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.
What was a pain – being stuck at the entrance after submitting details, waiting for an email;
Yeah I found the same thing (although mine was in the 'promotions' tab of my gmail), and at least I already had the URL for the episode. None of this is pleasing to hear, but thanks for letting me know. :/
I note the personal details required are an age *range* and a gender (quite binary, which I understand not everyone is happy with). Not ideal, but yeah...
As an aside, I tried to view the piece but TVNZ refuses me entry unless I provide them with my email and other personal details.
Yeah that's a very recent thing, and the feedback from young people (and some old ones apparently) is that it's not particularly welcome. I've raised it with TVNZ and of course there's obviously some reasoning behind it - the question will be whether the audience, who happily sign up for facebook/snapchat/instagram feel it's worth signing up for. At least it's not a paywall I guess...
Dick Weir used to read a news bulletin for kids. Later, Lloyd Scott did it.
My first TV job (and prob the reason I've come back to this track) was on Flipside, which was a great youth magazine show, and launched the careers of many young people kicking around in media today.
We have become a nation of indoor cats, this is another example of the best minds of a generation being used to get people to click on something.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is here Steve? I set up YOURS.nz and now YOURS TV to give young reporters, interviewers, film makers etc a positive outlet for their work. I WANT people to click on it. So does everyone involved.
I actually have less of an issues with JK commenting on road safety or whatever, than being the go-to pundit for comment on issues within the Labour Party or what-have-you. It's like John Drinnan always going to Mark Jennings for comment about problems at TVNZ - well, what do you *think* he's going to say?
Are people who get home later preferring 3 for some reason?
I’d say yes, at least in the 5+ category (i.e. including 70 year olds) that Throng uses for ratings, far more One News watchers are home at 6pm than 3 News watchers.
To answer your earlier question regarding ratings, they are tracked minute-by-minute, but usually published in the quarter hours, so yes, if someone watches the first bit of the news then leaves, people know. In fact, there’s not that much drift, and often the 6.30pm story is the most watched. I’ve attached a snapshot of Monday’s ratings (25-54) so you can see how it works. The numbers are % of the available audience.
Logic might suggest that if they wasted less time and money on live crosses they could deliver more news.
A couple of years ago I would've agreed with you, but I think we've actually pulled back from Peak Live Cross, which was when we started to see the 'Brady Bunch' of reporters stacked in the corner of the screen all waiting to be crossed to on one topic.
Last night for instance, on One News, I can see there was ONE live cross - to Corrin Dann talking about the budget - I'd argue that these are the sort of live crosses we want to keep, where ideally (*ideally*) we get some analysis around the story.
In terms of news, there was 22 minutes. No animal stories, but one track at the bottom of the bulletin on the Kardashians, so take out 1'30" for that. The first story was also about the big dump of snow down South, but I'll save that fight for another day :)
22 mins = a commercial half hour. The rest is taken up with sports, weather, re-caps, promos, intros all that sort of stuff.
I'm not saying that's AMAZING, WORLD BEATING etc, but just adding some actual numbers to the mix.
I'm not sure that 3 News is particularly different from One in terms of that breakdown, I'd be surprised if it was markedly so.