Tony Blair - Nine to Noon, National Radio, 29/03/2006

The following comment was made anonymously on the post below. I think it is a well founded criticism and deserves attention. Eva Radich's performance interviewing Tony Blair was certainly below par. Functionally she did well. Unfortunately as the anonymous commentator points out, she really let her personal interests get in the way of what was a rare opportunity to gauge British perceptions of the U.K. - New Zealand relationship: Eva Radish's interview with Blair was a complete frustration. She spent most of the precious little time available to argue the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq and making very assertive statments about a memo and what it meant, that she failed to detail for poor people like me what it said. Blair's comment was a priceless piece of disdain "well I was at that meeting Eva...." At times he seemed gobsmacked at the inanity and loaded questions. She even went on about the Vietnam War. Get over it Eva it was 30 years ago. I don't care if you wasted your youth protesting against it. The Iraq decision is made and can't be undone as Blair said. It took 9.20 minutes to get onto climate change in a 13;56 long slot. That is just bad time management and there was nothing new. Aren't there more interesting issues for NZers than hearing Parsnip pontificate on her world view, that we get to hear every other day of the week. Issues not covered in the few remaining minutes that may have had slightly more relevance were the continuing opportunity for NZers to work in the UK, how safe is it following the bombings, how do you balance multiculturalism successfully, the status and role of the Commonwealth and NZ in that, how is NZ perceived in Washington and Whitehall, what do they view our role in the Pacific and wider world - forward looking things not backward.

In Praise of Talkback - Justin du Fresne, Newstalk ZB, 29/03/2006

I don't usually praise talkback hosts, but compared to his colleagues this morning, Justin du Fresne deserves some accolades. The important issues in the news deserving airtime today, have been global warming, domestic violence and Tony Blair's visit to Auckland. New Zealanders have an interest in those topics which should be debated in the media, the public forum. Instead most talkback hosts debated topics of dubious value. Martin Devlin (Radio Live) and Leighton Smith (Newstalk ZB Auckland) launched into a tirade against people with mental health illnesses. This, in wake of the incident in Rotorua where a woman was viciously attacked by her mentally ill son. I'm not saying this story doesn't deserved to be aired. Like other crime stories however it doesn't deserve to be debated above important political issues. The only people who have an interest in the case are those who personally knew the victim and perpetrator (like other crime stories). Instead, Smith and Devlin used this single case as an emperical example of the dangers associated with mental health patients and the failings of the mental health system. Objective and intelligent debate on the issue of mental health was unfortunately absent from their discussions, as real data and statistics weren't even considered. (There is research to suggest for instance that people that suffer from mental health problems are no more likely to commit violent crime than anyone else, whereas they are far more likely to be victims of crime). Smith and Devlin do this pluralistic democracy a great injustice by ignoring the evidence, whilst relying on single cases and individual prejudice to shape debate. The event was a single case and deserved no more airtime than any criminal case (very little). If the hosts want to discuss mental health issues, I suggest they consult objective academic research in the area. Michael Laws (Radio Live) asked callers this morning whether they thought the three policemen accused of raping Louise Nicholas were guilty. That is hardly the most pressing issue New Zealanders have an interest in. I do admit that some are curious to the outcome of the case. But even accepting that, asking callers who aren't privy to the details of the case (no one except those in court are) is hardly fruitful. Michael Laws should tackle issues that matter instead of wasting time on irrelevant purposeless guessing games. (He did briefly mention climate change, but only really to dismiss its happening) Justin du Fresne on the other hand deserves praise. The issues he brought up today were domestic violence, dog micro-chipping and putting up a centre barrier on Wellington's Centennial Highway. Domestic violence is an important issue and though the issue didn't receive its deserved share of callers, du Fresne helped further intelligent debate on an extremely important issue. With regards to dog micro-chipping, well, it isn't the most riveting of all subjects, but I was pleasantly surprised as to how du Fresne shaped the debate. It wasn't about whether farm dogs should be exempt, it was about whether the chipping should exist at all. It's marvellous to see the debate on a subject being widened, and I do hope that he continues structuring other more important arguments with an equally expansive focus. Intelligent debate relies on those chairing to frame an issue objectively and widely. The greater the prominance of these features, the healthier the debate required to sustain the tolerant plurastic society in which we live. Point of the post: Kudos to Justin, keep up the good work. Unlike other talkback shows this morning, yours has kept up intelligent and open debate in the public sphere.

The Coroner - Dominion Post / Stuff, Front Page, 25/03/2006

On the front page of today's Dominion Post we were treated to an article titled 'Don't give fast cars to kids'. The content of which was, in light of a recent car accident, the Hasting's coroner has called for restrictions on car sales to youths and greater parental responsibility for the actions of their children. But why should (and why do) the coroner(s) receive so much attention? From Wikipedia: A coroner is either the presiding officer of a special court, a medical officer or an officer of law responsible for investigating deaths, particularly those happening under unusual circumstances. Right, so the coroner is meant to investigate and determine causes of deaths. But does the undertaking of those tasks warrant placing the coroner's policy opinion on a pedestal? Media consistently run headlines based on a coroner's opinion about how policy should be shaped. Now, coroners have a good knowledge of the cases they've dealt with. But they lack the broad and extensive research required to make sound judgements of public policy. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to what coroners have to say. It's important to hear from those directly involved in single case investigations. But a coroner shouldn't receive a frontpage headlines because he thinks from the five cases he's observed that 'young people shouldn't be allowed fast cars'. On would hope that strong academic studies would incite media headlines on policy, not an individual's subjective opinion based on a narrow sample of data. Coroners receive too much attention from the media. Broadcasting opinions of experts on particular subject matters would be far more fruitful and well-grounded.

Student Debt - Morning Report, National Radio, 24/03/2005

At around 8.40am on Morning Report today, a report on Labour's new student loan policy was broadcast. As well all know, as of April 1st all student loans become interest free for those living in New Zealand. The brief National Radio report was a pre-evaluation of the effects of the new loan scheme. Unfortunately, the report was neither objective or fair. Two specific points contributed to bias produced in the analysis. 1) Interviewee excerpts consisted of brief random student quotes (mostly in favour of the policy), a lengthy diatribe by National Party Education Spokesperson Bill English (against the new policy), evaluations by David Skilling of the NZ Institute (against the new policy) and the Business Roundtable Advisor Norman Larocque (against the new policy), Minister of Tertiary Education Michael Cullen (in favour of new policy). The student quotes were brief, as was Michael Cullen's input. The vast majority of airtime was taken up by the other three individuals, speaking out against the policy. So most of the report was along the lines 'It sends all the wrong signals' and 'We can't afford it', which brings me to my next point. 2) This report was not unique, in that it framed the debate surrounding the new interest free student loan scheme in terms of costings. Of course critics are bound to put their views across within such a narrow framework, and there is nothing wrong with reports broadcasting them as such. But, why does no one point out that cutting interest should not be considered a 'cost' to the public, but rather it should be considered a lost source of public revenue? Surely the fact the Government will no longer make money off the loan scheme, does not mean that it will cost more (by normal standards, cost implies money spent on a good or service). Hence, the report was framed by National Radio in such a way that gave advantage to critics of the interest free policy. In sum, the National Radio report did not provide an equal hearing for all opinions, and it distinctly framed the issue to the favour of those against the new interest free scheme. It was not fair nor balanced and better should be expected from a public broadcaster.

Business Interests - Newstalk ZB, Morning Newses, 21/03/2006

Newstalk ZB has once again proven itself to be an unobjective source of information. While broadcasting a story surrounding Cyclone Larry earlier this week, business influence was sprouting at the seams. House of Travel were given a whole story on the 7am Tuesday morning Wellington news, which ran along the following lines: Few New Zealanders have been caught up in Cyclone Larry because it's the tourist off-season. House of Travel is however trying to get in touch with its 24 clients in Queensland. And on the Auckland frequency on the 6am news: House of Travel says it will determine the extent of the damage caused by cyclone Larry, before making any recommendations about travel warnings to the area. So it comes across as if Newstalk ZB had made an honest attempt to get comment from a local New Zealand business with an interest in issue at hand. But why House of Travel? Well, it is interesting to note that on Newstalk ZB morning talkback, House of Travel have a paid advertorial session. Although the news item wouldn't have been paid for, it's a clear attempt by Newstalk ZB to hattip House of Travel and nod in the direction of the story 'Look, we gave you free coverage'. It really is nothing more than an attempt to satisfy a paying advertiser at the cost of free and objective news. Newstalk ZB really needs to clean up its act. Thank goodness for National Radio.

Microsoft - Newses, Newstalk ZB, Morning of 17/03/2006

According to Newstalk ZB's morning newses yesterday, Microsoft was holding a summit on computer security in Auckland. Hardly the most riveting item. With the regularity this story broadcasted however, one could be forgiven for assuming that it was the most important story of the day. All morning, on both Wellington's and Auckland's frequencies, the story was broadcast on news bulletin after news bulletin. And each segment featured an analysis by a Microsoft spokesperson, as to why this conference was so important and why Microsoft in its infinite generosity decided to hold the summit. It actually sounded more like an advertorial than anything else; a claim Newstalk ZB strenuously denied. But if the story was so objectively important, why did not a single other radio station mention it all morning, whereas Newstalk ZB repeated it time after time after time? The sycophancy of the news segments also pointed to a less than honest and objective news analysis. A Microsoft spokesperson talking up his company's product hardly counts as good objective news. We can hence assume one of two things here. 1) Newstalk ZB has an undisclosed relationship with Microsoft which weakens its ability to present an objective account of news. Or 2) The station really has no idea about classifying news according to importance, and can therefore hardly be described as a robust objective media. Either way, Newstalk ZB needs to clean up its act and start living up to the role of an independent media outlet.

Drinking Age - General Media, 16/03/2006

The select committee reviewing the bill for raising the drinking age to 20, has recommended a 'two-tier' system. Raise the alcohol purchasing age to 20, keep the legal drinking age at 18. Now we'd expect the media to be critically assessing the validity, pros and cons and sustainability of the recommendation. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has become stuck within a sphere of argument, dictated by those who favour greater control over young people's decision-making. In the arguments for and against banning 18-20 year olds from purchasing alcohol, both the broadcast and print media have focused almost exclusively on health repercussions. Of course these are important considerations, but they should not be the sole factor determining argument outcomes. The frontpage articles on the subject in both the Herald and on Stuff (Dominion) overwhelmingly presented health-based factors pro-raising of the purchasing age. Talkback was of course as per usual unanimous in its conservative position. Michael Laws and Leighton Smith couldn't seem to let an opportunity to moan about young people pass. They too tried to direct debate along health lines (I take my hat off to those talkback callers who actually managed to engage the issue more broadly, despite the radio hosts' narrowing of debate). The most unfortunate aspect of this one-eyed analysis is that the cornerstone of justice is being ignored in the debate. Do 18-20 year olds have a right to purchase alcohol? Are they old / rational enough to make decisions for themselves without government intervention in their affairs? What makes alcohol so special that we would consider restricting young people's choice to use it, yet allow them mostly unrestricted individual decision-making in other areas? To ignore justice is to ignore whether a policy can be considered fundamentally morally right or wrong. By ignoring these questions, the media do exactly that. The sphere of debate surrounding the drinking age, needs to be lifted to a new level. (And no, a single article in the middle of Herald taking into account the Hospitality Association's view on the matter, does not constitute a broad consideration of non-health interests)

Commonwealth Games - National Radio, Morning Report, 14/03/2006

I'm unsure why this story didn't receive greater coverage in the media. I heard it briefly mentioned on National Radio earlier this week and expected a bit more coverage to ensue. The New Zealand Commonwealth Games team in Melbourne sought permission and were welcomed onto the Games' village by an aboriginal representative. The move was defined on National Radio as a 'cultural' statement. ---snip--- Chef de Mission Dave Currie says team members saw it as a mark of respect to seek permission from the traditional land owners before moving in. ---snip--- It is however really more of a political statement than anything else. The team sought permission from a group of people, whom the Australian Government continues to deny full recognition. Whether you agree or disagree with the move, one has to admire the team members standing up for their principles in a country to which they would expect a mostly hostile response (though they didn't seem to get any sort of response). The media should have reported this story more widely in this country, which would've encouraged important debate surrounding aboriginal issues in Australia, and what attitude New Zealand / New Zealanders should take towards them.

Politics - Listener, Jane Clifton, 18/03/2006

Has anyone else noticed falling standards in the Listener? Increasingly week after week, informative articles on important political and social issues appear to have given way to simple-minded articles on property investment, baby boomers and 'ten ways to make yourself happier' type subjects. Now I haven't been scientifically collecting data to prove this assumption, but this week's issue illustrates my point. The main feature is advertised as means of making your life happier (though the article itself is reasonable), there's another feature about how to get the most out of 'your' property investment (as if we all had one), and an uncritical sychophantic profile of National MP Judith Collins written by Jane Clifton. It is she whom I shall focus on in this post. Don't get me wrong, I think Clifton's writing is exceptional and often makes for interesting reading. Unfortunately her regular column doesn't provide perspective on issues that really matter. Her analysis is always along the lines of 'Winston got Nandor in the house, yet Nandor remained cool, and the public will like that'. Her regular column is essentially an uncritical assessment of the political 'game'. More obsessed with appearances and political relationships than those things which either affect lives negatively or positively. Occasionally references to important policy and issues will crop up, but these are usually evaluated with analysis of public opinion / acceptance and who said what. She makes no attempt to reach in to an issue, evaluate evidence, present an argument and make a judgment as to whether it's right or wrong. Such judgements, whether made by Chris Trotter or Deborah Coddington, add important scope and thought to things that really matter. I do think Clifton's writings have a place; but they shouldn't be the regular political column of one of New Zealand's most widely read current affairs magazine. The Listener needs columnists that engage people and encourage debate surrounding important issues (such as this week's editorial). Unfortunately Clifton doesn't seem up to the task. Reducing politics to a game, stifles debate surrounding important issues. It may be true that appearance and power are part of politics just as much as are the issues. But we should be asking ourselves, what's of more importance, tackling the morality and desirability of political policies, or analysing the processes which lead to certain outcomes? The answer is the former. Intelligent debate must form the cornerstone of political discussion and the Listener should recognise that.

Mental Health - Devlin Live, Radio Live, 10/03/2006

Right. Last post for a while on talkback. Martin Devlin's breakfast show on Friday however deserves comment. The issue of the day on Friday was the resignation of a census worker in the Hamilton area, after it was discovered that he had previously escaped a murder charge on the grounds of insanity - he had killed three of his family members. He has since had rehabilitation over 13 years. First point then, he was not convicted of murder. Why? Because the terrible actions he took were influenced by his mental condition. (Less than 1% of individuals who claim insanity in murder cases successfully escape conviction on this basis). Second, he was rehabilitated and deemed safe to enter the public sphere. Yet, on Devlin's breakfast show mental patients were equated with dangerous murderers. He suggested throughout his show that the individual in question couldn't possibly be rehabilitated after committing such an atrocious act, and further it was in the interests of safety that he remain without work and hence workmates. This particular instance isn't the only time he's articulated what can only be described as objectively false analysis (or lack thereof) and conclusion. Devlin often makes the assumption that mental patients are intrinsically morally corrupt. In his eyes, mental health patients are 'bad eggs', and should be stripped of basic human rights. He willingly ignores evidence which illustrates mental patients too, are victims of their illness. That they can be rehabilitated. And they are no more likely than anyone else to commit an act of violence in the first place. Instead, he maintains a bigotry which perpetuates a sceptical untrustworthy view of individuals with mental illness. He backs this view with an objectively false set of propositions and facts. When I tried to point this out to him in an e-mail, all I got was this response: ---- Hmmm Somewhere in the middle lies the answer? I actually think we almost agree.. Thanks for your mail son... ---- Devlin, among many others in the media, need to ensure they have a correct set of facts when it comes to mental health issues. Mental health problems could afflict any of us, and I wonder if Devlin would continue to maintain a blinded ignorance if someone he knew were affected. My main point here is simply that media need to rely on truthful facts. Broadcasting falsities prevents good intelligent debate and encourages irrational prejudice. (On a more positive note, many media outlets have taken a reasonably objective stance on the above issue. Stuff has a well-balanced report. National Radio also took an intelligent approach. This article in the Herald was unfortunately a bit sensational and the debate was from the beginning framed with an emotional perspective).

Rejoinder to Yesterday's Talkback Post - Morning of 09/03/2005

Leighton Smith continued his onslaught against Minister of Conservation Chris Carter's decision not to allow the development of the Whangamata marina to go ahead. An interesting point was made to me earlier this morning regarding this issue. Talkback hosts / radio and TV newses all questioned his 'veto' of the development, as if he were breaking some consitutional convention. But it wasn't actually a 'veto' at all. The law requires Ministerial consent for such developments, because national interests aren't taken into account at the Environmental Court level. The pro-development talkback hosts managed to shift the debate away from this issue which could've potentially undermined their own interests. For evidence that this slant affected public debate, look no further than my post below. I too fell for the line of 'judicial interference'. In hindsight it was rather naiive of me to buy into it. Still, it goes to show that in the interest of objective debate and discussion we need a greater variety of opinion from talkback hosts. We need opinions from everyone from Lindsay Perigo to Matt McCarten. That way restriction of debate by single-minded political interests can be avoided. Objectivity and truth require honest, open and expansive discussion - something surely lacking in the damp cold rodent-infested cave that is talkback in this country. (norightturn has a good take on the Whangamata issue)

Environment - Talkback, Morning of 08/03/2005

According to John Banks his talkback show is the 'people's parliament'. To an extent he is right. Talkback is a forum in which individuals can have their views heard without prejudice (though I'm not sure how many would hear you on Banks' show). The hot topic of this morning's talkback shows was Minister of Conservation Chris Carter's decision to veto the development of a Whangamata marina, thereby overturning an Environment Court decision. Executive interference in judicial decision certainly deserves a great deal of attention. Debate in talkback circles (and the Devlin and Holmes talkbackish shows) was however confined to irrelevant political opinion. Let me explain. Paul Holmes (ZB), Leighton Smith (ZB), Justin du Fresne (ZB), Martin Devlin (Radio Live), Michael Laws (Radio Live) and presumably John Banks (Radio Pacific - though I won't put myself through the pain of listening to him), were all against the Minister's decision. Every single morning talkback host in the country was in favour of the proposed development. This inherent bias contributed to the framing of the debate throughout the morning. The pro-development anti-environment non-objective stance prevented reasonable debate on an important issue surrounding Carter's decision - should the executive be allowed to overturn a judicial body's decision, if so, in what circumstances? Yes, most of the talkback hosts gave lip service to this important argument. But debate was stifled because they'd already made up their minds that the overall outcome of the decision was bad. Holmes framed the debate about business leaving the country, Smith said people with contrary opinions were 'idiots', Devlin cleared his throat at the veto, and Laws talked about benefits of development. To his credit Justin du Fresne was the only one who at several points took an intelligent line to the argument, before moving on to talk about Transmission Gully. That all talkback hosts seem to be of the same political breed is worrying. It means debates are framed along particular lines, preventing an equal and fair hearing for different sides of arguments. Objectivity suffers when a host's intrinsic political persuasion prevents intelligent and lively debate on important matters. And that's exactly what happened this morning within the dark depths of New Zealand's talkback stations. (Someone has put up Leighton Smith's quite hilarious angry accusations that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot here. The first few minutes are pure gold.)

Crime - News, TV One, 05/03/06

Crime / Corrections has always been a newsworthy topic. Unfortunately, it is also one of those issues where the scope of debate has been extemely limited by the media. TV One had a news item on Sunday night on rehabilitition in New Zealand's prisons (in light of recent allegations from former prisoner Rachel Namana that prison is a breeze). The interviewees were Garth McVicar from Sensible Sentencing and Bevan Hanlon from the Corrections Association. Unfortunately, because both these individuals essentially hold the same view, debate was extremely limited in scope. Both interviewees essentially agree that prison is an easy life, rehabilitation doesn't work and that we need to 'get tough'. The news item misses the point that this is a highly contentious debate. TV One should have provided a broader range of perspectives. Why not interview the Prison Fellowship, the Green Party or the Minister of Corrections? The item was neither informative nor balanced. It was restrictive of open debate from the beginning, simply by virtue of the unanimity of opinion of those interviewed. TV One is a public broadcaster. It especially has a duty to represent the pluralistic nature of opinion within New Zealand. The online version of the piece can be found here.

Property - Chris Laidlaw, National Radio, 05/03/06

Many New Zealanders have a strong interest in the property market. It is and has been for a long time now, a traditional focal point of investment and pride for the average citizen. We could almost call home / bach ownership a cultural must among the middle class. Naturally, the media have sought to capitalise on this strong national phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that. It's an issue dear to most people's hearts and one that deserves to be discussed openly and freely. The single major current issue within the realms of property revolves around high house prices. What exactly is the issue? Well, anyone who has seen New Zealand's high house prices and unfamilar with the current debate within media circles, may be forgiven for thinking the issue is that they are too high. Obviously, increasing higher house prices mean less and less people can afford their own housing. Yet, the media has instead decided to focus on the potential dread of falling house prices and what can be done to at the very least maintain and at the best push prices up further. Now, let me re-iterate, there is nothing wrong framing the debate this way within this context. The problem is that the media do so exclusively. To the point of this post. Chris Laidlaw's Sunday Group on the weekend is a prime example of the media continuing to frame the debate within a narrow bias context. In the panel discussing property prices were Olly Newland, Property Investor; Graham Crews, Ex-Real Estate Agent and Former Property Lecturer; and Martin Dunn, Real Estate Agent (City Sales Ltd.) So before the discussion even begins we have an inherent bias in the panel. The framework of the debate immediately favours investors and property holders. Needless to say, true to that assumption the discussion that followed was framed almost exclusively along those lines. Most of the talk revolved around securement of property investments and the rates of investment returns. Debate surrounding the benefits of lower property prices was pretty much non-existent. Brief discussion of an increasing discrepancies between income and property prices, were met with calls that New Zealanders just have to get used to renting. The panel then went along to have a discussion about why legislation around renting needs to be overhauled in favour of landlords (or shall we say investors). I shan't go on. This bias was evident throughout the entire discussion. The debate couldn't avoid this path however because of the framework that was already pre-established for it. The panel should have been made of individuals with wider varying perspectives. What about getting a someone to speak on behalf of non-home owners, those single home owners with a large mortage, or anyone who didn't have some sort of interest or bias that made them favour higher house prices? If discussion surrounding the property market in the media is to be more open, informative and objective, the entire scope of the debate needs widening. Individuals who aren't property investors deserve to have their opinions and ideas aired aswell. (I will be framing my posts in accordance with articles/broadcasts, rather than particular issues. But since I don't have anything else to refer to yet, here are two article in the print media that support my above assertion. This one at the NZ Herald and this one at stuff. Both frame property stories with a bias towards those with interests in higher property prices.)

Mirage Media

The purpose of media is to inform, present ideas and facilitate intelligent debate and discussion. A media that performs these functions objectively and cohesively is an essential element of any strong and healthy liberal democratic state. Liberal democracy isn't just about voting. It's about the airing of ideas and views of groups and individuals within society. These views deserve to be debated intelligently and honestly in an open forum - a forum which is often sadly lacking. New Zealand's media may fare well internationally. But its providing of reliable facts, airing important stories, proliferating society's ideas and above all facilitating intelligent discussion, are often absent. Every day I am annoyed at the perpetuation of ignorance and falsities in the media. Much of New Zealand's media with its surrounding influences and interests ignore important issues and ideas. They confine themselves to a strict sphere of operation and refuse to touch on issues or ideas that expand and exist outside of this sphere. So, as much I generally dislike blogging (awful habit), I've decided to do just that and maintain an updated critical analysis of New Zealand media behaviour and content. To the two or three people a day I expect unfortunate enough to stumble upon this site, I hope you consider it more than a stupid waste of time. Well, if nothing else, it's a forum where I can vent my anger intelligently.