Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
grrrr
It is with disgust that I see what the Green Party has done to this Bill.
Any thought that the Greens were anything other than money grubbing selfish <insert derogatory term of your choice here> has to be banished now.
Of course they oppose a Bill that would require their own businesses to actually prove safety before putting their products on the shelves. Never mind even proving efficacy for the wild claims on most of those products bottles.
This from a political entity that pontificated on the importance of public safety and environmental safety at all costs during the GE debate. Where is the precautionary principle now? Why isn't it reasonable to demand that natural products targeted for human consumption be proven safe to STANDARDS?
Hypocritical politicians - yes that's redundant I know.
The Green party disgusts me.
Which is a pity because I believe we need a political party that will protect the environment in parliament. I just do not believe the current Green party is honest enough to be that party.
cheers
Bart -
Frankly, there are valid reasons for concern about having to constantly import doctors doctors trained in other systems.
Not the least of which is that it implies that the local education system is failing. If you can't channel the money going into the education system (not an inconsiderable amount) into production of trained people in the areas we actually need them, then you need to "fix" the education system.
It gets worse. Doctors are highly regarded and generally one of the better paid professions. A decent number of the bright young things actually want to become doctors both for the money and because they want to heal people. But we aren't producing enough and a lot of what we produce just leaves NZ.
But there are other parts of the tertiary system that are doing even worse. The sciences are never as popular as medicine and the pay is worse at the end too, and none of your friends have any clue what you do. If it's bad in medicine it's worse in science. Finding good bright graduates in the sciences is getting very hard.
Mind you it does seem as though the Government doesn't really care. It's Ok to import doctors, it's Ok to import scientists to do research in NZ. And ultimately if you can't get research done in NZ you can always import discoveries from overseas.
But don't worry we will have more than enough middle managers trained to manage our way out of any problems that such a policy might cause. Because if there is one thing the tertiary system in NZ does produce it's middle managers.
cheers
Bart -
Good satire is worth it's weight in gold. Ridicule I'm not so fond of.
Why not insist that if broadcaster spends 5 minutes on satire or ridicule then they need to spend 5 minutes on considered analysis of the proceedings.
I don't believe being an MP is necessarily an easy job, but the pay is good and being answerable to the public is kind of in the job description, if not the KPIs.
With that in mind I think perhaps the MPs ought to show the same respect for the debating chamber as they are now asking the braodcasters to show them.
And if they don't display the respect for the chamber themselves then they ought to expect to see their behaviour on the 6 pm news. Followed of course by serious analysis of legislative events that day - yeah right.
cheers
Bart -
They sometimes get bright kids, who have to go off for their compulsory national service (two years in either the military or the police, and two weeks a year thereafter) -- and come back as drones.
NZ has it's own version of that. It's called the Massey MBA. You can pretty much guarantee most companies in NZ have installed one or more of these in their middle management and they work brilliantly to suppress any kind of creative development.
"Can you describe the path to market and return on investment for your idea....."
cheers
Bart -
I don't believe enough news happens in NZ to fill an hour, so the space has to be stuffed with trivia and beatups.
I'd agree, although the point that spending effort/money might uncover more NZ news. But I doubt the accountants would approve. Gossip is cheap to report news is expensive.
But there are more people on this planet than just those that live in or were born in NZ. Or are you suggesting that it ain't news unless there was a kiwi there?
-
Hi Damien
I understand your points. I guess my point is that I believe that there is a need for a national news broadcast, that genuinely tries to broadcast significant and important events. So that the public might become more informed.
You are of course right there is no imperitive for TV1 or TV3 to provide such a service - other than moral.
As Heather pointed out the advertising for the news programmes suggests they will provide "news" and not trivia, so to some degree I have a valid complaint.
I can and do turn my eyes away from the 6pm news (heck it's not often I'm home in time). But the reality is that for many many people the expectation is that at 6 pm TV1 and TV3 will provide a news programme. For many people there is not much other choice. And for most people they haven't even considered that there might be another choice.
Given that expectation - it would be nice if someone actually tried to provide news at 6 pm.
I think you are right the only way we will get that is if TV1 becomes a state funded not-for-profit broadcaster.
As for privilages - sure I theoretically have the same privilages. But in practice reporters get more access than the general public and rightly so. And certainly the courts treat publication by reporters in terms of "in the public interest" again that is theoretically available to anyone but in practice I suspect not. But you are right journalists don't get much that is unique or special.
To me this case highlights a question about the role of journalism and news broadcasts in a society. If you believe, as I do, that society needs active intelligent journalists to monitor the workings of society and report when things go wrong (or right). Then those journalists need a place to report the news they discover. That place needs to be free of political influence, obviously, but also I think it needs to be free of commercial influence as well.
-
Hi David
Yup a great big pair - platinum plated ones:).
...what people profess to want and what the ratings seem to suggest they want can be at odds...
Surely neither you nor Damien believe people should get what they want?
Of course trivia and gossip rate highly. Good grief if E-news played at 6pm on TV2 followed by 30 minutes of the weather channel neither TV1 nor TV3 would get a look in. (BTW that programming idea is mine all mine).
But that shouldn't be what the national news programmes are about. News isn't just about getting ratings. A news broadcast serves an important role in society, it is there to inform the public about events of significance and importance. Gossip is neither significant nor important but it does get ratings. Gossip is also extraordinarily cheap to produce and require virtually no intellectual input from the reporters or editors.
TV1 or TV3 could choose to deliver news at 6 pm. Instead they play for ratings. The NZ herald does the same. There is little of the NZ media that doesn't allow ratings to define what they present to the public.
Against that background, how can we expect the public to make intelligent choices about events. The news is necessary to inform the public to allow choices to be made intelligently. When the news stops doing that some very bad things can happen.
The media scream bloody blue murder if anyone tries to restrict their freedom to publish. But forgets that with that right comes a responsibility to publish what is significant and important. I'd argue that given the current performance the media does not deserve a "right to publish" because frankly they've abandonned any real pretense of public responsibility.
If "it's all about ratings" then I think we ought to take away all the privilages journalists enjoy. They are entertainers and as such should have no special privilage or place in our society.
cheers
Bart -
You can rail all you like at the media for putting Millie Holmes front and centre in their bulletins, but the stats don't lie.
warning rant below
Ok David, I know you love sarcasm but on the off chance you believe the above I'll argue with the statement.
Womans Day/Womens weekly/New idea etc are all magazines that publish gossip and trivia (very usefull if you enjoy pub triv on a Tuesday).
But to suggest that simply because they have a large readership then what they publish is NEWS - is bollocks.
Equally, to argue that because lots of folks read the story about Ms Elder's drugs charges then it is NEWS - is also Bollocks.
And frankly the news editors and "journalists" in NZ ought to be ashamed.
The news media in NZ is full of bone idle lazy morons. I'm sure there are good journalists in NZ. They just don't get much air time. Instead we get "reporters" on-the-scene and gossip. We get sports reporters who think knowing a couple of all blacks who will give them a quote about rugby is all they need to be a sports reporter. Investigative journalism consists of asking the neighbours "how they feel" or downloading an article from the net.
Ms Elder's drugs charge is, as the judge pointed out, NOT news, it should not have made the headlines let alone the lead story. And it is a mark of shame that it did. The irony of it all is that Mr Holmes is involved and it is his kind of celebrity journalism is typical of the intellectual poverty that infests our media.
Told you I was going to rant :)
cheers
Bart -
If it's a boy how about
Ernest Maurice Alan
It would be a lot to live up to
cheers
Bart -
Don't be silly Juha
Clearly the naming thing has done it's dash.
In this modern world a simple alphanumeric code is all that's necessary. I suggest 2 or 3 letters followed by 4 or 3 numbers (keeping the data entry field constant size would be most helpul).
And with such a system there would simply be no point in allowing people to choose identifiers for themselves. A central authority could assign identifiers once birth was confirmed.
I guess there would be potential for some cost recovery by allowing people to choose a particular combination of letters and numbers, for a significant fee, providing they stuck with the constant data entry field size.
Pronounciation would be no more difficult than current naming conventions.
cheers
Bart