Archive

Posts Tagged ‘TVNZ’

Worse than “fake news” – sloppy news!

31 March 2018 2 comments

.

.

What’s worse than “fake news”? Sloppy news.

Sloppy as in: where a supposedly reputable mainstream media outlet presents a news story, but with a glaring error.  Case in point, TVNZ’s story on 25 March, reporting that “$1.7 million of taxpater’s money had been spent last year on airfares and escorts to deport overstayers – more than in any of the last five years“;

.

.

The figures  presented were accurate enough.

The presentation, though, was misleading, with the intro statement reading;

The Government is spending a startling amount of money to get rid of overstayers in New Zealand, but few people are being deported and very little of that money is being recovered.

The most recent figure of $1.7 million related to 2017. (See image above).

The money had been spent by the previous, National government – not by the current Labour-NZ First-Green Coalition. By referring to “the government”,  TVNZ’s story suggested that responsibility for this spending lies with the current Coalition.

Silly slip-ups of this nature present an unfair critical picture of the newly elected Coalition government and let’s the National Party off the hook when it comes to owning their chronic mismanagement and waste of taxpayer’s money.

It may seem trivial to some, but it is inaccurate and misleading. It is sloppy news.

Not many people would have picked up on that error. The public may likely assume that the news reader’s reference to “the government” refers to the current Coalition.

The Coalition will have enough problems cleaning up nine years of National’s toxic legacies  without the msm trying to point responsibility to Labour, NZ First, and the Greens. (They’ll have their own stuff-ups to own up to in the future.)

Not good enough, TVNZ.

.

.

.

References

TVNZ:   More than 10,000 overstayers in NZ and Immigration not actively looking for most of them

Previous related blogposts

How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study

When the mainstream media go feral

The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 26 March 2018.

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

Only four years too late – TVNZ-Colmar Brunton catch up with The Daily Blog

15 December 2017 1 comment

.

.

Four years ago, this blogger pointed out that then-existing polling methodologies – relying solely on landline respondents – was flawed. The 2013 Census had revealed a significant ‘chunk’ of the population had surrendered access to landlines, in favour of cellphone/smartphone usage.

In March 2013, this blogger pointed out that the 2013 Census contained this question;

.

Part of the problem are anecdotal  stories that many low income families, students, transients, etc, no longer rely on landlines and use only cellphones. Polling companies do not call cellphones – only landlines. (A low-income family living not far from us fits this demographic group perfectly; no landline; cellphones only. The sole-parent head of the household votes Labour.)

This year’s census has an interesting question; Question 17,

.

2013 survey - qu 17

.

The question asks the respondent to “mark as many spaces as you need to show which of these are available here in this dwelling”.

.

Out of all polling companies,  only Roy Morgan recognised changing usage of modern technology by actively calling  cellphones to reach respondants.

As if to underscore this new reality, in September 2013, even this blogger was contacted by Roy Morgan. Questions ranged from legalisation of cannabis; political party support; travelling; radio station preference; social issues; etc.

Clearly Stats NZ wanted to determine the extent to which cellphone penetration of households had supplanted landlines.

In December 2013, Statistics NZ released the data gleaned from Question 17 (see above). The results confirmed suspicions that political pollsters (aside from Roy Morgan) was not reaching a sizeable number of New Zealanders, and polling numbers were being skewed;

.

Yesterday (3 December 2013), Statistics NZ released the result of that question. The impact on political polling firms and their methodologies will no doubt be considerable;

.

Three-quarters of households now have Internet access

  • Internet access at home continued to rise, at 76.8 percent in 2013, compared with 60.5 percent in 2006 and 37.4 percent in 2001.
  • Cellphone access also increased, with 83.7 percent of households in 2013 having access to a cellphone at home, compared with 74.2 percent in 2006.
  • Access to a landline telephone decreased. In 2013, 85.5 percent of households had access to a landline telephone at home, down from 91.6 percent in 2006.
  • Fax access decreased. In 2013, 14.6 percent of households had access to a fax, down from 26.0 percent in 2006.
  • A small percentage of households (1.6 percent or 24,135 households) did not have access to any telecommunication systems at home. That is, they did not have a landline telephone, cellphone, Internet access, or a fax.

.

As I pointed out in that same blogpost;

Note that only “85.5% of households had access to a landline telephone at home, down from 91.6% in 2006”.

This means that 14.5% of households did not have access to a landline.

Almost precisely four years later, TVNZ had caught up.  On 8 December, TVNZ’s political editor, Corin Dann wrote;

“ It was a shock 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton Poll back in July showing Labour on just 24 per cent that prompted Mr Little to make an on-camera admission to me that he had considered resigning.

[…]

For me personally as Political Editor, the Andrew Little poll story is a very important reminder of the responsibility the media has, along with our polling companies, in presenting accurate polls and ensuring the methods we use are as good as they can possibly be.

As Andrew Little well knows, polls really matter.”

Dann went on to announce;

“ So it’s with that sense of responsibility – as well as a look to the future – that 1 NEWS and Colmar Brunton have now decided it is time to change our polling methodology.

In future we will no longer just poll telephone landlines. It will be a 50/50 split of mobiles and landlines.”

In explanation, he added;

“… during the course of the past year we at 1 NEWS, along with Colmar Brunton, felt it was right to start exploring whether adding mobile phones was prudent, given the rapid changes we are seeing in communication habits.

The fact is, landlines are no longer used by as many people. The best information we have on this is Census data from 2013 which confirms only 86 percent of households had a landline compared to 92 percent in 2006.”

Only four years late.

Perhaps this story illustrates that blogs – whilst not funded or otherwise resourced as richly as mainstream media – can be far more “nimble on their feet” when it comes to picking up, analysing, and commenting on developing trends.

For the second time, a blogger has red-flagged an issue that was belatedly picked up by the msm;

.

The mainstream media – or at least one clever journalist working for Mediaworks/Newshub – has finally caught up with a story broken by this blogger last year that unemployment data from Statistics NZ was no longer reliable;

.

.

It pays to keep an eye on blogs such as The Standard, No Right Turn, The Daily Blog, et al. The old saying holds true;

You heard it hear first, folks!

.

.

.

References

Stats NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights –  Phone and Internet access

TVNZ:  Mobiles to be included in 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll for the first time in bid to reach more young voters

Mediaworks/Newshub:  Unemployment – Bad news NZ, it’s much worse than you think

Additional

The Spinoff:   The first big poll for ages is due. What would be a good result for Labour?

Mediaworks:  Patrick Gower – Newshub’s poll is vital and correct

Previous related blogposts

Mr Morgan phoned (2013)

Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (2013)

Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua) (2013)

MSM catches up on Unemployment stats rort

Roy Morgan poll confirms blogger’s prediction – National is in freefall

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 December 2017.

.

.

= fs =

Producer of ‘The Nation’ hits back at “interference” allegations over ‘Campbell Live’

25 April 2015 4 comments

.

campbell live header

.

Current affairs programme producer, Tim Watkin, has vigorously denied any outside interference in his weekend show,  ‘The Nation‘ .

In an email, to this blogger, dated 18 April, Tim asserted his editorial independence,

“Let me reassure you, most importantly, that not a single ounce of pressure was brought to bear on me or anyone in my team. It was our decision alone (and some felt strongly it would be a waste of our time)…

[…]

What was most frustrating about your blog was the utterly unfounded assertion that we would give in to pressure from management to not cover that, or any, story. “

On 9 April, news broke on the announcement that the last remaining  investigative/advocacy, current affairs show on free-to-air TV, Campbell Live‘, was facing a “review”. In commercial media parlance, “review” is often  a euphemism for staff to prepare to pack their bags and vacate their desks by lunch-time.

Strangely, announcing an impending “review” is hardly ever a precursor to a 20% salary increase for staff; more allocation of resources for the producers; and a more favourable time-slot for the show.

On 14 April, this blogger reported in The Daily Blog that neither TVNZ’s ‘Q+A’ nor TV3’s ‘The Nation’ that weekend (Saturday/Sunday, 11/12 April) had mentioned this story which had featured in every other main-stream media;

As well as the msm, most of the top blogs in the country covered the story, one way or another (see: Other blogs)

So I was looking forward to see some serious analysis on ‘The Nation‘ and/or ‘Q+A‘, on this issue.

Incredibly, and alarmingly, none was forthcoming, except for a brief throw-away-line by comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego, during their sixty-second satirical-slot on ‘The Nation‘ (though without any actual direct reference to John Campbell), to “being replaced by Jono Pryor and Ben Boyce“.

TV1’s ‘Q+A‘ was also strangely silent on an issue that had been a nationwide talking point.

Instead, on Saturday’s ‘The Nation‘, we had stories on;

  • Legal highs, with interviews with Peter Dunne and Matt Bowden
  • the booming Auckland Property market, with interviews with Mayor Len Brown; Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse; Kate Healy from Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Ltd, and property developer David Whitburn

Sunday’s ‘Q+A‘ on TV1  gave us;

  • an interview with HSBC economist, Paul Bloxham, who coined the phrase “rock star economy”
  • urban-designer, Charles Montgomery, on how to improve our cities

Considering that ‘Campbell Live‘ is one of the last serious current affairs programme remaining on free-to-air television, one would have thought that this was worthy of scrutiny by either ‘Q+A’ or ‘The Nation‘.

Understandably, perhaps, TV3’s executives Julie Christie and Group Chief Executive Officer Mark Weldon – who have allegedly expressed a dislike for  ‘Campbell Live‘ – may have dissuaded ‘The Nation‘ from enquiring further into the matter.

On the weekend of 18/19 April, TV3’s ‘The Nation’s‘ stories focused on;

On 19 April, TV1’s ‘Q+A focused on;

  • water ownership rights & Iwi claims
  • an interview with Lt Gen Tim Keating, on our troop deployment to Iraq
  • historian, Dr Vincent O’Malley, on our own land wars

Again, it was left to the satirical componant of ‘The Nation‘ (on Saturday 18 April) to refer obliquely to the issue, when ‘Animation Nation‘ poked fun at “the entertainment value of Campbell Live“. (More on the repeat broadcast of ‘The Nation‘ on Sunday 19 April, below.)

On 18 April, I asked Tim Watkin why there was no mention during the body of the programme regarding ‘Campbell Live‘. Considering the national interest involved in this story, I found it strange that ‘The Nation‘ has not looked into the issue. Could he shed any light on whether or not  the issue had been discussed by ‘The Nation’s‘ Producers, for possible inclusion?

Tim’s reply;

“Journalism struggling is not new  and, to be honest, many journalists shy away from such stories because it looks self-indulgent and the public appetite for us navel gazing (and the political appetite for public service broadcasting, for that matter) is not high in my view. Programmes like The Nation and Q+A have no history of reporting media stories, beyond coverage of Dirty Politics etc (which we did extensively), so why start now? We didn’t cover the end of Close Up. Or the rise of Paul Henry. Or Tim Murphy’s resignation… I could go on. There are lots of media stories that matter, but it’s not our core business.”

Tim did admit though;

“Having said that I accept this is bigger than most, which is why we made sure we did discuss it both weeks, on our Sunday panel…”

Tim’s reference to “Sunday panel” repeats an earlier statement in his 14 April email where he asserts “you must have missed the fact that we talked about Campbell Live in our extra Sunday panel“.

The Sunday edition of ‘The Nation‘ is a few minutes longer because of a lack of commercial advertisements on Sunday mornings. Hence, more of the panel discussion is broadcast on Sunday than it’s original airing on the previous day, Saturday morning.

So if the viewer watches the Saturday morning broadcast, but not the Sunday morning, extended version, she/he will miss a few extra minutes of chit-chat.

Hence Tim Watkin’s reference  to the “extended panel”.

The question for the reader is threefold;

(a) is a panel discussion sufficient coverage of an issue that Tim himself concedes is “bigger than most”?

(b) is a panel discussion a suitable alternative to an actual interview and story by trained journalists?

(c) how many viewers are aware that the Sunday version of ‘The Nation‘ is extended by a few minutes, because of a lack of commercial advertising, and therefore a need exists to fill in a gap that would otherwise be left, if the original Saturday version were broadcast? Unless a viewer was aware of the extended version on Sunday mornings, why would anyone watch the same show twice?

Given Point C, most viewers, having watched the early morning Saturday version of ‘The Nation‘, would miss the repeat (albeit extended) broadcast on Sunday, and any additional material therein.

This blogger will raise his hand and say he was unaware of the extended panel version, and would have been oblivious to this situation had Tim not referred to it, and a close friend (hat-tip, Freda) not alerted me to having heard the panel discussion on Sunday morning.

Tim further stated;

…Our kind of programme is not made in a few hours. Sure, we can dump everything when major news breaks, but that’s a big ask of my already over-worked team (which is currently preparing for six hours of ANZAC Day coverage on top of their day jobs). So you pick your battles. While the CLive story matters it’s hardly 9/11 or Dirty Politics. Next, you have to think about what talent you can get to talk to and what you can add to the public debate. The newspapers were all over CLive, so what new could we add? Who would talk in a studio programme that would be useful and wouldn’t look indulgent? .”

No one is suggesting that the ‘Campbell Live‘ story is “ 9/11 or Dirty Politics“, and we can dismiss that strawman/woman reference right here and now.

However, considering the very nature of ‘Campbell Live‘; it’s reputation for investigative journalism; it’s reputation for advocacy journalism; and John Campbell’s outstanding, impeccable reputation – this blogger believes that it does matter. It matters very much.

Referring to coverage of any story on ‘Campbell Live‘ as “self indulgent” seems an exceedingly weak excuse to ignore it.

Tim’s question as to who “you can get to talk to and what you can add to the public debate. The newspapers were all over CLive, so what new could we add? Who would talk in a studio programme that would be useful and wouldn’t look indulgent” is a question for a current affairs producer to answer. S/he is paid to come up with such names.

But off the top of my head, I can think of  Kim Hill, Brian Edwards, Bill Ralston, Andrea Vance, Fran O’Sullivan, to name a few. Or ex tv company executives. Perhaps even staff willing to talk, off the record, under a guarantee of anonymity.

Critiquing and scrutinising media events that impact on our country and the way investigative journalism is carried out is hardly “indulgent”. For one thing, it addresses the ages-old question; Who Watches The Watchmen?

On the issue of  “Who Watches the Watchmen”, I asked Tim; in your experience, do media outlets (eg; TV3) ever investigate themselves when they are the focus of public attention?

Tim responded;

Yes, many do investigate themselves. Look at the BBC on Clarkson. Indeed our host Lisa Owen, when at TVNZ, was often used to stories on TVNZ.

So, it’s not “indulgent” when Lisa Owen did stories on TVNZ?

Tim added;

“It’s always delicate reporting on yourself, but it’s important to be able to do (arguably more so at TVNZ than at TV3 because there is public money involved there while Mediaworks is just a private business).”

Mediaworks is just a private business“?

I leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions to that one single sentence. To this blogger, it raise more questions than it answers – especially when Tim described how “it’s always delicate reporting on yourself”.

Indeed.

I then referred Tim to a recent story  by Matt Nippert in the ‘NZ Herald‘ on 18 April; “Campbell’s sponsor cut months ago“. I asked if he thought Nippert’s claims warranted further investigation on ‘The Nation‘, and if not, why not?

Tim was categorical;

“No. By this time next week, I’m sure that angle will have been fully investigated and played out one way or another. It also might be useful to consider the differences between the strengths and weaknesses of print vs studio-based TV programmes. That’s a great print story, but how would you cover it on TV now that it’s broken? It’s a newsworthy reported fact, but doesn’t suggest a compelling 10 minute interview or 10 minute track, which is what we do.”

I am intrigued that Tim asks, “but how would you cover it on TV now that it’s broken?

If a blogger – untrained in media or journalism – has to advise a TV producer “how to cover it on TV now that it’s broken“, then one of us is in the wrong job. I would assume, just for arguments sake, that Nippert’s story would be covered in the same way that Nicky Hager’s story on ‘Dirty Politics‘ was covered.

To determine whether Nippert’s story is “compelling” or not, I refer the reader to the full article;

.

campbell live - Campbell's sponsor cut months ago - nz herald - matt nippert - john campbell - TV3 - mediaworks

 .

On one point in  Nippert’s story, I will add my own observation. Reference Bill Ralson’s comment;

Bill Ralston, a former TVNZ head of current affairs, said the short-term deal was highly unusual and only made sense if a decision about the future of the show had already been made…

[…]

Mr Ralston said longer-term sponsorships made more financial sense for broadcasters.

“If you’re a cash-strapped TV channel like they are, you’d want that cash booked in for at least a year.”

In the 1990s, this blogger worked for a community newspaper, in the advertising department. When seeking clients to advertise, we were told to encourage clients to book advertisements for long periods – the longer the better. It meant guaranteed income for the paper.

Given a choice between a three month contract and a year-long contract, any advertising rep would have pushed for the latter. No advertising manager in his/her right mind would willingly give a client only a three month contract when a twelve month version was available.

Otherwise, you would be throwing potential revenue away.

This point alone warrants a full investigation by any current affairs team worthy of the name. It raises questions. I suggest to Tim  Watkin that might be a valid starting point; why was a cash-strapped TV channel that has just come out of liquidation turning down year-long sponsorship contract

On 14 April, Tim strenuously also rejected any executive interference in his show, and  expressed umbrage at impugning the integrity of his team;

“…you suggest that we “may” have been “dissuaded” from covering the story by Weldon or Christie. Clearly given my first point, that’s wrong. But what has prompted me to drop you this personal note is that it also impugns the integrity of my team without any supporting evidence. Let me assure you that it is entirely incorrect.

[…]

That I’m always happy to debate, but I get very protective when people make stuff up, make lazy assumptions or get personal, especially if it reflects on the integrity of my hard-working team of journalists, who more than most have put their skin in the game and chosen to work on a NZOA funded programme trying to make the type of television that is thorough and thoughtful and holds power to account without fear or favour.”

Two points require addressing here.

1.  The point made in my previous blogpost (The Curious World of the Main Stream Media) stated;

“Understandably, perhaps, TV3’s executives Julie Christie and Group Chief Executive Officer Mark Weldon – who have allegedly expressed a dislike for  ‘Campbell Live‘ – may have dissuaded ‘The Nation‘ from enquiring further into the matter.

Note the two words I have highlighted; “allegedly” and “may“.

I have no evidence except other media reports which have carried this suggestion. (Hopefully Tim will be contacting them, seeking a “correction”?) Indeed, I purposely left out a damning allegation which had first been reported on social media (and since published on another website)  simply because I could find no corroborating evidence to support it.

However, let me make this point. Tim refers to Nicki Hager’s investigative book, ‘Dirty Politics‘.

When ‘Dirty Politics‘ was released and the contents of National’s dealings with a far-right blogger became public knowledge, several individuals, from the Prime Minister up, were quick to shrug and respond;

So what? We all knew this was happening. There’s nothing new here.

I make no claim what influence – if any – Mediawork’s executives Julie Christie and  Mark Weldon made to keep the ‘Campbell Live‘ issue out of their current affairs programmes.

We simply don’t know for certain. There have been unsubstantiated claims, but no evidence.

But – if evidence does surface that pressure has been exerted from MediaWork’s lofty towers, or further afield, from a certain Ninth Floor, will we be hearing the same cynics dismissively protesting;

So what? We all knew this was happening. There’s nothing new here.

2. This blogger rejects any suggestion that Tim’s Team has been insulted or in any way had their integrity impugned.

If legitimate questions cannot be asked of politicians by the media; and of the media by the public – then someone is holding themselves above any form of accountability.

For the record, this blogger does not question the hard work or integrity of the workers involved in ‘Q+A‘ and ‘The Nation‘. Nothing I have written comes close to suggesting otherwise, regardless of Tim’s long bow which seems to stretch from Bluff to Kaitaia.

Also for the record,  despite not questioning the dedication and integrity of workers involved in both shows; my question remains; why was the ‘Campbell Live‘ issue not considered worthy of scrutiny by either/both ‘Q+A‘ and ‘The Nation‘?  Tim himself concedes that this is an extraordinary, on-going story.

When the fate of television’s last, prime-time investigative tv show is under threat – then we, the public, deserve to at least ask why?

Are we still permitted to ask questions? Especially when the msm won’t ask on our behalf?

.

.

.

Addendum1

I invite producers of ‘Q+A‘ to answer the same questions I have levelled at Tim Watkin.  To date, I have had no response to queries sent via Twitter to the show’s producer.

Addendum2

Meanwhile, news for ‘Campbell Live‘ just gets better and better;

.

campbell live - twitter - ratings - 17 april 2015

.

As I tweeted back, “I guess with those figures, Mediaworks will be canning Jono & Ben and 3 News?”

Addendum3

The near-full version of emails between myself and ‘Nation‘ producer, Tim Watkin, is available for viewing here.

.


 

References

NZ Herald: Campbell Live to be axed? TV bosses place show under review

Frankly Speaking: Campbell still Live, not gone

TVNZ: Q+A (19 April 2015)

TV3: Animation Nation

NZ Herald: Campbell’s sponsor cut months ago

Mana Party:  Key – I want that left wing bastard gone

Twitter: Campbell Live

Previous related blogposts

The Curious World of the Main Stream Media

Other bloggers


 

.

campbell live - cartoon - bromhead

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 April 2015.

.

.

= fs =

My political compass…

23 August 2014 6 comments

.

20-september

.

TVNZ are doing a very interesting on-line political survey, where respondents are asked to give feedback to various political issues. It’s a New Zealand version of an overseas political compass that has been in existence for soime years.

I enourage people to go online and complete the survey. I’m sure a lot of politicians will be taking some interest in the outcomes.

I present my own compass here;

.

How much you agree with the parties

.

I agree only 90% with boththe Greens and Mana?! Hmmm, methinks I’ll have to check my middle class privilege…

But even more disturbingly, I agreed 23% with ACT?!?! And 37% with the Conservative Party?! What the heck is up with that?! I’m not going to be able to sleep well tonight…

Interestingly, this highlights a very real dilemma for me; who to give my Party Vote to?

Both the Greens and Internet-Mana are worthy parties to support. This is a real “sophie’s Choice” for me…

.

How you fit in the political landscape

.

Well, the above chart shows me clearly to the left on economic and socially progressive issues. Thank goodness. (In my teens and early 20s I would’ve been closer to National or ACT. But then, I was young and stupid.)

.

How you rate the party leaders

.

I think I was overly generous for Winston Peters…

I voted ‘1’ for Colin Craig based on,

  • his opposition to state asset sales,
  • his opposition to selling farmland to overseas investors,
  • his regular  contributions to the legal fraternity,
  • entertainment value.

One of the questions asked was what was the most pressing issue for me this election? I put child poverty. All else flows from that.

I encourage folk to take the Political Compass survey. (Just be careful before answering the questions as some are double-negatives.)

Have fun!

.


 

References

TVNZ: Vote Compass

 


 

.

john key is scared of your vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

State propaganda on TVNZ – pssst, just don’t mention the war! Er, Election!

16 August 2014 2 comments

.

toilets-watching-bare-ass-on-tv

.

TVNZ’s Breakfast on 12 August, went from it’s scurrilous mis-reporting of the effigy burning, to sheer, naked propaganda. This time, Key put on a performance as a typical all-blokey cook-in-the-kitchen.

The programme host, Jeanette Thomas, opened with this statement – in-between eye-lash fluttering and schoolgirl giggling;

“We’re cooking with the Prime Minister, John Key. And this is alllll about getting to know yooou, and all the stuff that you do kinda behind the scenes, ’cause we’re not allowed to talk politics today…*giggle, giggle*”

 

.

TVNZ - Breakfast - cooking

.

Yeah, yeah, giggle, giggle, flirt…

However, one sharp-eyed viewer made this comment on his facebook page soon after the show was over;

.

TVNZ - Breakfast - cooking- facebook - hugh fletcher

.

Not quite the ordinary, blokey “man-of-the-people” after all, eh?

Question is, will TVNZ’s ‘apolitical’ Breakfast show allow equal time to Labour leader David Cunliffe? And will it be hosted by ‘impartial’ host, Rawdon Christie…?

Which brings us back to this slightly-more-serious-matter…

11 August – TVNZ Breakfast Show:

Note the  Breakfast host’s chatty “interview” between Rawdon Christie and Dear Leader John Key. Rawdon is all smiles and let’s Key speak without interuption;

.

TVNZ - Breakfast - kim dotcom - video - effigy - john key - burning - 2014 elections

.

12 August – TVNZ Breakfast Show:

The following day, TVNZ allowed Internet Party, Laila Harré, to respond. Note the combative/defensive stance  by host, Rawdon Christie;

.

TVNZ - Breakfast - laila harre

.

Laila’s “right of reply” included at least thirteen interruptions as Christie spoke over his guest within a five minute period.

It was left to the State broadcaster’s competitor, TV3, to publish a ‘retraction’ by John Key,

.

John Key admits effigy video not linked to Internet Mana

.

No apology from  Key, of course. Dear Leader does not ‘do’ apologies – unless it is “serious”.

It appears that media can broadcast or publish any old garbage with minimal recourse. Even when the target of a deliberate smear is given an opportunity to correct misinformation, the broadcaster’s representative will fight tooth and nail to justify their own misconduct.

We’ve seen it with the NZ Herald and the Donghua Liu Affair.

Interesting though that when Rawdon Christie first interviewed Key on this issue, on 11 August, he said,

“Another stunt, which may cause you slightly more concern, and that is on Cameron Slater’s WhaleOil site, recently…”

It should come as no surprise that Key and Christie were more than willing to take the blogger’s story at face value;

.

PM hints tip-off came from Cameron Slater

.

As Claire Trevett wrote in February this year,

[Key]...would not confirm it was Mr Slater, but said he did speak to Mr Slater “every so often,” and had called him earlier this week during which they briefly discussed Kim Dotcom. He said that did not mean he agreed with everything Mr Slater wrote on his blog. “I speak to lots of blogsters [sic].”

Such is the unholy relationship between the National Party and far-right, sleaze merchant, Cameron Slater – along with media connivance for an “easy story”.

Though this time I suspect Key and TVNZ may have ended up with some egg on their faces.

Anyone for some fried eggs’n’effigies?

.


 

References

TVNZ: Good Morning –  John Key in the kitchen

TV3: John Key admits effigy video not linked to Internet Mana

Facebook: Hugh Fletcher‎ – Good Morning

TVNZ: Internet-Mana denies involvement in PM burning effigy video

Fairfax media: Internet Mana anger over Key effigy claims

TVNZ: Good Morning – Laila Harre attacks PM for effigy video ‘slur’

NZ Herald: PM hints tip-off came from Cameron Slater

Previous related blogposts

The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media

The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?

The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign

The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council

The Donghua Liu Affair: responses from NZ Herald and Prime Minister’s Office – Is the PM’s office fudging?

The Mendacities of Mr Key #6: When apologising to a victim of violence is not considered “serious”

Other blogs

The Daily Blog: Just spoke to Electoral Commission – there’s been a complaint re the Planet Key satire song, they will declare if it’s banned this afternoon

 

 


 

.

john key is scared of your vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 August 2014

.

.

= fs =

Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!

.

Labour claims Hosking's biased

.

I checked the calendar, and it’s not April 1st.

An April Fool’s joke is the first reaction I had when I heard  that someone at  TVNZ had appointed Mike Hosking to be the moderator  for live, televised election-year debates.

I mean – really? Mike Hosking?!?!

The same Mike Hosking who endorsed John Key’s government in January 2013;

.

Media - Hosking plugs car and Key - NZ Herald - Mike Hosking - John Key

(Hat-tip, The Standard)

.

Hosking was effusive when he endorsed Key last year;

“As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.

We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them in Government.”

The same Mike Hosking who recently vilified Labour Leader, David Cunliffe?!

“Is David Cunliffe incompetent or mad? Is he out to lunch or out of touch? Is David Cunliffe deluded or living in a parallel universe?

What possible explanation can there be that has any level of sense or thought involved that sees him on holiday skiing two months out from an election when he is where he is in the polls. A decision like this speaks to a person who fails to understand the basic principles of leadership.”

The same Mike Hosking who called David Cunliffe a moron?!

If Mike Hosking is the answer – can TVNZ please spell out what the question was?!

Meanwhile, ordinary New Zealanders are leaving comments here, highly critical of TVNZ’s appointment of Hosking as a “moderator”.

However, Fairfax closed off their comments section after this story, with the majority of posts scathing of TVNZ.

The majority  readers of the Fairfax article seem to be unimpressed with Mike Hosking in their (unscientific) poll;

.

Can Mike Hosking host the leader's debate - fairfax poll

(Vote here)

.

It is abundantly clear to many people by now that the mainstream media in this country, for the most part, is covertly or overtly supporting the re-election of a John Key-led government. The ongoing de-stabilising campaign against David Cunliffe, complete with non-existent $100,000 bottles of wine and criticising his red scarf, are strong indications of the  mainstream corporate-media’s agenda.

If you, the reader, are as bemused by TVNZ’s bizarre decision to use Hosking as a faux “impartial” moderator, then sign the petition here;

.

Petitioning TVNZ to drop Mike Hosking from moderating TV debates

(click on image)

Please do your bit: share the link to the above petition as far and wide as possible!

Meanwhile, this from me, to “The Listener“…

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

from:      Frank Macskasy
to:           Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date:      Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:51 PM
subject: Letter to the editor

 .

The editor
The Listener

.
Of all the professional broadcasters that TVNZ could have used for the upcoming Leader’s Debates, they chose Mike Hosking?!

The same Mike Hosking who, last year, very publicly and enthusiastically endorsed John Key and his government by saying,

“As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.

We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them in Government.”

By what stretch of the imagination do TVNZ executives think that Hosking is in any way impartial? It would be like asking Maggie Barry or Shane Taurima to do the job.

There are many impartial, talented, and highly respected broadcasters who TVNZ could call upon; Rachel Smalley and Greg Boyd are just two names that spring to mind.

Or, the incomparable Kim Hill, perhaps one of the most respected broadcasters in the country would be ideal. Her credentials for impartiality are impeccable.

But not Mike Hosking. Not when he flies the flag for John Key and the National Party.

We deserve better.

-Frank Macskasy

[address and phone number supplied]

Remember to share, far and wide!!

.


 

References

Fairfax Media: Labour claims Hosking’s biased

NZ Herald: Media: Hosking plugs car and Key

Newstalk ZB: Mike’s Editorial: Cunliffe looks like he’s given up

Yahoo Entertainment: Seven Sharp Returns and The Paul Henry Show Debuts

NZ Herald: Liu – $100k not just for wine

TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong

Previous related blogposts

When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays

Other blogs

Against the Current: Mike Hosking claims he isn’t biased. Yeah, right

Against the Current: Mike Hosking says Bash A Beneficiary Day!

Against the Current:  Mike Hosking asks – What is David Cunliffe hiding

MIKE HOSKING ASKS: WHAT IS DAVID CUNLIFFE HIDING?
YES, MIKE HOSKING IS A MORON
HOW MUCH OF A TOSSER IS MIKE HOSKING?

– See more at: http://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/mike-hosking-says-bash-beneficiary-day.html#sthash.4t68qxKz.dpuf

Against the Current: Yes, Mike Hosking is a moron

Against the Current: How much of a tosser is Mike Hosking?

Against the Current: Seven Sharp promotes anti-Gay politician

The Standard:Everything in moderation

Polity: Mike Hosking

The Daily Blog: Dear Seven Sharp – after learning Hosking will be the leaders debate moderator – NO I will not give you the pretence of balance & I refuse to appear on your show

The Daily Blog: UNBREAKING: The list of questions Mike Hosking will use in first TVNZ leader debate

 


 

.

david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

An interesting poll from TVNZ. Note some of the VERY left-wing questions!?

24 July 2014 5 comments

.

 

20 September

.

July 19 – Yesterday, I received this poll, sent by TVNZ to my email.

What I found very interesting were some of the question relating to issues that have not been discussed – literally – for decades. The question regarding free tertiary education is again an election issue. This is something we can attribute directly to the rise and rise of the Mana-Internet Alliance.

The questions (and answers I gave) are presented here as screen-shots. (Only the final two pages are not included, as they contained some personal responses and details. My preference for which Party I will be endorsing with my Party Vote for will be the subject of an up-coming blogpost.)

.

TVNZ on-line survey p1

 

.

TVNZ on-line survey p2

.

It is a shame that the “anti-smacking” question (above) was put without real reference to what the law actually states. If people actually knew the actual nature of the  repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, they might be more inclined to vote as I did. It is a fallacy that the repeal of Section 59 banned all smacking and is a deliberate distortion promulgated by neo-conservatives and religious right elements in our society.

.

TVNZ on-line survey p3

.

I responded somewhat “lukewarm” to the question about compulsory Kiwisaver (above). The problem of compensating low-income earners and beneficiaries should be taken into account along with implementing compulsion. Forcing the poor, who might be currently living in garages and unable to afford even the basics, to save for Kiwisaver would be an untenable proposition and a farce.

.

TVNZ on-line survey p4

.

I voted “strongly disagree” to the proposition that high income earners should not receive superannuation. We have been through this issue before and it was blindingly obvious that high income earners simply hid their money by clever accounting tricks – thereby avoiding cuts to their super.

Targetted superannuation invites the growth of a labyrinth of rules, exemptions, asset-income testing, and an associated invasive  bureaucracy. Better to have Universal Superannuation,  alongside a comprehensive progressive tax rate  that claws back super-payments by slightly higher marginal tax rates.

And the final tranche of questions;

.

TVNZ on-line survey p5

.

It is interesting to note that questions regarding tax cuts were omitted. I would have liked to have seen what New Zealander’s attitudes toward cutting taxes would have been. Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services.

Now that would really have been a barometer of our nationwide psyche!

Now we just have to await the outcome of this poll…

.


 

.

References

Wikipedia: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007

 


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 July 2014.

.

.

= fs =