather be the person who expects more of people who are perfectly capable of doing better.
(*) Although: Radio New Zealand. What a treasure that place is.
don't count them as journalists.
They are in our newspapers, aren't they? They are seamless part of the product. And what about Paul Henry? Isn't he in fact a journalist?
It was interesting to run the Jonesy Awards on Twitter last year, in part for the reactions that it elicited from some journalists. Some of them I think were genuinely offended by the concept. (Not Damian, it must be said.) Yet what was obviously and spectacularly offensive was the material, which was really just a small sample of what is fed to us on a daily basis.
your point leaves me a bit uncomfortable. Clearly we are allowed to, and should, criticise the media and the behaviour of some individuals within it
Little thought experiment: try to imagine (it's more a question of remembering, but whatever) what it would be like if people who don't work in media couldn't publicly comment on it. No blogosphere, no social media, no internet. Only letters to the editor, and the likes of Garth George choosing whether or not to publish them. Meanwhile, Michael Lhaws, Bob Jones, John Tamihere roam the land. How would that make you feel?
Keeping in theme with this post, I'd like to point out there are some really excellent reporters at the NZ Herald who work incredibly hard and do fantastic work in their field. David Fisher is the first who springs to mind.
Of course. There is no contradiction between the two statements - you can have very good journalists and still have bad journalism.
I just think it's generally pretty bad.
Sing it, sister.
Mostly, I'm talking about the consequences for the child, of a criminal conviction of a parent who has smacked.
That's how the failure to prosecute spousal abuse used to be rationalised. Consequences for the battered wife (and the kids) might be be even worse if the husband were convicted.
Stranger things have happened.
No, they haven't.
Hey, Giovanni what do you think of Cunliffe calling Judith Collins a trout?
What, you think my name is Petronius all of a sudden? Why are you asking me?
But since you are, and without being fully aware of the connotations of the term in NZE, I'd have to say it was a demeaning and stupid word to use. I could revise downwards once somebody explains to me what it was even supposed to mean.
Let's imagine we did as Graeme suggested: we rang RadioLive endlessly, to tell them how offensive what they did to Amy was, how wrong and offensive their views on rape were.
We don't need to imagine it: the single people I've been trying to reach more insistently during the whole thing was RadioLive, and I encouraged others to do the same. Not a peep from them. Ever.
And obviously if the offending comments were removed we'd reach an irony singularity.