Hard News: Time to get a grip
126 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Companies exist to make money for their shareholders.
One would hope that some of those shareholders might have morals though.
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
Henry is literally a racist. There's no "well, he's just controversial", or "he just speaks his mind", or "he's anti-PC" covering here, he was exposed as a racist and got fired for it.
I don't think he got fired for being racist because I don't think he was actually being racist when he made his offensive comments about Sheila Dikshit's name. He was applying a non-intended cultural context to her name, and found it amusing to (and wildly beyond) the point of offence.
Ironically, he was actually pronouncing her name correctly (Peter Williams' "Dixit" was simply wrong).
I'll be interested to see whether his behaviour is moderated by the format of the drive news show. Given that a lot of his show will be engaging with people who can actually talk back, I would expect some of his guests to take him to task if he tries his petulant nonsense on them.
-
James W, in reply to
Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. They don’t exist to make moral decisions. Expecting them to is like expecting shampoo to do your homework :)
This is true. It ignores there are real live people in charge of those corporations that surely have morals, but I guess they ignore them in order to serve the corporation's money-making function.
I know in the US corporations have personhood thanks to the Supreme Court, which makes this issue considerably more thorny (afterall, if they get all the advantages of personal rights, why aren't they held to personal account?). I don't know what the legal standing of corporations are in NZ.
-
James W, in reply to
I don’t think he got fired for being racist because I don’t think he was actually being racist when he made his offensive comments about Sheila Dikshit’s name. He was applying a non-intended cultural context to her name, and found it amusing to (and wildly beyond) the point of offence.
That wasn't the comment that got him fired. I think it had more to do with this:
"Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?"
The Dikshit thing was a week before the Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand comment.
BTW, I'm more concerned about his no doubt forthcoming primetime current affairs TV show, not his radio show.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
This is true. It ignores there are real live people in charge of those corporations that surely have morals, but I guess they ignore them in order to serve the corporation’s money-making function.
Time to plug The Corporation again.
The Corporation is a 2003 Canadian documentary film written by Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. The documentary is critical of the modern-day corporation, considering its legal status as a class of person and evaluating its behaviour towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person….
The film is in vignettes examining and criticizing corporate business practices. It establishes parallels between the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave and the DSM-IV’s symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.”
You can watch it on YouTube via their website or you can buy a copy of the DVD, which I did after seeing it at a film festival. Superb documentary.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
But it would be interesting to know how far you're allowed to go in capitalist society, 2011, New Zealand.
Maybe this kind of far?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I actually think expecting companies or shareholders to have any sort of morals is naive and wrong - even when those companies are seen as "nice" (Google? Apple? Body Shop?) any positive motivation is likely to be transient.
In the case of Mediaworks, they are owned by an Australian private equity business that also invests in oil drilling, private healthcare and waste disposal. It's likely that any broader view of the business includes the promotion of unfettered free-market capitalism. (How does bigotry and racism help with that? By making the downtrodden think that they are better than and at the same time threatened by the Other. Henry's attitude is all about promoting that idea).
-
James W, in reply to
Time to plug The Corporation again.
I own it. It's chilling.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I own it. It’s chilling.
Yup. It sure is.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I own it. It's chilling.
And if The Corporation gives you the chills, then Inside Job makes you livid.
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
However he does seem to have a few fans so maybe they just want to cater to them.
Undoubtedly he does, but the thing is, they're fans not because he's particularly good at interviewing and presenting (he's not), or offers any insight, or brings anything to the table other than bigotry, a complete lack of shame and an unfettered ego.
But they could get that from virtually anyone - well anyone in a few bars and clubs in which I've had a beer. If they wanted a "professional" then there are any number of provincial broadcasters whose egos (and the smell of a bit of cash... they aren't paid much over $40k these days) would mean they'd happily mouth that tripe even if they didn't believe it.
And they'd quickly gain and maybe exceed (because they're new and exciting rather than hackneyed and predictable) a following from the same sorts of people who support Henry. And they'd work for much less.
So the real question, for me at least, isn't "why did they hire a bigot" but "why did they hire that bigot, and at several times the price?".
-
Sacha, in reply to
expecting companies or shareholders to have any sort of morals
Meeting the interests of broader stakeholders is hardly new thinking - it's the virulently neolib focus on only those of share owners that's comparatively recent.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I actually think expecting companies or shareholders to have any sort of morals is naive and wrong
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes in practice I think it's naive to expect moral behaviour from companies when in practice it almost never occurs.
However, as a society I think we can and should aspire to having organisations, including companies, behave in within moral guidelines that include more than simply "more money is good". The pure free market does not achieve that, theoretically it could but it doesn't in practice. This suggests if we want morally responsible behaviour from companies then we have to moderate the free market. Unfortunately it is for some reason unacceptable to moderate the free market, even to suggest such a a thing is greeted with the kind of horror that is usually associated with the most heinous of crimes.
It can be argued that companies find it difficult to assess morals but in this case mediaworks need only refer to the tone of their own 3news broadcasts around the time of Henry's demise to define morality.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Unfortunately it is for some reason unacceptable to moderate the free market, even to suggest such a a thing is greeted with the kind of horror that is usually associated with the most heinous of crimes.
We have few genuine pure markets. Our business 'leaders' and their cronies are more than happy to see markets constrained in their own interest. Like for example underwriting finance companies. Or topping up wages with Working For Families. Or subsidising roads over rail for truckers. You get the picture.
if we want morally responsible behaviour from companies
then we have to insist on that - and make life very hard for those who fail or refuse
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Precisely. When people refer to 'market failures', they're really talking about socialism for the rich, or the Dooh Nibor doctrine. Funny how left wingers and libertarians (of the Ayn Rand kind) can find common ground on certain economic issues.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
This just in. It's reinforced what I wrote in my previous post.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Duplicate post, please delete. Must be caching issues.
-
if we want morally responsible behaviour from companies then we have to moderate the free market.
Yeah, and we do. Labour laws, health and safety regulations, minimum wages, environmental protections, consumer protections, commercial law, contracts/torts, by-laws, fair-trading- etc etc. You get the picture.
The debate is about whether, and where, and for whose benefit, we weaken regulation in one area, or strengthen it in another.
[eta: AMI- always felt it was the best insurance option. Oh dear.] -
Sacha, in reply to
AMI Insurance covers many smaller policies and has been exposed to two large payout events in a statistically-unlikely short time. I don't have a problem with a government guarantee while the company sorts out other financing or ownership. Seems way fairer than SCF with its moral hazard-inducing related party and rural finance sector shennanigans.
-
David Hood, in reply to
AMI Insurance covers many smaller policies and has been exposed to two large payout events in a statistically-unlikely short time.
AMI also have a reputation for having been undercutting other other insurance companies premium prices, by not buying the same level of reinsurance cover as other companies.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Interesting. I imagine they'll end up sold off, won't they?
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Tower is already sniffing around, according to the article about the payout on Stuff.
But I'm sure we'll manage to socialise all the debt before we sell them off on the basis that Gummint shouldn't be in insurance. -
AMI provides some Q&A.
-
Economist Matt Nolan briefly ponders the moral hazard.
insurance firms will discount these large scale low probability events – and take on more risk when providing loans. Their willingness to take on more risk than is socially optimal will be paid for by tax payers.
-
And 'tupperwaka' is a definite candidate for PA's WOTY. Thanks in no small part to Shane Jones (Ngapuhi I think).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.