Hard News: Onwards and upwards
214 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Whilst I appreciate Craig's argument, some people are professionally obliged to seek public exposure (as a spokesperson), and thus might be willing to take the risk of a roasting if it gets their issue onto national TV.
Sure, but there's the grilling of a serious line of questioning and there's... whatever the hell Paul Henry does. Which is not so much a roasting, as standing next to someone dipped in petrol trying to light a cigarette.
-
Danielle, that's exactly what I was thinking. He thinks he's Ricky Gervais, but he's actually David Brent.
-
Sure, but there's the grilling of a serious line of questioning and there's... whatever the hell Paul Henry does. Which is not so much a roasting, as standing next to someone dipped in petrol trying to light a cigarette.
Oh, for sure. I guess I should have built a rhetorical question thusly: at what point is it no longer the fault of the guest for exposing themselves to this sort of thing, and rather the fault of those who allow the host to act this way?
I'd like to heartily third what Danielle and Jake have said as well. I think it was the high-pitched insistences and wheezy hysterics that did it for me.
-
I'll be prudent here and assume that the whole gibbering idiot thing is just an occasional on-air persona.
He was National Party candidate for Wairarapa in 1999.
-
__I'll be prudent here and assume that the whole gibbering idiot thing is just an occasional on-air persona.__
He was National Party candidate for Wairarapa in 1999.
Well qualified then ;)
-
Dammit stupid parser!
-
He was National Party candidate for Wairarapa in 1999.
That revolving door between politics and broadcasting amazes me. Doesn't Leighton Smith still have a morons radio show, even though he's being paid as a cabinet minister.
I don't want to sound like a pom, but the UK doesn't allow it. When Ben Bradshaw went from the BBC Radio 4 morning news to being MP for Exeter, he was removed from broadcasting duties on being selected as a candidate. Former MPs are often either restricted to non-serious work (e.g. Robert Kilroy-Slik) or to appearing with someone from the other party for "balance". Having declared political views would certainly rule one out as a newsreader.
-
He was National Party candidate for Wairarapa in 1999.
And now it appears that he is trying to compensate for the self-imagined loss of masculinity brought about by losing that particular race to Georgina Beyer.
-
That clip deserves to be the object of a number of formal complaints to TVNZ. That is some of the most objectionable television I've seen in a long time.
That fucker deserves a roasting.
-
That clip deserves to be the object of a number of formal complaints to TVNZ.
I was incensed enough to send them a sharp little note via the web feedback form. Is there something a bit more... important we could do?
-
Oh, and Deborah, I was pretty clear last year that I couldn't understand why both Helen Clark and John Key felt obliged to waste time as straight men to Henry's bizarre monologues. They weren't informative, and generally only entertaining if you were the kind of freak turned on by dog fights.
Quite possibly because there are a fair few people who watch breakfast television? They want to get the message out, even if it means talking to an idiot.
They shouldn't expect to have to suffer from that level of ridicule and sexism.
-
was incensed enough to send them a sharp little note via the web feedback form. Is there something a bit more... important we could do?
You could try using this form instead...
The BSA make it even easier now.
-
In the BSA's grounds for complaint , I'd go for
6b:
Contributors and participants in any programme should be dealt with fairly and should, except as required in the public interest, be informed of the reason for their proposed contribution and participation and the role that is expected of them.
Despite Craig's claims, there is no way this woman would have had a reasonable expectation that her participation would lead to this kind of humiliating treatment.
6g:
Broadcasters should avoid portraying persons in programmes in a manner that encourages denigration of, or discrimination against, sections of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, or occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs
If you highlight that:
The comments were sexist and degrading towards women, and designed to invite ridicule towards the guest as a woman, and that the female co-presenter was highly visibly uncomfortable with what he said and tried to stop him on multiple occasions, then I think you've got a good chance.
-
There doesn't seem to be a "The presenter was an asshole" category. This one is possibly the best?
6g Broadcasters should avoid portraying persons in programmes in a manner that encourages denigration of, or discrimination against, sections of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, or occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs...
-
If anyone wishes to lay a complaint, I would suggest Standard 6 - fairness (and guideline 6f in particular) as the best course, but you may wish to add standard 1 - good taste and decency, as well (though a complaint on that ground is far far less likely to succeed).
I note a marked difference between these comments, and those on WhaleOil...
-
Not that I think that facial hair is a disability, but Paul Fucking Henry was treating it as one, and one worthy of ridicule so I think that's worth mentioning too.
-
Guideline 6f, edited of extraneousness:
6f Broadcasters should recognise the rights of individuals, ... not to be ... humiliated.
-
Graeme's right, 6f is the most relevant:
Broadcasters should recognise the rights of individuals, and particularly children and young people, not to be exploited, humiliated or unnecessarily identified.
-
For purposes of formfilling could I just get confirmation whether this screened on the 24th or 25th? Tom's post says the latter, YouTube says the former.
-
is there any plausible explanation as to why anyone would willingly watch this creep on TV? do we have the technology yet to name and shame all those who have tuned in, say, in a special column in the Saturday papers?
-
For purposes of formfilling could I just get confirmation whether this screened on the 24th or 25th? Tom's post says the latter, YouTube says the former.
YouTube suffers from that wonderful Yank disease of thinking that the entire world is in a single timezone: theirs.
Given that it's not yet "today" in even the eastern-most states, YT's not going to catch up for a while. -
And they don't even have a single timezone! It's just wacky.
-
Ah. Thanks guys.
-
And now it appears that he is trying to compensate for the self-imagined loss of masculinity brought about by losing that particular race to Georgina Beyer.
Simon, bingo! So I wasn't imagining the hyperbolic sex-gender-panic subtext.
-
is there any plausible explanation as to why anyone would willingly watch this creep on TV?
I only watch the bit with the brilliant gadget guy. Cos he's awesome.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.