Cracker: A Whale of a Tale
348 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
Fun fact:
I once received from TV3, as a staff Christmas present, a blank VHS cassette. -
"He's a talented broadcaster" and "he's fun to be around" seem to me to be red herrings.
In fact, Russell, I found that Veitch quote of yours and you made exactly that point:
It's not easy, not everyone can do it and Veitch certainly has talent as a broadcaster (although my only direct contact with him on a story, in the 1990s, did not give me a favourable impression of his method). But people like Perigo don't seem to be able to grasp that that's irrelevant.
-
"He's a talented broadcaster" and "he's fun to be around" seem to me to be red herrings. And do speak to the very, very low expectations that we seem to have with regard to his ilk. As if he wasn't getting paid gazillions and didn't occupy a very privileged position.
I wouldn't have brought it up, but it seemed relevant when people started making declarations about his character, including that he was a workplace bully of the kind who drove people to suicide. I'm very happy to criticise his work, and have repeatedly done so. I'm less keen on standing on the moral high ground calling people monsters.
-
More on tv 3 from John Drinnan from the herald.
"At the other end of town MediaWorks is emerging from dark days as private equity owner Ironbridge has restructured to cope with its debt load.
Broadcasting bosses are struggling to predict the state of their industry in 10 years' time - let alone the next 50."
-
@Sofie
I have many more questions than ideas.
Do news programmes ever make a profit? Would a newspaper make a profit if it didn't include lifestyle segments etc.?
If it doesn't make a profit, then who will pay for it? If someone is paying for it, will the news programme be compromised?
I do sometimes wonder about even the BBC, which I think I've seen held up as a sort of model for reliable, balanced, objective journalism. What influences have come to bear on its presentation of a story?
I think all news is presented from a point of view. (I have some idea of the point of view of many British newspapers, for example, and take that into account as I read their news.)
I personally find television news difficult to watch. Every so often I try again, but find the experience unsatisfying. I even get angry, sometimes.
But I think that what I want from news and current affairs is not what most people want. I judge that because most news and current affairs on television and in other places is presented in a way that persists.
I wonder if the "take home message" here is that a number of subscribers don't like the way news is presented. Simply that. This could be a minority view; I really don't know, and I haven't seen any studies that measure it.
(Sorry if the discussion has moved on in the time it took to think about this and write it.)
I'd like to say something about name-calling. I've found that I'm more easily pursuaded of an argument if the presenter focusses on the argument rather than making an ad hominem attack of any sort. I'm a bit surprised at the amount of name-calling on this blog, from people who otherwise seem really clever, insightful and compassionate.
-
But why should we care?
But you do. Enough to complain. Why not just ignore him as one of the very few you don't find agreeable or up to your standard. Yep they have this kinda genre on TV. It seems formulaic to me, not my choice though, so basically I can say I don't care. Let's face also that it is worldwide, not just NZ.
-
I'm less keen on standing on the moral high ground calling people monsters.
I think part of the problem is exactly that he's not a monster, in the same way that Paul Holmes is not racist. It's the characters they allow themselves to play, because they know they can profit from it. If anything, I find it more maddening than if I thought they were genuine tossers.
-
3410,
I do sometimes wonder about even the BBC
You're not the only one. Their TV news operation is not as awesome as it once was.
-
Why not just ignore him as one of the very few you don't find agreeable or up to your standard.
So, asking that our broadcasters not bully people on television has become my standard? That's handy to know.
Curse me and my high standards!
-
I'm very happy to criticise his work, and have repeatedly done so.
I don't even watch television, it's just like you can't escape this guys idiot statements in this country , I don't know him as a person and don't pretend to know him. He certainly didn't show the kind of empathy you are showing him to various ,often marginalised guests.
-
.I once received from TV3, as a staff Christmas present, a blank VHS cassette.
Ha! You sure it was blank?
-
3410,
Ha! You sure it was blank?
Well, I didn't watch the whole thing, but yeah, pretty sure.
-
Not sure about the value of continuing this I'm pretty sure neither of us are gaining from it. I really do understand this is a real person we are talking about. I also do accept that you have criticised him. This is a "hot" button for me and I accept I'm probably over-reacting.
But how on earth can you get "it's okay" from what we said?
I guess I see it a bit differently from you. What you see as giving a balanced view of the person is what I see as minimizing the impact of his poor behaviour. I've seen that minimizing used as a defense of bullying in my own life and hence I am very sensitive to it.
This wouldn't even be relevant, except that you seem determined to imagine an unalloyed monster.
As I said I don't think for a second think he is an unalloyed monster. I said quite clearly that one of the big issues in identifying bullying is that bullies typically display very different behaviours to different people. They can and often are very good with some people.
I'm quite happy to accept that Paul Henry was a fun person to meet and that you respect his ability as a broadcaster.
But that doesn't change the fact that when I see him on TV I see someone using undermining, belittling and bullying behaviours. Often towards people who have no defense. I saw those behaviours often enough that I stopped watching breakfast TV and have no respect for the man - in spite of whatever positive traits he may have .
And yes Sofie I did exercise the choice to watch Sunrise instead and now I watch Sky News in the morning instead.
-
In fact, Russell, I found that Veitch quote of yours and you made exactly that point:
It's not easy, not everyone can do it and Veitch certainly has talent as a broadcaster (although my only direct contact with him on a story, in the 1990s, did not give me a favourable impression of his method). But people like Perigo don't seem to be able to grasp that that's irrelevant.
Er, what? Didn't I just make your point? That's not what you claimed I said.
He "has talent as a broadcaster" but "people like Perigo don't seem to be able to grasp that that's irrelevant" in the context of the awful things he did. What about that isn't clear?
FWIW, the second half of that comment was:
Let me express some sympathy for Veitch, not in the context of the assault, but simply in how the up-and-down of daily live broadcasting can mess with your head. I suspect that's what Holmes thought he was acknowledging with his enabling and misguided expressions of support for Veitch. That might provide a context, but never an excuse: you still own your own shit.
I'm happy to stand by that.
-
Is there any reason why an article about the resignation of Germany's president costs more than one about a goat up a tree
In a sense, yeah it does. Because the ratings indicate more people want to watch the latter. And if a show rates less, the cost of the ads go down. So yes, we could have the 'worthiest' news, as determined by a bunch of academics and liberal blog readers, and various overseas examples (not to mention RNZ here) indicate it would rate less well. And therefore cost more.
are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars
@Giovanni - I also take objection to this. I know what at least one of the top anchors gets paid, and it's about the same as various salespeople I know, less than ad people and lawyers I know. It certainly ain't the grand old days of Judy Bailey.
And in return for that sum, you get to have papparazzi follow you around whether you want it or not, your children are targets too, your ability to quietly enjoy a social life is seriously diminished, your sex life (and sexuality) is fodder every weekend, everyone thinks they can approach you randomly to tell you what's wrong with the news, and as this blog has illustrated, everyone thinks it's okay to kick you.
Wow, what a bargain.
-
And yes Sofie I did exercise the choice to watch Sunrise instead and now I watch Sky News in the morning instead.
I don't get how you can bear to watch TV in the morning at all ;-)
-
And in return for that sum, you get to have papparazzi follow you around whether you want it or not, your children are targets too, your ability to quietly enjoy a social life is seriously diminished, your sex life (and sexuality) is fodder every weekend, everyone thinks they can approach you randomly to tell you what's wrong with the news, and as this blog has illustrated, everyone thinks it's okay to kick you.
I agree, it's a bad system on many levels, and the womans magazines are just crazy shit. That's media on media.
By the way last year tvnz had a 80% drop in profits.Paul Henry wasn't working hard enough for us.
-
that he was a workplace bully of the kind who drove people to suicide
aw come on Russell, that's what you hassled me for
I said I think Paul Henry is a bully. I said I think his behaviour towards guests and co-workers is bullying.
And I said, when told to lighten up, that I think bullying isn't something to lighten up about and that some people end up committing suicide as a result of stuff like this.
Do you want to join the dots to say I said Paul Henry drives people to suicide? Because that isn't what I meant to have you read.
-
Er, what? Didn't I just make your point? That's not what you claimed I said.
I remembered you saying that Veitch was a talented broadcaster, but in fact I had the context all wrong - that's why I pasted it once I found the actual quote. You did in fact make my point. How many times would you like me to apologise in the one thread? Because I'm still mad at a bunch of things.
-
Well, I didn't watch the whole thing, but yeah, pretty sure.
Well they do say the ending can always be the most important part. You may have missed the point :)
-
I also take objection to this. I know what at least one of the top anchors gets paid, and it's about the same as various salespeople I know, less than ad people and lawyers I know. It certainly ain't the grand old days of Judy Bailey.
That's a relief. I think Paul Henry's salary did become public knowledge at one point, didn't it? and I seem to recall it wasn't peanuts. Either way, they get more money than Mary Wilson or Geoff Robinson, yes? It's a genuine question, not rhetorical.
-
@Giovanni
There's a real question here about whether somebody's worth is appropriately measured by the amount they're paid.
I don't have answers, but it may be that a person will do their job for reasons other than money.
I certainly haven't found that the size of a person's salary correlates with my esteem of them.
-
That's a relief. I think Paul Henry's salary did become public knowledge at one point, didn't it? and I seem to recall it wasn't peanuts. Either way, they get more money than Mary Wilson or Geoff Robinson, yes? It's a genuine question, not rhetorical.
Mary Wilson and Geoff Robinson cost us money. In theory, Paul Henry and all those dreadful newsreader people make us money. Crazy, I know.
But I realise I misinterpreted your earlier comment. Yes, I was saying that Veitch's broadcasting ability was not (as Lindsay Perigo had claimed) relevant to his series of vicious assaults on his partner.
But when Henry was accused of being a workplace bully and various other kinds of bastard on the basis of what he did on screen, it did seem relevant to note that wasn't my experience of working with him.
-
Meanwhile, the news media is reporting on Tim Groser's unexceptional use of the hotel minibar, because that's so much easier than reporting on what he's doing in climate change and trade negotiations. Bah.
-
3410,
In a sense, yeah it does. Because the ratings indicate more people want to watch the latter. And if a show rates less, the cost of the ads go down.
Absolutely true, but the public's tastes aren't handed down from God; they change over time as a function of what's available and of what came before. In short, if providers dumb it down long enough, and given demographic churn, is it any surprise that we, the audience, get dumber with it, and therefore can't handle anything better?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.