Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh god. Years ago at bFM, I went out to see Goff with a tape recorder, and made the mistake of putting the result to air. It went on half my life.
Years ago Jane Clifton warned me that if was interviewing Goff, I should "take a packed lunch".
I don't think it's intentional space-filling with Goff, I think he just enjoys talking. I can empathise.
When I did the (ahem, exceptionally prescient) "will Phil Goff be the next leader of Labour" article for Metro in 2008, and Phil wasn't doing any press on the topic, I remember managing to score a precious 10 minutes on the phone in between (his) meetings. I said "how's it going?" as we began the conversation, and watched four of my ten minutes being swallowed up with a list of his activities for the past fortnight... All I'd meant was "how are ya?"
Fortunately the 10 minute interview then went on for about 20...
-
It was the idea that bare breasts on a beach were somehow more "porn" than actual porn stars that got me.
It depends on the treatment, doesn't it? I mean, if Baywatch was done entirely topless, slow-mo shots 'n' all (and don't think I haven't suggested it), it would be "bare breasts on a beach", but undeniably porn.
Is it more porn than a discussion with a clothed porn star about her breasts? Is a discussion with a porn star about anything automatically porn?
I reckon if the CL story had have stuck to shots of the woman sunbathing topless, rather than repeated, extended vision of her emerging from the water and walking up the beach, you could argue that point. I've spent more than a few years putting together stories for current affairs, I'd like to think I've got a reasonably good handle on the line between "necessary for the story" and "gratuitously for ratings". The fact they showed breasts in the promo breaks kinda emphasises my point.
-
@Jackie - Perhaps there was a legitimate story in there somewhere. Probably the sort of story that should have got covered in the Central Leader. But it was completely buried in a pile of boobs. How many times, and for how long, did they use the shot of the woman walking out of the beach, tits-a-swingin'? We get the idea... she's topless, now move on.
I hasten to add, I have no problem with breasts. If it's not terribly un-PC to say so on a lefty blog like this, I really like them. A little too much perhaps. Not breast fed as a child, me. And seemingly surrounded at the moment with breast-feeding mothers (my sister just had a second child last week, in the front seat of a Holden, but that's another story...), I understand that bared breasts are not always sexual, but unless there's a baby attached, it's game on...
-
I'd taser my minister for even contemplating the potential disaster of a live, in-studio panel. Better to agree to a pre-recorded one-on-one where you've got some control over the process.
Ahhh Craig, so innocent... </condescending tone> A live interview can go fantastically wrong, that's for sure, but it's far safer for your average minister than a pre-recorded one. In the latter the interviewer can keep going until they actually get an answer, whereas live it's a lot easier simply to waffle out the allocated five minutes. This is where the interviewers skill and need to interrupt - which then raises all those "I hate the way interrupts all the time, it's so rude." Well, if they didn't, Phil Goff for example, wouldn't come up for air for about twenty minutes...
Also, the interviewee never has any "control over the process" in a pre-recorded interview, and in that sense far less than a live interview. The interviewer and/or producer are doing all the editing, and they are almost certainly going to choose the bits that make the interviewee look flustered, unintelligent, unprepared etc, if it's that kind of story.
-
And yes, thanks :) I've had a good summer (although have been working every week doing a summer tour for Back Benches, including some great footage of babes at the beach in Tauranga, some of which gratuitously made it into the show...)
-
Me-oww!
ha, that was only half a dig :) The other half was merely saying that I'm Damian Christie on telly, on the radio, on the blog, wherever, and I often write about work and stuff, so a full declaration might not be as necessary as say, for example, an MPs private shareholdings or what not.
I just don't much like the implication (by ommision) that it's not as bad on the other side.
Um, did you miss the bit where I linked to the BSA decision against Close Up for that duck shooting story? I know the link was broken but I fixed it straight away. Also, if I may repeat myself:
All I'd say is, John, if you can't beat 'em, please don't join 'em.
-
@Philip - thanks for the link - having watched that story, I'd make two points (rather appropriate, given the topic):
1. Neither story has any journalistic merit.
2. Despite the story being all about her tits, the pornstar kept her top on the entire time.
-
(PS. D., if you're going perpetuate rumours about the demise of Cambell Live, mightn't a disclosure of interest be appropriate?) :)
Yeah fair call - I thought it kinda goes without saying, at least to the regular readers. Also I use my real name.
For the record: I used to work for Close Up, a couple of years ago. These days I'm self employed, and I contract to both TVNZ and Mediaworks (which owns TV3) on a weekly basis. Also I like John Campbell.
Anyone else here want to declare any interests while we're at it?
The Campbell Live story may have had nude titties in it, but the story was about the frequent double-standards with respect to men's and women's toplessness
Really? And TV3s extended Boobs on Bikes coverage is about one man's push to try and have the pornography industry accepted into a prudish society?
FYI, Here's Farrier's Chelsea story - it was for 3 News, not Nightline - note the "for extended and uncensored coverage, go to 3news.co.nz": http://www.3news.co.nz/Boobs-on-Bikes-parade-rolls-through-Auckland-CBD/tabid/312/articleID/122408/Default.aspx
I thought the quite telling bit in the story last night was when they pointed out it wasn't against the law for women to sunbathe naked. So the story, such as it is, is that one woman is trying to encourage more women to go topless at the beach. Awesome. Ring the Pulitzer committee.
My point - I have heard from a lot of people that Campbell Live is on seriously shaky ground, and they open the season with a story all about a topless woman. Join the dots.
-
... I think Wallace and I found Russell charming yet very small.
-
Haha Simon I actually recalled that as I was writing it, then doubted myself, good to have it confirmed! And Happy New Year, Sir.