You’d think from reading the comments on PA that everyone in NZ believes Dirty Politics, no one votes National and everyone watches Campbell Live.
There are days (and most of a decade - don't ask) when I don't know why the hell I bother hauling my bloated carcass out of bed...
John Campbell is an intellectual but he fronts a programme that is a mixture of advocacy journalism, lots of human interest fluff and some political interviews. I don’t think his abilities are being used to their full extent.
I don't disagree with your larger point (I think John Campbell would be really great at a long-form interview show) but context matters and Campbell Live is a general interest, prime time five-nights-a-week, forty-weeks-of-the-year current affairs show. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "human interest fluff" as part of a well-balanced diet. After all, plenty of the stories coming out of Christchurch could be characterized as HIF, and that's a legit part of the story too.
And one thing I like about Campbell is he has the kind of temperament where he can do the warm, empathic HIF and the stern brow-crinkle at the not-so-great and not-at-all good equally well. That's a lot rarer than you might think.
Campbell used to actually get complaints about doing so much on Christchurch.
Sure, but in the history of journalism it’s funny how many of the great stories outlets dine out on for years – if not decades – were initially greeting with “Oh, by Perry White’s salty chocolate balls, enough already , move on!”
Without Campbell, who would know about the suffering and the struggles of people in post-eqnz Christchurch?
How can we quantify what it did for Chch people to be told “We haven’t forgotten you”?
That’s probably CL’s great example of putting editorial imperatives ahead of market sense. And good on them for that.
I thought it was both. "What are the legitimate stories of genuine broad public inerest the other bastards aren't telling, or telling well and in-depth?" Not only sounds like a good editorial imperative, but identifying a gap in the market you can fill.
And let's be honest: Am I the only one around here who can find Campbell's Tigger-on-speed persona occasionally cloying? But, hell.you can't say he's not a singularly distinctive brand. :)
After being part of a high school that got shat on by shonky ‘journalism’ by Campbell Live I refused to watch another episode.
Fair enough -- and I don't think anyone (least of all our host) is claiming Campbell Live and its host is a flawless jewel in the media crown that has never gotten anything wrong. The odds of that happening over a decade of working journalism are roughly zero.
But even though it's not a terribly high bar to clear, Campbell Live is more substantive than Seven Sharp by orders of magnitude, and for all its flaws I'd argue public discourse would be diminished if Three was penny wise, pound foolish enough to cancel it. Or effectively neuter it with a thousand budget cuts.
getting their mates to shut down the last bastion of hard questions is probably the latest Crosby Textor master plan for mediocrity
It took about an hour to fill the "Crosby Textor" box on my bingo card, which TBF was about fifty minutes longer than I expected. Well done, PAS.
Serious question: who here regularly watches Campbell Live? And by that, I mean the full episode, live to air.
I don't -- because 7 o'clock is usually the dinner hour and we have a pretty strict "no television during meals" house rule. I'll fairly regularly watch the first five minutes or so on Three+1, but if it looks like there's nothing of interest on I won't hang around out just out of principle. Sorry, but the "human interest" fluff really doesn't interest me much.
And then I read Matthew Hooton's tweet from earlier "I understand that MediaWorks CEO Mark Weldon thinks @CampbellLiveNZ & @JohnJCampbell are too anti-government. " and get all depressed again.
And so fucking what? Let's remember which Prime Minister called John Campbell a "sanctimonious little creep" after a pretty rough -- and very far from flawless -- interview on a legitimate matter of public interest close to a general election.
I wonder if, sometimes, we underestimated what it takes to relate well to people who are different from ourselves.
Almost certainly -- and it can also be very challenging for people who are used to being in very hierarchical structures with very clear and rigidly enforced top-down lines of authority. An analogy, I think, is the difference between Pope Francis (who developed a more consultative, collaborative style while Archbishop of Buenos Aires) and his predecessors. That doesn't mean Francis is going to be ordaining women, opening family planning clinics and conducting mass gay marriages in St Peter's any time soon. But it is noticeable that he doesn't talk to the world (or the church) like it's a not very bright puppy who is going to get slapped with rolled up newspaper if it doesn't stop peeing on the rug.
Or you’ve got Family First clamouring with a quote, whether they understand the story or not, and purporting to represent a Christian perspective.
Sure, but as I said on Twitter if the media are going to treat religion seriously then media organizations need to do Journalism 101. Put in the hard yards to learn your shit -- because every story has a context and history. Do the work to cultivate a broad range of credible sources, not just the easy click-bait Rentaquotes. And please, God, can everyone -- from the most junior reporter to top-of-the-masthead editors -- stop going for the easy, reductive get. I know it's hard out there, but sometimes it's really important you put getting the story right above getting it right now.