Hard News: All this and more
79 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Coming from the UK, I'm used to newspapers having a political position: the Telegraph is right-wing Tory, the Guardian is left-wing Labour and so on. But they have *eight* major national dailies, so you can more or less pick one that matches your political orientation and literacy level.
Well, I don't know about anyone else but I read both on-line and would argue while their editorial lines are perfectly clear, they also have well-resourced newsrooms where there's a distinction drawn between news and edtirial, and for the most part their reportage is substantive and balanced. (I'd also note that the Telegraph and Guardian editorially hardly engages in mindless boosterism of 'our side'. I'd actually say both have been distinctively lukewarm towards David Cameron.)
Since the spring, it seems that even this convention has been dumped and the Herald is now fully lined up behind National. I'm not sure why; maybe it was felt that even with a new face and friendlier policies, the Nats could again choke at the last minute without a more solid peanut gallery behind them?
To play devil's advocate, Rich, perhaps Labour is going to choke without the lightweight coverage of the kind where Cullen is allowed to get away with strategic vagueness over what constitutes "essential strategic infrastructure". (Good on the few hacks who bothered asking the blindingly obvious question, but points off for letting him weasel out of answering it.)
-
Mediawatch (Radio NZ) have just had a very revealing interview with Clare Harvey, ex-Herald journo. (It's broadcast again at 10 pm today, and presumably on their website).
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
Perhaps they should make their lives more interesting by getting another job.
-
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
Um... I'm going to have to listen to that again, because I'd like to give Harvey the benefit the doubt, and assume she wasn't quite as prone to another sin of the commentariat (and one I don't exempt myself from): Crossing the fine line between a healthy and active scepticism to the kind of rank cynicism which is not only glib and dishonest, but actively contemptuous of everyone and everything it touches.
Still, I've got to give Colin Peacock credit for pointing out the blindingly obvious: There's no disinterested parties when you're talking out tit-for-tat sniping between competing media outlets, and politicians (and their proxies) whose primary focus is having their spin dominating the media narrative and feel hard done by when the media doesn't play nice.
-
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
I would suggest that we've had a few changes of government just because the national electorate was bored. So I guess one shouldn't blame the media if they use the same excuse. At least Harvey was honest about it.
-
I mean national as in the demographic sense of the word, rather than...........you know what I mean.
-
Oh, yes, Fran was in particularly fine cock-sucking form today. Not.
I was thinking of John Armstrong. Fran O'Sullivan was in sports-commentator mode.
-
I would suggest that we've had a few changes of government just because the national electorate was bored. So I guess one shouldn't blame the media if they use the same excuse. At least Harvey was honest about it.
which I think was my point a few weeks back...coming back as an interested observer its truly hard to see any other reason. NZ, as a country, is in fine shape, as healthy as it's been in my lifetime, and as a non resident I feel rather proud of it and the passport I carry.
(In a strictly non-patriotic sense just to be clear ;)) -
I agree, Simon and Jackie.
Media need conflict in order to survive - or think they do, which amounts to the same thing. "All news good, country optimistic" doesn't sell.
The voting public wants nothing more than a change of scenery and someone new to fling invective at.
There doesn't have to be a real reason for a change of government. We're a small country where not a lot happens, and we have to make our own entertainment by shifting the furniture now and then.
-
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
Yeah. I only caught part of it, but that part was really interesting. I wonder if any of the media types on here would like to comment either way or the other.
Her point wasn't quite as direct as being 'bored' I think, more that the media have been writing about this government for 9 years now, so a lot of the stories are the same old thing. New governments go in different directions, new stories, interesting etc.
-
Media need conflict in order to survive - or think they do, which amounts to the same thing. "All news good, country optimistic" doesn't sell.
Oh, of course it does.
But here's a marginally more radical notion -- perhaps we need fewer Judy Bailey wannabes telling us how to feel, and a little more focus on giving us stupid plebs solid information so we can think for ourselves. But I guess you have to stop treating people with cynical contempt for that to happen, and I don't see much of that among the chattering classes at the moment.
-
Just squizzed through the headlines online and Jane Phare really should write for Investigate.
Fair enough mulit-millionaire holds a private function at HQ while his business goes under. New worthy if salacious.
But to harass one poor lass over at least two weeks & that she may or may not have worked at HQ is horrid.
Did she do the same for the laundry service or the alcohol contractor?
Chicks fight dirty & this sounds like a vendetta, has Janes hubby strayed (I don't know anything about Jane by the way), did she once vie for the affections of the Blue Chip director? Really ugly stuff Jane Phare.
-
Fair enough mulit-millionaire holds a private function at HQ while his business goes under. New worthy if salacious.
Um, I even wonder how 'news worthy' the story was.
If Bryers regularly booked out Prego, White or The French Cafe -- fashionable restaurants where you could run up a low five figure bill just on the pricier end of the wine list -- I rather doubt The O'Herald on Scumday would consider it worth more than a (short) paragraph.
Now, if Ms. Phare has any evidence that Bryers misappropriated Blue Chip funds to pay for his (alleged) whore binges, then we might just have a matter of legitimate public interest. As it is, I don't think we're seeing anything more than another example of hypocritical mediia prurience. (For a start, if the HoS finds the sex trade so objectionable perhaps it should stop running ads for these places.)
-
I dunno, Craig. Leaving the morality of prostitution to one side, isn't it relevant and interesting that a senior officer of a company in serious, serious trouble was spending up large on *cough* entertainment on a regular basis?
The restaurant analogy is a good choice of analogy to think about this with, because I actually think that if he booked out a high-end restaurant regularly, that would be news too. Living the highlife while the punters' investments were turning to shit is perhaps something that the famous Mum And Dad Investor is interested in.
There is no suggestion he was using company funds. But now that this information has come to light, people with a financial interest will be making sure of that.
-
I dunno, Craig. Leaving the morality of prostitution to one side, isn't it relevant and interesting that a senior officer of a company in serious, serious trouble was spending up large on *cough* entertainment on a regular basis?
No, it's neither relevant or interesting. People are entitled to a private life, particularly around their sex lives. Being a company manager, or a politician, or for that matter a journalist does not remove that right. Unless he's stealing from the company to do it, it's no business but his own.
Failign to respect these boundaries would make life pretty unbearable. As I'm sure the Hera;d journalist would complain if it was her private affairs splashed all over the newspaper.
-
Living the highlife while the punters' investments were turning to shit is perhaps something that the famous Mum And Dad Investor is interested in.
Repeat after me, Stephen: Not everything "the public" (aka panty-sniffing editors) is interested in is a matter of public interest. Personally, if most of my retirement savings had gone down the toilet with Blue Chip, I wouldn't give a whore's cunny hair whether Bryers was blowing his cash on tarts, dining out or buying teddy bears for sick children by the gross. I'd be more interested in whether Blue Chip collapse due to incompetence or gross malfeasance. It might also be the occasion to ask some hard questions about why business journalism in this country so seldom reaches the heights of mere competence, as opposed to PR puffery.
Failing to respect these boundaries would make life pretty unbearable. As I'm sure the Hera;d journalist would complain if it was her private affairs splashed all over the newspaper.
Indeed -- especially when journalism is a trade that is hardly known for attracting teetotal celibates whose idea of a good night out is being in bed by nine with a mug of cocoa and an improving volume. :)
-
In a country that has chosen to make licensed prostitution legal; what exactly is the moral difference between this and a trip to the restaurant or a few tickets to the ballet (except that the ballet would be expensive and not necessarily much fun).
As for Phare FWIW there's an enemy for life. I'm acquainted with his kid, nice bloke, at the wrong age for all this sh*t though.
-
WH,
In the end, my point is that can we just stop pretending that Colin Espiner [deleted] are exactly disinterested observers here?
I don't think its in Colin Espiner's professional interest to make unsupportable assertions about the Herald's political biases. Whatever his interests may be, he was right in this case.
I agree with Simon Grigg's point - it is unusual that Labour is faring so poorly given their generally strong (especially economic) record.
My own view on this is that the anti-smacking Act precipitated a major change in public opinion from which Labour has never recovered. I know the Act is supported by many PA readers, but seldom has National's message about 'arrogant' Government interference and 'political correctness' resonated so strongly with the public and Joe Average. I still wonder how did the party's strategists did not see this one coming.
I still think the Herald could stand to improve its political coverage (not all of it is bad).
-
"Not everything "the public" (aka panty-sniffing editors) is interested in is a matter of public interest."
That's something I have often (without the panty-sniffing bit) said myself.
However, the point of the story was to stress how well-off and free-spending Bryers is. Notice that while part of the story is about spending money on prostitutes, it goes on to talk about his assets and other pastimes.
If the story was of limited relevance, it's because Bryers was a consultant only by the time the company was in trouble.
-
Stephen:
Again, I don't think the HoS would have given a toss if Bryers' "free-spending" ways included buying teddy bears by the gross for terminally ill kiddies. Don't you agree?
And even if Bryers has been living an ascetic life in a garden shed, the obstinate fact remains that there are a lot of people who lost a hell of a lot of money investing in a house of cards he was deeply involved in. Perhaps if hacks spent a bit more effort conducting "intensive investigations" of such businesses before they collapse, rather than hanging around whorehouses after the fact we'd all be a bit better off.
-
it is unusual that Labour is faring so poorly given their generally strong (especially economic) record.
I'm not sure that their economic record is so strong now: I detect real nervousness about the NZ economy. For everyone who is cock-a-hoop about houseprices coming down, there is someone who is very worried about the main asset losing value, and maybe even dipping below the amount they owe on it. Even then, the smallish fall in house prices is not really going to make them any more affordable.
Then there's the price of cheese issue. Aside from the price of cheese itself, which seems to have become a bit of a meme, the overall price of food has gone up, making things just that much more difficult for households, even if they are getting Working for Families.
So even if Labour's overall economic record is strong, I suspect that the belt tightening in households all over the country will be making people worried. And that may undermine support for Labour.
-
I detect real nervousness about the NZ economy.
What do you call that? An economy-dar? Econ-dar? Eco-dar wouldn't work, the greenies must have that one.
I was finally getting my gaydar more finely tuned than a thermonuclear blast, and now we've moved onto this? I'm going to be meeting people at bars and having to figure out how they're feeling about retail sales and house prices and interest rates at a glance.
-
When a company has no hope of paying its debts and continues to operate, that's called "insolvent trading" and is illegal. If management were drawing a salary while this was happening, then that pretty much amounts to stealing (from the creditors).
That's the case whether the money was going to Miss Whiplash, the Remuera Golf Club, a church or the Foundation for Saving Babies and Cute Furry Animals.
-
Craig:
News bias can often be about story selection - it's a bit less apparent online, where you pick and choose, then in physical newsprint where you might notice pages of copy about the evils of the EU (Torygraph) or International Big Business (Grauniad).
I doubt the Telegraph would run a long-term investigation of British Aerospace, resulting in at the jailing of at least one former cabinet minister Or indeed, that the Guardian would maintain a negative barrage against the EU in the way that the Telegraph does.
-
Regarding the price of food, the cost of a sufficient diet in relation to average wages is still pretty low in historical terms (even if it's blipped up a bit lately). What is expensive is living on prepared and luxury foods (which I'm as guilty of as anyone else).
Expensive farm products are partly the cost of adequate enviromental controls and labour conditions and partly the effect of people in other countries being rich enough to buy our milk products (etc). Which are good things, really - and not eating lamb chops and kilogram lumps of cheese is both good for you and a reasonable trade off.
Rice is $2 a kilo, if you buy enough. That's 20c a meal, for starters.
-
WH,
So even if Labour's overall economic record is strong, I suspect that the belt tightening in households all over the country will be making people worried. And that may undermine support for Labour.
Good point. Obviously there is only so much that governments can do to control things that are determined by international markets (the price of dairy products, international credit crises, rising price of oil etc), but I suppose that is cold comfort for people struggling to make their mortgage repayments, buy their groceries and pay their utility and petrol bills.
I do not see the slowing of the housing market as a bad thing, but perhaps that bubble should never have been allowed to develop as it did.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.