Posts by Myles Thomas
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If Murdoch genuinely loves newspapers I’m happy for him. It’s what he also genuinely loves which I would take issue with. And controlling the political process negates pretty much any kind of philanthropy I can think of.
Hell, the Times? Not the most exciting paper in Britain. The Australian? Bagging Australia’s best writers and then making them write right wing bile (mostly) is a good thing?
I take your point about the Guardian though. Imagine a news landscape without it.
-
Maybe newspapers need to borrow funding models from other media - say the BBC or ABC in Oz? The Guardian is owned by a non-profit trust and that shows in its reporting. Journalism's role in democracy is the hedgehog to the 'market's 18-wheel juggernaut.
If politicians are unhappy with their treatment by newspaper owners, and unable to push regulation past the self-perpetuating power of that same media, they could establish a government funded newspaper, operated at arm's length?
What about nationalising the NZ Herald if it ever looked destined to disappear?
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You're not disagreeing with me at all. We're in total agreement that there seems to be bias in the mainstream news media.
Not that this is a new thing. Most NZ newspapers have always been publicists for the National Party and the business sector, with a thin veneer of impartiality. This is still the case in general except that nowadays the Listener and TVNZ don't offer any balance to the subtle and not-so-subtle right-wing media agenda.
And how long RNZ (with it's funding frozen) and TV3 (about to be restructured) will continue is unknown. As much as I love Public Address and other blogs, they will never have the impact on public opinion that mainstream media enjoys and harnesses.
If commercially owned and run mainstream media become the only influencer of public opinion, what happens to democracy?
-
It's interesting to see even the most National friendly journalists (Tracy Watkin and much of the DomPost) turning on the govt. Interesting that through policy after policy that was knowingly unpopular with the public, this change has come only when journalists' own business is threatened (let's face it, journalists are among the few groups likely to be to be spied on, as has been proved again with the Ambrose revelation).
And could the huge media stink that has come to pass on the GCSB, an issue most Kiwis care little about, be the reason for the long expected drop in the polls for National? Do we really want to entrust to journalists so much influence over the political direction of NZ?
-
I’ve been working with the film’s other producer, Kay Ellmers who says there’s some big revelations not in the TV version. Probably it's the latest news about killing two Afghan security guards and compensating their families.
-
Closing U is a direct result of government policy to require a significant dividend of TVNZ. While channels around the world are expanding their digital presence ensuring their future survival, TVNZ is going through a type of asset-stripping process, except they're not even selling things off, just closing them down.
As media consumers we get what we vote for.
-
With a mayoral STV, why are the lowliest second votes counted first? What if the top two candidates were very close, but the centre left had just edged out the centre right option, and the more extreme lefty was third and extreme righty was fourth. By taking fourth places' 2nd votes it could tip the second choice into the mayoralty despite the majority of voters choosing left wing politicians.
Unlikely I know.
-
Debate is all very well but Mathew Hooton et al are especially happy because this uninformed debate is hurting Brown. If it was hurting Key they would all be up in arms at the level of misinformation and reactionary stupidity. Hooton then has the cheek to say calm down, all is well, it's just a good old argument. Arguing many of the government's policies is not allowed because they rush through all sorts of shocking legislation under urgency. Or the commercial media simply fails to pick up the mantel. Dark arts indeed.
-
Hopefully this will eventually be resolved in courts where sense will prevail as sentences are laid down. It's impossible to adequately legislate to suit all, and sadly most laws target the under performers at the expense of the competent - recreational drugs need only be illegal for some, some drivers are safer while using a mobile phone than others who aren't, etc
But who is really creating the damage here? How are the media treating this case? Responsibly? Journalists need to take responsibility for their actions before some govt does.
Where laws cannot always work ethics and morals take over. This applies to both those who would exploit under 16s for sex and journos intent on sales/ratings.
-
People have different ways of reacting to things. Who are you to say that they are wrong.