Hard News: The Disingenuous Press
366 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
Re: chants while marching
There are lots of reasons for chanting while marching, sure you have a message you want to get across - yelling "Amandla!" in '81 didn't mean much to most NZers at the time, but to South Africans with their brand new television system it meant a lot if it made it across. "2 4 6 8, we don't want your racist state" actually did mean a lot to Maori at the time and let a 1000 flowers bloom.
But there are other reasons I've seen for chanting, coming into the Exchange in Dunedin the echoes from the buildings were so great that people just started chanting louder to hear their voices come back, in a pro-choice demonstration in San Francisco we broke into a spontaneous "we're here, we're queer, we're not going shopping" (followed by a host of giggles) just to freak out the tourists at the base of the cable cars and to get their attention, and when defending clinics across the bay from there our chants helped us keep ourselves together as we had the crap beaten out of us by by the opposition.
-
And, Roughan, if you want to talk about "lack of quality control" in our Parliament, the only MP convicted (and imprisoned) on charges of corruption was... "individually assessed by a broad spectrum of the population" of the Otara and Mangere electorates. Five times.
Donna Awatere wore lovely clothes. So well, presented. Fancy pants Graham Capill nearly arrived in his fine suit and lovely hair do. Still wont let him out, but well presented.
After reading that J Rough man yesterday, I moved on to better things that did not make me angry, but now it's been mentioned, would like to say. What a jerk. -
I thought chanting raised seratonin or endorphins in the brain thus "feel good" is the outcome, which is of benefit to our body and therefore of benefit to others. OTOH I could be completely wrong.
-
Tonight, Paul Henry hosts 50 Year of TV News.
TVNZ up to its old tricks again putting it on at the exact time as the far superior Prime series.
Yes quite right Sofie.
-
@tim kong
Correct me if I'm wrong but the student led conferences that DHC took offense at are nothing to do with National Standards ?
They appear to have been widely adopted after the Assess to Learn (Atol) Professional Development Programme for teachers ?
-
@Glenn
You're correct - the setting for DHC's article is a student led conference, otherwise known as a parent-teacher conference. The schools I've taught at have had them pre-National Standards - but as part of the National Standards all schools are required to report to parents twice a year in plain English.
I've no idea whether the school DHC's daughter attends has now started these conferences in response to the requirements of the National Standards or not.
I've not done the Atol PD programme, and have only been teaching 6 years, so am not sure of the origins of the 'student-led conference' as a formal process. But all of my mid-year conferences that I've been part of have included the students voice in some form or other. My philosophy has been, that we're celebrating/reflecting on their learning - so it makes sense to have them stating what they can do/enjoy/struggle with - before rolling on to my opinions and their parents thoughts.
To be fair to DHC - I've no knowledge of the school her child attends - nor I am defending what could quite conceivably be rather obscure reporting methods by that school - nor I am defending what could be a grumpy and unhelpful teacher.
But her shotgun of an article, and her position as an opinion writer in a national paper, allow her to blast rather erratically at the entire teaching profession - with simply a rant of obscure proportions and some sense of middle-NZ-suburban angst and right-wing lite righteousness.
In that sense, her article is neither about National Standards or about student led conferences, nor about addressing the merits, and pros or cons of those features of education - but rather just a disingenuous attempt to sell some papers by slamming on teachers.
That's what I was responding to - but I swung into a blast of my own on National Standards... so I apologise for that.
I'll expect DHC to be slamming on Asian drivers or the follys of Facebook or whatever hot-topic stereotype next crosses her path. And fair play - that's what the Herald pays her to pontificate on.
EDIT: With apologies - it seems DHC has already written about Facebook.
-
After reading that J Rough man yesterday, I moved on to better things that did not make me angry, but now it's been mentioned, would like to say. What a jerk.
Where's Jay Pryor when you need him?
-
Don't pick on primary school teachers, the ones I meet are pretty cool people who generally don't seem that political and get exhausted by the long hours of the daily demands of our most beautiful citizens.
If you want to scream at education standards , scream at the slowing down of of an education system that is producing (and has the potential to produce even more) incredible maths confidence, general communication skills , basic writing skills at a very young age and artistic confidence using methods that kids are crazy for.......and with frequent vists to sand.
Early Childhood Education.
-
Put lex gray on a dollar bill now.
-
For all that I think Puttnam should go back to movies these comments in the guardian sound rather familiar.
-
The Herald's Paul Thomas beseeches media to remember innocence until proof, citing recent allegations against Al Gore and briefly worrying about Robin Brook - but curiously fails to turn his analysis on more significant reporting closer to home by his own colleagues.
And if journalists are aware that mud sticks and a single accusation can besmirch a reputation built up over decades, shouldn't they feel a responsibility to go at least some way towards establishing the truth, instead of simply ushering untested allegations into the public arena accompanied by pompous commentary which lends them a sheen of authenticity?
Finally, isn't the fourth estate supposed to have a commitment to the truth? Isn't that why we set such store on freedom of the press?
-
isn't the fourth estate supposed to have a commitment to the truth?
I shouldn't watch Close Up, should I? But I did and saw the lamentable "live reading" carried out by Kevin Cruikshank last night. He was "talking to" Samantha Henderson in order to reassure her grieving mother and step-father. At one stage he heard her singing happy birthday and wondered disingenuously whether someone had a birthday. (It was her mother's birthday.) Cruikshank also indicated to the parents that the shooting deemed accidental by the court was actually "with intent"
I thought the parents conducted themselves with some dignity but that it was an horrific piece of television. With a straight face, Sainsbury asked for feedback from viewers: "Do you believe?"
He later read out four responses: two affirming the psychic reading and two critical.
He told us twice that we could read more about the case in next week's New Idea.
I don't know what to think about Close Up's pursuit of Robin Brooke but I know exactly what I think of this latest outrage.
-
Cecelia - I havent watched 'Close Up' for a long while (occaisionally I catch glimpses at places that have a tv going *all* the time.) But - any credibility it had - or '60 Minutes' had - has long vanished: they are snide commercial entities only intent on making $$$.
As is Kevin Cruikshank.
-
Yes. I think I watch One out of habit and because my husband watches One news and because I'm lazy. That'll learn me.
-
This lively rant by Matt Taibbi gets to the heart of something anyone in the media can recognise. You can- and most newsmedia people probably at some point will- get too close to the people you're covering.
Not everyone turns into a nightly unpaid pr hack. It might just be a gushy phrase, a little bit embarrassing looking back. Or two clips of X say, who speaks so winningly, and just one of dull Y. Or simply a decision to cover story x, because you know X's ex, and not story Y, because- well, why, when it will make X and his ex so excised?
Who in the media hasn't at some time felt a frisson of excitement, a thrill, to even be close to- let alone chatting with- President Z or Mayor Y or Industrialist K, reputed to be worth more than the South Island?
Powerful people are often charming, and often ruthless with that charm. Journalists are people too, and mostly they like being liked.
Besides, there's the endless lure of being on the inside, perhaps picking up a tip, maybe being the one Rock Legend F chooses from his cellphone list when he wants to come out as a bibliophile or smear the former bass-player.
It happens a lot. The relationships between reporters and reported affects journalism. It can be complicated or simple; pure-hearted or venal; and a million shades between.
At any rate, it's best acknowledged.
The clip he's responding to (and a little background). (Here's Hasting's Rolling Stone piece on McChrystal that got the general sacked. For anyone who has an hour free, and hasn't seen it, it's interesting.:) -
It's pouring outside so have just read it all. Very interesting - the Rolling Stone article was an excellent read. Thank you Rob.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.