Hard News: Garbage in, garbage out
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
There’s a market, but it’s not a mass market.
Wasn't TV1's news division like that before the broadcasting reforms of 1988?
-
Tinakori, in reply to
There's quite a big market for stories about Bad things being done to Good people, which is fine, but not much market for highly technical stories about policy and how it is made and how it works. Many, many years ago - when Colin James was the editor - the NBR did a lot of it. It basically gave you the story behind the story. The Listener too did quite a bit of it and most print and TV stations had specialist reporters who had some sense of how the world worked behind the press release or the Minister's speech. But with their elimination and fewer eyeballs on the job we are left to the tender mercies of what political journalists say and what politicians say. That's important but it's only a sliver of what actually happens when policy is made and implemented.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
There’s quite a big market for stories about Bad things being done to Good people, which is fine, but not much market for highly technical stories about policy and how it is made and how it works.
If only the suckers were better informed they'd quit their whining and willingly grab their ankles. Yeah right.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
One of the things I wish RNZ would do would count the number of times a minister didn’t come on air when asked. Something like “since the last election the the Minister for Justice has been unavailable for interview X times”.
Or, "Since first becoming Prime Minister in 2008, John Key has never appeared on this station despite repeated invitations."
-
The last part of the Herald article is gobsmacking:
The office of Police Minister Michael Woodhouse did not respond to questions as to whether Cabinet needed to consider the matter again. Asked if the minister's office accepted the figures were wrong, a spokesman said: "It is unfortunate that some figures required clarification."
No it's not unfortunate, it's incompetent. And no they didn't require clarification, they required correction.
How do these plonks get away with talking such crap?
-
Marc C, in reply to
Some of the profession are too busy tweeting each other frivolities and suggestions about the newest fad in town, I suspect. While I am not a fan of Paul Henry, he does at times bluntly display the idiocy we have, as last night he showed how a few hours of indulgence turned some “ladies” and “gentlemen” at the Christchurch racing event into silly fools behaving “strangely”.
Sadly that is what gets “coverage”, and is watched, and wannabe “smart”, blunt and even vulgar comments are also what is quoted, rather than “dry” figures, that would tell us what really goes on, and what really should matter.
Oh those “good old days”, when we had black and white television and shared the news and shows, and where some standards were applied. Are we better off these days, or worse, I wonder?
-
mpledger, in reply to
mpledger said:
One of the things I wish RNZ would do would count the number of times a minister didn’t come on air when asked. Something like “since the last election the the Minister for Justice has been unavailable for interview X times”.Matthew Poole said
Or, “Since first becoming Prime Minister in 2008, John Key has never appeared on this station despite repeated invitations.”I think it has more meaning with numbers, especially day after day after day e.g.
PM has not been available for comment 20 times since the last election. -
Marc C, in reply to
You would think so, but it seems to require resources to do investigative journalism, and takes time and COSTS. So as the media market here is now largely dominated by privately owned media, who are more than ever dependent on that highly contested advertising revenue, there seems to be too little desire to engage in "costly" journalism, as they get away with just feeding dressed up media releases and infotainment "news". You will see how television and radio here is heavily influenced by commercial advertising, there seems to be more of it here than anywhere else I have been. Quality suffers in such an environment. In the UK, the US and Continental Europe they do at least still have some core media, private and public, who have the resources to deliver more choice and quality.
We here are getting milked as consumers, and are not supposed to think or even question too much, as that "distracts" us from spending and "enjoying" consumerism.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
There’s quite a big market for stories about Bad things being done to Good people
Yes, Fair Go has been around since I was a kid. Was it even the same guys?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Another thing to consider: are journos, particularly the Press Gallery, really that scared of getting what Nicky Hager got if they learn too much about certain agendas? It could go a long way to explaining why they go for 'fish in a barrel' issues.
-
Gareth Swain, in reply to
Thanks for those replies, Sofie, Ben, Marc, et al.
but it seems to require resources to do investigative journalism, and takes time and COSTS
True, true...
In that case, let me re-phrase my question: Is the idea of a news outlet providing a higher standard of journalism for a higher price a viable business proposition in New Zealand? I guess I mean: Would the majority of people value good journalism enough to pay more for it than the current options? -
Marc C, in reply to
Looking at the way people shop in supermarkets, they mostly decide on price, not so much on quality. That has been proved so often, and we can witness it also in the high prevalence of the $2 discounter shops in Aoteaoroa.
Always “bargain hunters” the vast majority make compromises on quality and contents. That leaves a too small market here, I fear, for quality journalism also. The higher income people would only in some numbers value the kind of “investigative journalism” that persons like Nicky Hager do. The "do better lot" have in too large numbers rather other interests, so a fair few of them actually know the people get lied to, and they feel, that is just so in their own interest, to keep the masses damned QUIET.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
Another thing to consider: are journos, particularly the Press Gallery, really that scared of getting what Nicky Hager got if they learn too much about certain agendas? It could go a long way to explaining why they go for 'fish in a barrel' issues.
I think they're more concerned about spoiling their future career chances. Journalism depends on relationships, and its difficult to do if Ministers refuse to talk to you. And if they're planning to switch to being a Ministerial press secretary one day, its even more important not to offend their potential future bosses.
-
Marc C, in reply to
You are definitely onto something there, I fear!
-
izogi, in reply to
What you get on PAS is not an average persons interest.They seem to like Slater scum or so the figures are supposed to be (although debatable I’m sure) RB is one of the few people asking questions.
The wider range of ‘average’ people I encounter still aren’t representative of everyone, but they’re definitely more average than me (and strong Nat voters). I don’t think it’d be fair to them to say they like Slater scum. Mostly they don’t even know or care about what Whale Oil is, and a conversation about it which I listened in on was just riddled with misunderstandings.
It’d be closer to say that they either don’t care about it, or are sick of it, or just don’t have an appetite for any of the wild complexity and detail that’s been blasted at them by journos in a short space of time when there are so many other things they have to work through in life besides politics. If you don’t follow blogs, or even just don’t follow political blogs, there’s a whole new level of understanding to grasp before being able to “get” how and why this is all significant in the wider scheme, and how it affects you. Without that, it comes across as insignificant people playing stupid insignificant games.
I’ve heard plenty of complaining about how ultra-sick of politics they are in general. Nicky Hager was seen as a left wing nut-job even before he was in the news recently, but I did actually explain some of what was in the book to people. It wasn’t challenged so much as used to confirm existing simplified perceptions that all politicians are slimy and untrustworthy. They won’t bother to read it themselves because it sounds like nothing new and there are other more important things to worry about.
They’ll still vote National because the alternative is perceived as worse.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
There’s quite a big market for stories about Bad things being done to Good people
Yes, Fair Go has been around since I was a kid. Was it even the same guys?
When Nicky Hager spoke in Christchurch shortly after the publication of The Hollow Men he was asked if he feared for his personal safety. He replied that, because of NZ's then relatively benign attitude to political dissent, he'd have felt at greater risk doing Fair Go type stories.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
its even more important not to offend their potential future bosses.
Oh didums. what a croc. How pathetic are they prepared to go just to ensure that one day they may want another job. A pathetic excuse if ever I heard it. Doesn’t any one have any balls in this country? I’m completely over people saying they have more important crap to deal with. If people engaged in politics and made themselves aware of what is wrong and unacceptable behaviour in the world and actually took on board just how manipulated they are, then maybe, the liars and cheats and thieves that remain in power can be given the sharp shove they need and let someone else have a go. To say the alternative is worse is not a fact. To repeat that mantra is playing into the hands of the liars and cheats. Not one other Party in our Parliament has proven to be a dismal failure. People need to get some facts straight before they crap on. At least if people got with the program we could hold every Politician to a higher standard then journos can do their job properly too.
Sheez, wont somebody think of the journalist is a poor excuse to do a shitty job of it.
Plus Ministers refuse interviews all the time on tv or radio so research should be a priority for the job not cuddling up to a nasty Politician. -
I was talking to an ex-colleague the other day who was running a team creating 'native media' that was larger than Mediaworks radio's news team. Money buys content. The political right-wing have more bucks than everyone else and therefore they rule. A friend I was talking to today didn't vote for Labour at the election for the first time in his life because he was convinced that a capital gains tax would apply if he sold the house he lives in. To believe that he must have listened to any mainstream media organisation's reporting of this story in the month leading up to the election. A bit of Hosking there, a bit of Paul Henry here etc.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
yup, that's a large part of the problem, the msm repeating lies without checks or corrections, so your average person's understanding is skewed. JK's mantras were and are very effective because they are repeated over and over without challenge, and many people accept them as truth without question.
-
Even if we crowd funded a bunch of journalists to fact check and correct the lies and spin being constantly put out, the avenues available to us for disseminating the facts are limited, easily overlooked and easy for power to ignore.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I think they’re more concerned about spoiling their future career chances. Journalism depends on relationships, and its difficult to do if Ministers refuse to talk to you. And if they’re planning to switch to being a Ministerial press secretary one day, its even more important not to offend their potential future bosses.
Which is probably a symptom of PR pay rates outstripping journo pay rates in recent years.
-
izogi, in reply to
To say the alternative is worse is not a fact. To repeat that mantra is playing into the hands of the liars and cheats.
Is NZ shifting towards a Fox News style of journalism? I don't follow Fox (so correct me!), but what I've heard of it is that the news is often straight-out facts but it then gets clouded with highly partisan comment that often masquerades as news.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Is NZ shifting towards a Fox News style of journalism? I don’t follow Fox (so correct me!), but what I’ve heard of it is that the news is often straight-out facts but it then gets clouded with highly partisan comment that often masquerades as news.
Probably not quite as bad as Fox – that honour goes to a certain blogger we all know too well. I’d say more the Spectator or Daily Telegraph.
All the same, the current state of the media calls for a Royal Commission.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
the Spectator or Daily Telegraph
But those are honestly partisan publications operating in a competitive market.
You want old Tory views, you buy the Spec/Torygraph. You want soft liberal views, you buy the Guardian.
NZ media operates in a semi-monopoly and makes a pretence of being non-partisan.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
NZ media operates in a semi-monopoly and makes a pretence of being non-partisan.
In which case, should it be an issue for the Commerce Commission, instead of the Press Council?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.