Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Tell me, Gio, do you go public with every thought, complaint or criticism you've ever had about the organisations you work within? Do you appreciate unfavourable generalisations about universities and people who work in them?
Are you kidding me? I'd LOVE for somebody to start to seriously criticise how universities are run in New Zealand. And one of the big issues about doing that historically has been the lack of independence of academics and humanities organisations with said universities.
Have you considered the further possibility that not everyone agrees with you on everything?
I have. But I don't think you do on this one. I think you don't think it would be useful telling an editor to his face that he's evil, and I get that.
-
I'm saying this should be a criticism of Govt broadcasting policy, not the reporters who work for TVNZ.
My criticism is not aimed at the reporters. But just to be clear, are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars and aim its bulletins at twelve year olds, and started to produce something closer to RNZ news and commentary but with pictures, it would be eaten alive by TV3 and produce a loss? Would not spending a lot less money help them make up for that loss in viewers? And are we sure that given that choice, people wouldn't in fact stay with TVNZ?
-
Right, so rather than doing what Megan suggests, and recognising vaid criticism, taking it on board and adapting to it - essentially bettering the medium - you'd just rather it was read out on air.
Yes, uhm... that must be what I meant.
-
One is commercial. One isn't. Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.
So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter of budget.
-
This is the first time I've ever talked about being a journalist here on PAS. But if you think for a second I am sitting at my desk quietly every day at work, and not questioning the powers that be? Well, Giovanni, you've met me. You can't possibly think that.
I meant publicly. I know for a fact that there are a lot of journalists who question their editors and their ownership, and who take personal professional risks doing so.
-
It just seemed a stretch to characterise that as media criticism, still less the only criticism received by any media organisation.
It's not criticism, it's an attack. That's why I called it an attack.
-
Other than the phone calls, emails, letters etc that we get on a daily basis?
What good are those? Seriously.
-
Wow. You're actually getting quite offensive now.
So, does the fact that it's such a small industry not factor in at all? Could you, if you were so minded, go all out on Media7 in the manner that, say, Jon Stewart did on Crossfire? Or is the industry simply too closely knit for anyone to be able to do that? I wonder about that sometimes. I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.
-
No. Other than here. But what I can point you to is how every second person who meets me, and finds out what I do, feels free to criticise my job, my organisation, and my industry.
Could it be because there is no other outlet than the entirely misguided one of losing your rag at the first available journalist?
And doesn't listen when I talk about things like, as Damian says, sustained budget cutting, shrinking newsrooms, and basic human frailty.
See, I question that it's a budget issue. Does the TVNZ news arm have more or less money than the RNZ news arm? Okay, I get it has to produce pictures and that it's more expensive, but it also pays much higher salaries to its newsreaders. And yet why, oh why, does one news organisation produce garbage and the other... the opposite of garbage?
(Seriously, Justine came to NZ for a trip in 1995, brought a tape of the TV One evening news back to Italy and I thought it was satire. I took some convincing.)
I also don't think it's a question of individual journalists being good or bad at what they do, rather what is asked of them. Except for those few personalities that help in fact define the profession. Because finally:
I personally found Veitch's broadcast presence unbearable, but it seems evident that he must have had some talent for the job, given that he kept getting work.
Wasn't the reason why Veitch had talent for the job, that the job was defined as something that somebody like Tony Veitch would be good at?
-
'Cos believe me, it doesn't feel like that.
Can you point me to these sources of strong, sustained, coherent media criticism? It seems to me that the only outlet that is coming under actual attack is the only one that does a good job - RNZ.