Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Andin - no I'm not linking lowest common denominator programming to poverty, and I think it's vaguely offensive you'd even assume I'd make that link. Although as Paul's coffee mug states, poor people are stupid...
The man's a snivelling, childish turd who is unworthy of airtime.
And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them.
I don't know. Maybe I watch a different bit of Breakfast (I watch usually from 7.30 onwards, I think they dump the 'current affairs' interviews earlier than that, it's pretty much all lifestyle when I'm up.
I honestly don't see this bullying bogeyman that everyone else does. Childish? For sure, he spent a few minutes this morning laughing at how he could smell cat wee and it couldn't be Ali and it turned out to be the flowers.
But then I saw him interview this hippie-ish guy who lives in the back of beyond with his family. He's off the grid, has (or at least had) long hair and a beard, his kids do correspondence school. He has no TV.
It's the sort of interview I think you'd all expect some snide remark, some soap-dodger comment, some deliverance remark. And Paul did a really respectful and I found, intelligent interview full of admiration for the guy's decision and lifestyle.
Once again, I found the bit of Breakfast that I saw this morning very watchable. Which is why I continue. I'm not defending Paul Henry, I'm just giving my opinion on what I see vs what you see. If this is somehow not to my credit, well so be it.
-
@Cecilia - as I said before, that is exactly my point. That's the point of the post. That's the conclusion I came to.
I can't work out whether people are reiterating what I'm saying, or pointing it out like it's the bit I missed? Because it seems like the latter...
But putting that to one side, having mulled it over overnight, I still think that there is a big and important distinction between fact checking, and credential checking. I think we (as journalists, but also just in society in general) have to assume that for the most part, people are who they say they are. Because assuming the opposite is just scary. It's kafka-esque or something.
If it means that someone who really wants to fool us can, on occasion, do so, then I'm okay with that. Just like I'd rather someone can occasional freak out with a knife on a provincial flight than have ridiculous security there too. Pros vs Cons.
However that doesn't mean we should accept what people say is correct. I'd rather we spent all our time researching the facts, the arguments etc, than tracing the geneology of proposed interviewees.
And yes, one more time, I'd also rather we didn't interview people who are controversial just for their own sake.
-
1. John Clark is still on our screens, thanks to Radirah or whatever it's called, the skit show on Fridays on TV3. It reminds me it was better John Lennon died when he did.
2. I disapproved of Paul Henry re moustache-gate and agree with Russell's comments above. I was very disappointed with TVNZ's response, as I thought it crossed a major line in terms of the respect we are supposed to show for guests. I expressed my views to the powers that be. It was a classic case of hating the playa and not the game. Bad bad bad. But I watch Breakfast every morning, and Paul Henry is on for 2.5 hours every morning, and I've never seen anything approaching that since. (The Susan Boyle thing I didn't have a problem with, to be honest.) Mostly I find him amusing. But maybe that says more about me.
2b. Let's not confuse 'Breakfast' with 'News'. There is news on breakfast, sure, but there's a lot that isn't. Gadget reviews. Interior decorating tips. Chilli eating. Paul Henry's comments should probably be assumed to fit into the bit that isn't news, and be treated with all the import and reverence of the gadget review.
3. I don't think there's ever a decent defence to someone tricking their way onto air if they are of a mind to. If we start by assuming that everyone we speak to is out to trick us, and spend an inordinate amount of time checking everyone's credentials, I don't think journalism will be the winner on the day. Especially when resources are already stretched, and likely to become more so. I don't think there are lessons to learn in this example about fact/credential checking. I think there are lessons to learn about who and what is news. @ScottY - what you said (and what I'd said in the original post).
4. When it comes to the MSM, I think everyone here wants more or less the same thing, ideally. It'd be a LOT easier to achieve if people stopped responding to the lowest common denominator content that has dominated in recent years. Let's not be surprised when a commercial network behaves in a way that maximises ratings. Chicken and egg, to an extent.
-
@Robyn.
This is all good info, although to be fair you are trying to prove what you already know - that it's fake.
The .co.nz vs .org.nz for example, would alert me. There are any number of sites out there using the incorrect domain, and users who wouldn't have a clue what the difference is. So many that organisations grab the .co.nz too (go to Greenpeace.co.nz for example).
The @radiorocco is useful, although could be coincidence. My twitter name and gmail address are different, for example, it doesn't make me two different people (and yes, only marginally, but you get my point).
The website itself is probably the biggest clue, but again, if a group is just getting off the ground, as this one claims to be, is having a functioning website with a history a pre-req? Not if the lobby group is as net-illiterate as the average reporter (check out, for example, Miss Universe's website - the competition was decided on Sunday, when I checked yesterday the site still hadn't been updated - may be now of course - too lazy for factchecking (and 5 mins from the start of my tv show...)
-
I just groan a little when every thread on the media on PAS takes about three comments to turn into "what is wrong with TV news these days, everything about it is fucked and the people who work there are all strange idiots who vote weirdly."
You don't have to tell me there are flaws - I write about them, right here! Probably not the smartest career move, to be honest.
Am I very close to it all? Yes. But maybe that also gives me some insights into the whys and wherefores that people who don't or haven't mightn't be privy to. Insights that might be useful. Or not. But either I'm an exception to the strange idiots above, in which case I'd argue I'm far from the only one - there are many inside who despair - or I'm being tarred with the same brush. In which case I'm offended.
In case it escaped attention, one of the key points in my post was that media should spend less time airing the views of reactionary nutbars who have started a website. It's worth noting that again it wasn't Breakfast leading the charge on the story - there had been something in a Sunday paper about it too, so it's not a complaint limited to television.
Another point was that if one is going to air the views of such people, it's very hard to tell whether they are bona fide or not. I would argue largely impossible, at least by reasonable means.
And a third was that Jono's stunts should be funnier, at least funnier than the real right-wing nutbars they get on.
Can we have a discussion around any of these points? Please? :)
-
That's it. I am NOT close to the media.
(I'll be back in an hour or so. I have a TV show to do :)
-
So can a drunken bum at the right time, that's no unique quality.
Haha, true. But I watch a little Breakfast every day. I often feel less smart for the experience, but I just can't agree that Paul Henry is a completely unmitigated right wing nut job as seems to be the suggestion. Because I can't listen to Leighton, or Laws, because that's what they are, and it kills me, but I just don't get that constantly from Paul.
-
@Jeremy. I'm not being threatening, I'm being defensive. You've jumped on here, commented an inordinate number of times, and as I've indicated above, the purpose of a number of your comments seems little more than inflammatory.
If I've misinterpreted, then please, go ahead and explain your comments about paper rounds, a newsroom full of strange people, your one word response to my "stephanie whatshername" comment...
I think you are trying to play me and not the point. You do that sometimes.
Really? After you've accused me of being too close to Henry, being a member of a strange group of people with scary voting tendancies, having a job that is beneath a paper-round and so on? I'm the one playing you? And apparently I "do that sometimes"? Dude.
-
@Sacha
your lapsed libertarian is showing, sir
I don't know what you're saying here. My point is that saying, for example, Susan Boyle looks a bit retarded, is not the exclusive provenance of the right wing. Any objectionable fucker could come up with that.
I'm not arguing that Paul Henry isn't [right wing], but I'm saying that this isn't the best example of it. It might be a great example of many other things, but it is not related to a political theory that I know of, whether the left or the right.
-
did Stephanie Whatshername from Greenpeace (too lazy to fact check surname here...).
yeehhp
I think you're the one missing the joke here Jeremy...
I could have been a journalist but I had a paper round.
...Not to mention apparently threadbaiting. Your point?
As to the fact that I work alongside Paul Henry so can't see his slant, I don't know what to say. I literally never see Paul Henry, other than on the TV. He leaves presumably after his show. I turn up at 12. I work on a different floor, and even then only part-time, and even then part of the week in Wellington. If you're saying I'm biased because they pay me then that's a different thing, and I'd argue that too.
We know the newsroom votes and it's sometimes scary to think how but it's surely true, you're a strange bunch .
More threadbaiting, or just an awesome generalisation about hundreds of people you've never met?
I don't know what it is you do Jeremy - Google suggests you're in sales, in which case you might want a mirror before you continue slagging an entire industry.