Well, I’ll be dammed like the Three Gorges, there’s something in the water.
Surely there can be no other explanation: another columnist – Paul Thomas in Saturday’s Herald – taking the flagellation device to his professional coterie. “Spare the rod, spoil the page,” I say.
Loyal readers will know that it was a lonely week ago that I brought to your attention a spate of honest spade=shovel introspection missives from a number of weekend columnists.
First we had Tracey Barnett lamenting the lack of analysis and focus on the horse race aspects of politics – winners and losers, rather than policy dissection – in the work of her colleagues.
Then, both Rosemary McLeod and Deborah Coddington had a go – totally without having read Tracey’s column (unless there’s some sort of “Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble,” clique going on, which I doubt) .
Rosemary was railing against the volume of paper and ink wasted in pursuit of sexlebrity scandals and Deborah basically told Ali Mau to get over herself and accept the flogging that comes with living in the celebrity goldfish bowl. The key is that they all want to talk about various versions of themselves and their fellow columnists.
Deborah warned that journalists are not (always) lapdogs: “We’re not a fluffy dog you can pat – we bite” OUCH.
Tracey described her fellow columnists as “myopic sheep” and Rosemary says that columnists actually ignore the issues that really matter.
Enter stage right Paul Thomas in a column that’s ostensibly about the media circus surrounding the Tiger Woods’ apology fiasco, sexlebrity drama stand-off broohaha:
Actually, journalists aren’t paid to represent the public at all; they’re paid to fill newspapers and air time, to generate a commercial product.
I love Gin Wigmore. She’s a real talent and deserves to be played at any party where Martinis are being drunk. Holy Smoke, released in September 2009, is a great debut album. Some really good tracks, a great overall feel, Gin’s interesting and strong voice and some pretty fine lyrics.
Gin’s backing band The Cardinals, used to work with Bryan Ryan Adams [tx Mark] and they provide a great beat and smooth melodies with some musical magic thrown in. For me the standout tracks are’ One More Look’ and ‘Dying Day’. Her work with Smashproof on their award-winning single ‘Brother’ caught my ear last year too and Holy Smoke shows that she is an artist with a future – great maturity and insight for someone under 25.
Save Radio New Zealand Protest @ Radio New Zealand House Auckland
Bring your portable radio
Monday March 1 2010
12.30 to 1.30 pm
171 Hobson street Auckland
In the pub on Friday evening my colleague Wayne asked a rhetorical question: “Why should we defend public broadcasting – which is not great anyway – when anyone can download good content from the web?”
I thought about it for a few sips on a Heineken and then verbally dot-pointed an answer:
It’s all about the national conversation (thanks GT)
The public sphere creates the space for oppositional voices and debate on important social and political issues
Aotearoa New Zealand would be culturally poorer without te reo broadcasting, and Radio NZ concerts
Whatever we think of Paul Holmes, Mark Sainsbury or the presenters on Radio National, they are at least providing some stimulating ideas and a chance for a range of opinions to be heard
The news and current affairs outputs, particularly on radio, are part of the checks and balances that any democratic system needs
It really is an argument about the whole, rather than the sum of its parts, I suggested. There is a minimum standard of public broadcasting we should expect – and we’re pretty much scraping the bottom right now. More cuts to RNZ and TVNZ will make this worse.
I am critical of RNZ and TVNZ programming from time to time, but I am a strong advocate of public ownership of the airwaves. I do not support the so-called democratic marketplace because the media market is inherently anti-democratic. It works on principles of price and profit so it favours the wealthy and powerful every time. Privately-owned media has a vested interest and strong interest in preserving the status quo. The public deserves more than that.
Public broadcasting is in the public’s best interests and is linked to the public right to know, I concluded. We chewed it over for a while and then got on to a more theoretical chat about the public interest, the right to know and the public sphere.
It got a little historical and philosophical when we talked about how, without the benefit of the bourgeois revolutions (particularly the French and American revolutions), there would be no freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is why Wayne & I, even though we’re of the ‘left’, can see that some real progress has been made in human rights and freedoms under capitalism (for more on this reference Bowalley Road, Chris Trotter’s prolix blog: Collision Course).
“But,” I said to Wayne, the ruling class no longer needs freedom of the press or freedom of speech. The bourgeoisie now needs to hang on to the power of the State, particularly against the working class (for more see reports of large general strikes in Greece).
If we look closely at history we can see a number of instances, times and nations where the absence of a free press has led to a variety of autocratic outcomes. My historical concern has been the rise of Fascism for example in western Europe between the two major wars of the 20th century. However, as Wayne reminded me, alongside Fascism and other forms of autocratic secular regimes (Stalinist Russia and now Putin’s Gangster Capitalism; China, Burma, Sri Lanka) we also have to worry about theocratic authoritariansm (like Iran, Pakistan and so on).
In these nations and others like them there is no public service broadcasting. There is state-run media that is heavily censored and there are newspapers and television stations owned by members of the ruling elite and, like in Berlusconi’s Italy, they tend to be ultra-kind to the powerful and rich and to under-report criticism and opposition.
While this might seem a distant concern in New Zealand, attacks on public broadcasting are the thin end of the wedge in many respects.
Without RNZ and TVNZ and in particular their news services, there will be less scrutiny of government and business.
There will be less debate on government policy – three strikes, not raising the minimum wage, cutting welfare spending, national standards in schools, etc. In other words those in power – who we know tend to be venal and corrupt, some more than others – will get away with doing whatever they want. In some cases, getting away with murder!
The National-ACT government’s attacks and calls for belt-tightening, sacrifice, etc are designed to weaken public broadcasting and to lessen the scrutiny that this government is under.
And it is under scrutiny. Tax policies, ministers gouging the public purse, cuts to funding of health and education, attacks on teachers and doctors, seabed and foreshore, whanau ora, increasing pressure on students over loans and allowances private prisons and locking up more Maori youth; all of this needs to be questioned and challenged.
This is the national conversation I’m talking about and it is really only on the public airwaves that we can all participate at the same time with the same information at our finger tips.
This is why we need to ensure that public broadcasting in New Zealand is adequately funded; television and radio. My colleague at Unitec Peter Thompson has written on this topic many times and I’ve always supported his very sound analysis. He argues that public broadcasting is being gutted and he’s right. He’s also done the math and we can have great public broadcasting in New Zealand for around one dollar – yep $1.00 – per day.
I’m going to the Save Radio NZ protest on Monday because I believe in public broadcasting. The main pillar of my belief is one that all journalists and news consumers should share:
The public right to know.
We have a right to know that Ministers of the Crown are stealing from us – even if they pretend it’s an accident; we have the right to know what is being done to our schools and hospitals. We have a right to know how John Key is going to tax the poor to keep his rich mates happy and how he’s going to spend our money to do that.
We have a right to be active in our democratic institutions and we have a right to tell Jonathon Coleman politely to fuck right off move to one side and get his greasy paws well-manicured digits off our radio station.
In fact, we have the right to tell the Minister that he should really be thinking about spending more money on both Radio New Zealand and TVNZ in order to improve the outputs and content.
Maybe he could even spring for a haircut and shave for Mark Sainsbury. Oh and minister, get him a new suit while your at it. You are after all, our servant.
Now hop too it before we kick your sorry ass.
See you outside Radio New Zealand from 12.30 on Monday.
BTW: Bomber’s made it a lot more visual and funnier than I can:
A colleague sent me ths image a couple of days ago. He snapped it on a wall down by Auckland’s ferry terminal. We joked that it might be the work of a Waiheke rebel, but that was just a wild guess.
If anyone knows who’s responsible for this interesting graffito, or if it was you, Ethical Martini would love to know more.
If you’ve seen this anywhere else in Auckland, or further afield, perhaps you could send some more images via your phone, or email etc.
I am used to seeing this style of guerilla art directed against Rupert Murdoch and the Fox network, but I have not come across this type of protest against Fairfax.
Whoever it is they’ve gone to some trouble. As my mate pointed out, three colour graffiti takes time and effort. Not only that but there’s a decent stencil involved too. It’s good work, an amateur Banksy perhaps.
I’m keen to know more. You can email details to ethicalmartiniATgmail.com I’m happy to use material without attribution, but the usual rules about verification will apply.
There must be something in the water, or maybe there’s an optometrist involved. I’m not sure what the reason is but another nationally syndicated columnist has let fly at her reporter colleagues this weekend.
The fun started when Tracey Barnett claimed most columnists were short-sighted egoists in the NZ Herald yesterday. Tracey’s lament was that columnists can’t see past the daily rush of ‘new’ and, when it comes to analysis, they tend to be pack-like in approach.
We get so sucked into the vortex of the endlessly hungry daily news machine, we begin to think every story is about the fight, not the resolution. Suddenly our job becomes declaring momentary winners and losers.
[All commentary, no analysis, all of the time, NZH 20 Feb 2010]
Now Rosemary McLeod in the Sunday Star Times is having a go at the shallow pool of news-celebrity culture and the fact that precious column inches are wasted on fatuous stories about the sex lives of newsreaders and their ilk.
Congratulations Tracey Barnett, you have won this week’s Poolittzer for unexpected honesty in journalism. You can pick up your prize – a neatly string-tied bundle of fish and chip wrappings – from out the back of any dairy in central Auckland.
All facetiousness aside, Tracey is one of the more readable columnists in the New Zealand Herald – it might be because she’s not from ’round here. From memory I think I heard an American accent the last time I spoke with her. Sorry, I’ll really put that facet aside now.
Whatever the reason – Tracey thinks it was a well-earned rest from reading the news over summer – today’s column All commentary, no analysis, all of the time should be a wake-up call to the rest of her colleagues.
The basic premise is that columnists are show ponies who are so caught up in the hype of the news cycle that they lose sight of the bigger picture.
My profession suck at what they do. Let me be very specific. Commentators, pundits, columnists, people like me who get their little heads put in a box on the left side of the story, are myopic sheep – on a good day.
Someone finds a way to start the news narrative and like clueless lemmings, we all jump into the same plotline to finish each other’s sentences, clinging to page one.
Yep, I reckon she’s right and there’s a PhD thesis in there for some enterprising postgraduate. Read the rest of this entry »
It was amusing to see Helen Clark defending Radio New Zealand in the paper this morning. It’s too bad that her Labour government didn’t do more to protect it and insulate it from the current campaign of a thousand deadly cuts when it had the chance.
I don’t always like Morning Report, but it is essential listening in my house every day and I try to catch Checkpoint as often as I can too. I’ve always been a strong supporter of public broadcasting and no matter how much I might disagree with the analysis and angles, or how much I am annoyed by fatuous or bullying interviewers I love and cherish Radio New Zealand.
I like the news and current affairs service, I love Mediawatch and I don’t mind some of the weekend shows – the book readings, science, technology and arts programming. It is all important, well-made and essential to maintaining a vibrant, eclectic and democratic public sphere in New Zealand.
There is something admirable about those people of deep political conviction who, in their youth, rail against the unfairness of the world and maintain that rage for the rest of their lives.
The great Scottish-Australian folk singer Alistair Hulett was a gentle man with a wonderful sense of humour who never deviated from his deeply held belief in the essential decency of the working class and the exploitation of those workers by capitalist elites.
So it was appropriate after his death in Glasgow from an aggressive cancer at the age of only 58, that his wife, Fatima Uygun, would describe Hulett as a “singer, songwriter, international socialist, revolutionary, ecologist, community activist”. He was also a man who had and deserved the admiration of his fans.
Alistair Hulett was a friend and comrade. But what I didn’t know is that he had grown up in Christchurch. Alistair wasn’t a martini drinker, but we’ve shared a pint or two on many occasions. His musical talent was legendary and internationally recognised.
Who cares. Perhaps we just need to get over our obsession with the sex lives of television presenters.Watch this clip from Breakfast, Aly Mau gives a serve to the women’s mags, particularly Woman’s Day.
And this morning, Bill Ralston was interviewed on Morning Report. For once I think that Sean Plunkett got it right in his intro and his line of questioning.
This is an interesting spat between TVNZ and the gossip mags, but also perhaps indirectly, the Herald on Sunday, which on the weekend carried along piece by Matt Nippert justifying their outing of Mau in the previous week’s issue. It’s not online either, so I’ll dig my copy out of the recycling bin and take another look.
The debate seems to hinge on some sort of privacy laws and some commentators seem to be a little confused. There is no general right of privacy enshrined in privacy laws in New Zealand, or indeed in very few jurisdictions.
The general operating rules are that if you’re in a public place, your photo can be taken without your permission. The Privacy Act covers some types of information, but it doesn’t protect you from paparazzi (a swarm of annoying mosquitos in Italian).
The Privacy Commission’s top-ten-tips say nothing about how to protect yourself from unwanted media intrusion. I don’t think new and more laws are necessarily the fix we’re looking for. In the UK there are now restrictions on media coverage of the royal family, but not for the general public.
The recent John Terry case in the UK is also interesting. The way he tried to protect his privacy – actually his reputation and lucrative sponsorship deals – was by attempting to injunct publication of damaging details of his affair with the girlfriend of an England team mate.
And there’s a suggestion that Alison Mau also considered this approach to prevent publication of details about her new love life (if that’s what it is).
The Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act is unlikely to bring any joy to those in the cross-hairs of the tabloids who want to limit their exposure to paid appearances and positive mentions.
I am putting Gordon Harcourt’s long reply to the ongoing discussion of parachute journalism up as a new post. It deserves a place on the front page, not buried in the comments queue.
If anyone else wishes to weigh in with a guest post, feel free.
Riposte to riposte to riposte – and pull your head in Tim Selwyn
[guest post by Gordon Harcourt]
I’m glad I’m contributing to a conversation, though I have taken exception to the distasteful view of one of the participants – see below, Tim Selwyn.
Frankly, I don’t particularly care about that sort of opinion, as I’m never going to change it. I’ve entered into this conversation because it’s extremely important to me that Martin’s students get another angle.
Posted by ethicalmartini 
