I wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive at all Danielle. I ummed and ahh'd long and hard about whether to turn on comments in the first place, and decided a "go easy" would set the tone, and mean that this thread wouldn't end up like so many others on PAS, in a general discussion on how the media is letting y'all down.
There's place for that, and there's a place for that on PAS, I was just hoping that the place for that, just this once, wouldn't be here. There were a few nice comments and then once again it was heading down the same old route.
It's not a fight. You go ahead and say what you want. Discussion thread is and will remain open, but I won't be a 'warm body' here, nor Twitter. Knock yourself out.
We need another “what I really hated on the news today and why xxx is so wrong” thread for that.
... I don't think you'll have any problem finding one :)
How do we do that while at the same time allowing any individual journalist the same right to bad days that the rest of us enjoy?
That's the tricky bit isn't it. I dunno, how often do you say "excellent piece of reporting there, such-and-such"? You could argue that such things don't happen all that often I suppose, but I make a point of giving good feedback to people when I see or read something I like.
I'm not arguing for no media criticism, I'm just partially pointing out the effect it has on journalists. And also, the explosion in blogs, twitter etc now, where everyone is an expert and can instantly publish exactly what they think about a reporter/presenter, and that reporter/presenter instantly gets to read it. There was a good reason why back before all this, management would usually keep the hate mail from ending up on the desk of the reporter bee. You might think your feedback is reasoned and reasonable, but an awful lot of it isn't.
Everyone can decide what to do, I'm not the criticism monitor (other than on this thread, which I make no apology for, but I'm happy just to turn off comments if it's easier than asking people to be nice) but all I'm asking, and it seems to have worked in your case at least, is for people to assess what they're saying, and maybe whether they'd say it to that person's face, because in effect that's what is happening.
Uh, noted? I’m not sure where you expect this to go then, since the post seems designed to head the discussion precisely in that direction.
It's been interesting picking up on various comments (not just here, but to me personally too) that many outside the media read this as "the media are bad people towards the public" (simplifying), many of those inside read it as "the public are bad people towards the media". I'm saying it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B, and they're related.
I think you’re too kind about the ‘behaviour’ of Duncan Garner.
I was referring to something nice Duncan did for me this week. I'm not defending (or attacking) his behaviour in general. And again, this aint the place to do so.
But… it IS sort of an awful paper in many respects. I mean, I’m not trying to be a dick.
If it's all the same with you (and everyone else here), there are plenty of places, blogs, other PAS threads where you can discuss what you don't like about the NZ media. To do so on this thread is kinda missing the point.
I just think it's generally pretty bad.
Sing it, sister.
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.
The quality of every training session I deliver gets assessed, so at least once a day.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant by "held up against the competition" was publicly so.
Though, if it's okay to have a go at Michael Laws, isn't it also okay to have a go at media professionals who can be, you know, quite a lot like Michael Laws?
Yeah that's a tricky one, and of course by even mentioning Michael Laws arguably I undo part of what I'm trying to achieve, but, well...
I think what starts as people genuinely trying to point out what they perceive as people in the media behaving badly or inaccurately, soon evolves into more pointed versions of "I just don't like that person particularly much" or "I would've done that differently therefore that person is bad". I'm not saying there's not a place for criticism or review, and by calling for change on both sides, I'd hope there'd be less to be critical of.
...if your mark on the world is leaving snide comments on subjects you apparently have no interest in, then I think you win.