Posts by Euan Mason
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shearer makes a slick one hour TV programme during which he discusses all sorts of things other than politics, and TV3 agrees to show it during prime time just before the next election, at no charge. TV3 thinks that having a high profile politician on TV during an election campaign will be good for its ratings, and Shearer says that this free airtime is not a donation because he didn't discuss politics. This goes unchallenged by the National Party. Yeah right.
NZ runs on personality politics, and one of the key (no pun intended) questions that will decide the next election will be whether or not Shearer can go head to head with Key on personality. There is absolutely nothing subtle about what Key did. It was electioneering, pure and simple.
-
PS We should welcome Coleman's attempt at rationality, because the ideology that you've suggested is behind this decision could well be applied to national radio, which is easily defended on a rational basis, but difficult to defend if you are attacking an ideology.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Stewart,
Stewart
"Euan,
I believe that the decision was not based on the figures, but was an ideological decision, rationalised by the dodgy figures."Yes, You and George may well be right about this, but the best way to challenge ideology cross-dressed as rationality is to refute the dodgy rationality. After all, Coleman introduced his "rational" argument, not us.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to George Darroch,
George Darroch, about an hour ago
ME: decision… based on flawed data.
GD: That’s an assumption.
From the original Herald story:
"Dr Coleman said the Government had no new money, and a channel that pulled in about 207,000 viewers a week - compared to the 600,000 people who tune in nightly to One News - was not a high priority. "
Unless the Herald has mucked up yet again, the assumption is valid.
-
Well said, Russell. The fundamental point here is that the decision to pull the plug on TVNZ7 (which in my view has vastly superior content to all other NZ TV channels on average), was based on flawed data. This alone should provoke a review of that decision. If there were other, unstated arguments or criteria behind that decision, then let's see them please.
-
Done. Thanks for all your hard work. Have a great Christmas.
Euan
-
Craig, point taken. Apologies to anyone who was offended.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to merc,
"...Labour started the selling to fund welfare.."
I agree that our western malaise is to crave government services but be unwilling to front up with taxes to pay for them, but this isn't what neoliberals are about. They sell assets out of principle; Alan Gibbs said he didn't believe that the state had ever made anything of value, despite having hundreds of millions of dollars worth of state forests to sell. It doesn't matter to them if SOEs are earning 17% for us, they simply have to be in private hands and then the world will be an acceptable place. It's mental illness, really.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
"..we know what Cunliffe thinks about [buying back state assets]"
Craig, yes, I think Cunliffe was caught out by that question, and when pressed to confirm he equivocated. I'm not necessarily promoting either candidate. However, a leader of a major party has to be an effective communicator and Shearer has some work to do on that account. ........Yeah, I know, but NZ First doesn't qualify as a "major party" :).
-
On Sunday's Q+A Cunliffe was a better communicator by far than Shearer. I may not always agree with Cunliffe, but at least I know what he thinks. Shearer waffled, went down blind syntax alleys, backtracked, changed mid-sentence, ummed, ahhed, and left viewers with very little to latch onto.