I see. And I can see how that would be useful. Perhaps you could apply as "Public Address, just the bit that Graeme Edgeler does" (that would be Legal Beagle, of course). :)
Congratulations Russell, I'm glad I wrote that post the other week after a lengthy absence, gives me bragging rights, however undeserved :)
Why are we joining the Press Council out of interest? Are there any upsides to giving people an official ruling body they can complain about us to? I'm thinking something tangible, like a party, rather than 'best practice/good governance'...
On that, I miss the event that was the TV awards, but I certainly don't miss all the unnecessary bitterness and rivalry it created between TVNZ and TV3, or even between shows and between reporters on the same show.
But if we are going to do such a thing, then I think we should now have categories for video (perhaps under 2 minutes and over 2 minutes or something, to separate news from longer form) regardless whether it's come from the Herald or One News.
The other distinctions are all blurring too. Public Address vs The Wireless vs Spin Off vs One News vs Pantograph Punch - it starts to become a bit like distinguishing between variations in electronic music. We're deep house, right?
But as our industry shrinks, I come back to the point that it'd be good to have a truly inclusive media event (I'd happily forsake the awards given the choice). I definitely have FOMO when it comes to the Canons rolling around each year.
I like science too much to fuck it up like that.
Try not to take me too literally on that one Ben ;) I just mean that it'd be great if many of our important national decisions were a bit more evidence-based rather than contrary to evidence, or based on ideology. And even if I did think it was a good idea, I wouldn't suggest said wise council of elders be made up *only* of scientists.
I don't know what to think of this post, it is neither here nor there, I feel. There seems to be a lot of silence, no comments
If there was silence for a little while it is because I didn't enable comments - that has now been changed.
I'm not sure why you thought I was on the fence here - as I say at the end, I would happily take my lead from scientists. Given the nefarious lobby groups and other anti-intellectual dangers, I agree with Shaun's implicit conclusion that scientists need to do more than simply present the facts and let others decide what to do with them.
Hopefully that's a little less neither here nor there. :)
Adding value is another thing entirely.
SO MUCH *THIS*. For the most part, watching TV news isn't about watching the presenters or the reporters or the newsreaders, it's about the pictures captured out in the field. The rest could all be done with radio only. The TV news channels have only had to focus on the reporters and presenters (and what they're wearing) to get through the gaps between the interesting pics, and to stamp on their own brand.
You are right about the Nadene Lomu interview. It was the first thing I heard when I tuned in at 5.20 or thereabouts, and my reaction was 'woah... this isn't the Checkpoint I'm used to'. No hustle and bustle. I'm not sure if it was considered a good 'get' for a debut episode or what, but it seemed a bit odd many weeks later.
Everything else was bang on (lapels excepted) - I had to laugh after the financial markets report, John's effusive thanking of the person who'd just popped by to say that the kiwi dollar was down against the yen or whatever, very cute.
Christ, maybe I'm doing it wrong but I just had to give permission to access my Facebook, Spotify AND Soundcloud accounts to download that Tula song. Which I did, because meh, come at me spammers. Also it's a nice tune.
Yes, I assume that's the case.
I'm told there's going to be a minute of Scout material playing before 3 News - creating the unfortunate sense that it is in fact leading...
I agree with your unease on this one - not specifically whether this example fell on one side of the line or the other, but that there must be some line where the things you are attributing to someone are so unlikely to have been said by that person, and would be offensive (rather than just say, ridiculous) if said in any other context, then is it really okay to say them? It's easy to come up with any number of horrible hypotheticals.
Not that I'd put anything past Hosking after hearing another couple of awful sociopathic rants last night (not something I regularly subject myself to), but an anti Maori rant might've been more clearly satirical in the voice of say, Holmes, a few days after his Waitangi column, or Cheeky Darkie etc.
Yes, it doesn't pay to over-analyse these things, but it's worth thinking about.
Yes I don't think Slater's appearance was satire, and from watching a few bits of a few eps of the show today, that's what I find a little confusing. It sort of jumps from funny skit show to Mediawatch without much rhyme or reason. I can't quite get my head around it - but that's not a bad thing necessarily, and most of those individual bits are good.
The Slater thing was just awkward, as Russell says. He was at pains to want to be liked, and to be funny, and failed on both fronts.