Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't see that Geoff Robinson has too much to worry about in terms of a loss of privacy from his job. Lie-ins maybe.
How about his seniority and his ability? The fact that he can actually interview people, and his job is not just to read things? Do these things no longer count? Is it all about the blasted paparazzi now?
-
Mary Wilson and Geoff Robinson cost us money. In theory, Paul Henry and all those dreadful newsreader people make us money. Crazy, I know.
Damian proposed that it was a budget issue, and I'm making the point that the news on TV cost a lot more money to produce than the news on the radio, regardless of how much income they generate. So how come we're not producing TV news that is both slick and intelligent? Is Dumb News the only thing that will sell? Has it been demonstrated, and if so, how and by whom?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
"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.
-
but the idiot you see on screen is actually a person.
But why should we care? I mean I care when Damian says that he actually likes his work and his programme. But I neither have any difficulty believing that Paul Henry is a very affable person and fun to be around, nor do I find it relevant at all in relation to what he's allowed to get away with on the telly. Which I think is nothing short of scandalous.
"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.
-
It assumes increasing revenues from advertising which isn't going to happen, in fact when broadband explodes here it will decimate the local t.v spend.
Couldn't that mean we finally get RNZ but with pictures?
-
That's plenty outlandish.
Okay, you got me there. But it doesn't/shouldn't have to be.