Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Too much PR speak in the apology, the 'I was tired and stressed' excuse ...
Yes, and almost word-for-word the same lines that Paul Holmes used in his "cheeky darkie" apology (October 2003). Presumably not a coincidence.
In Spin-World, all offences are treated the same: a stupid comment on the radio / being drunk and swearing / a violent assault ... all dealt with differently by the law, but not if you "front up" to camera rather than court.
I wonder how serious an offence could be, and still be "handled" by the PR people? "While I do not condone my running amok with the AK47, and sincerely regret any offence caused to the families of the bereaved, I only wish to point out ..."
-
Has anybody from the sport/media circles spoken out on this? I haven't seen any, but would be happy to be wrong.
A simple "if he stays in his job, I won't be appearing with him, joshing around and pretending it's all good", or words to that effect.
It's not exactly the most important issue here, but if this means less matey chat between newsreaders and "Veitchy" (because they're all friends, and ours too!), then that's one small gain.
-
Radio Sport might want to update their website. Veitch's profile:
http://www.radiosport.co.nz/WhosOn/Detail.aspx?id=65
Unfortunate use of cliche there ...
-
Alistair
I would suggest that the absence of a pack mentality is what brought this story to light. Would it have been exposed by a reporter on Newstalk ZB? One News? Would it have got to air?
Which do modern media organisations value more, truth or their corporate celebs on the posters?
-
Hadyn, an easy job to fill? Not according to Veitch:
I was working seven days a week and two stressful jobs
But of course, he wasn't making an excuse. No, sir.
-
On that Stuff site, the wording of the online poll shows the "It's not OK" line is getting traction.
(putting aside the merits of these polls, which sadly are here to stay)
-
I would really love to know how much and for how long TVNZ knew about all this.
Yes, Michael. In fact, we should demand to know. (ditto: Radio Network).
If his employers knew (and it seems that at least some people did), then they should be resigning themselves. To cover this up was both morally indefensible and incredibly stupid.
-
Maori TV: Te Whiripu-Whiropu:
The channel's future under a National-led Government appears bleak. Brownlee says he has yet to see any figures suggesting MTS is meeting its aims. "It's a lot of money for what it's reaching. If they could show they are getting the reach they are supposed to be getting it would be a different story. But I can't see them ever doing that."
Administration of MTS costs the Government $13 million a year. Maori broadcasting funder Te Mangai Paho has earmarked $16.1 million a year to fund MTS programmes for the next three years. In comparison, NZ on Air spends about $62 million to support local content on mainstream TV.
Brownlee says National would review the channel's future before committing ongoing funding. While a court decision affirmed the Crown's obligation to promote te reo through TV broadcasting, National believed the Government could meet its obligations by using TVNZ's charter. (italics added).
NZ Herald, 26 Mar 2005.
-
And if anyone else has any things to add to the list of things of which ordinary Kiwis have had a gutsful, please do.
Junkets (defined as "any New Zealander going overseas not wearing military or sporting uniform").
-
What's generally forgotten in so much of this "mood for a change" commentary, is how quickly public opinion turned against National after the 1990 election. People didn't get the change they wanted, they got more of the same, and worse.
Whereas Clark in 1999 prepared the way for her 2002 re-election, and the mood never went sour in her first term. In short: signalled change versus imagined change.
The difference? The electoral system. If National continue as they have done, raising hopes that can't be met, they will soon be as unpopular as Bolger/Richardson in 92/93, and MMP will mean a one-term government. I think it's a dumb strategy (when do you argue for what you believe, if not at 50% in the polls?), but I guess they'll worry about that after the champagne.
National 1990: 48%
National 1993: 35% (saved by FPP)