Mirage Media

Events in History ... and Wanganui

2006-09-13T01:18:00.000+12:00

Five years on from 9/11 I don't believe history has a full grasp of the enormity of the event. That said, the infamy surrounding 9/11 is relative. The fact the Twin Towers collapsed in New York City, USA, and did so in such dramatic fashion for all the world to see, makes it an event of greater magnitude - or at least a greater media event - than other recent catastrophes that caused more considerable loss of life, such as the Asian tsunami of 2005. Other smaller tragedies are certin to have occured on the ninth of September 2001. The enormity of the day's events in New York warrants its own moniker, 9/11. Prime Television's 9/11 docu-drama, which screened on Sunday night, was compelling to watch simply because it made me put myself in the victims' shoes. I won't say anything of the politics of 9/11, its causes and aftermath, solely because there's nothing I can say that hasn't been said before. But the Prime documentary was a good account of the human story of the event. That is, everyday people going to work to their offices on a Tuesday and winding up, through death and survival, participating in one of modern history’s most significant moments. I didn’t bother watching TV1’s ‘Path To 9/11‘, a fictionalised account of the events leading up to the collapse of the Twin Towers, because I'm certain I wouldn't learn anything from it. I flicked over during the ad breaks and saw what I expected to see - depictions of Arabs in back alleys plotting violence, and US intelligence officer who despite their CSI-like stealth were unable to foresee, or even attempt to thwart, the ultimate act of terror that we’re all remembering.

---------

Taufa'ahau Tupou, the King of Tonga, has died at the age of 89. His death was not unexpected. Nor was Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws' 'stand'. Laws - who I heard say earlier this year on his Radio Live talkback show that Tonga is a nation of inbreds - believes King Tupou is a despot and for that reason has ordered his city council staff not to lower the New Zealand flag to half-mast to mark his death. A despot - isn't that a man in power whose rulings, no matter how arcane, are permitted on the strength of his celebrity and the fear he invokes in his subordinates? Sounds like a despot to me, what do you reckon Laws?

Killing Poverty

2006-09-06T12:01:00.000+12:00

There have been many suggestions on how to alleviate poverty in New Zealand. The ACT Party, for instance, says cut welfare benefits. Michael Laws, on his weekday talkback show, frequently suggests sterilisation as a means to bar the poor from 'breeding'. But it's not often poor people themselves are quoted in the media. When they are it's usually when they're in some kind of trouble. A series of articles on some of the country's poorest people, appearing in The Press and Dominion Post at the moment, make for rare and compelling reading. The articles, by Martin van Beynen and Kirk Hargreaves, go to the unusual measure of interviewing the very people who are truly destitute. One article this week, for example, featured a woman of 25 living in a Gisborne state housing ghetto who has five children and who has only blackened stumps for teeth. Some of the interviewees say there's merit in being poor - such as a well-developed sense of community spirit - which is an interesting point.

While generally the subject matter is grim it's refreshing to read an article on poverty that isn't littered with quotes from social workers, health professionals and academics. What can they say that hasn't been said before? History shows poverty will always exist and no amount of governmental reports, inquiries and plans of action will fully eliminate it. The articles went some way towards depicting the true nature of how the poorest of the poor live in this country. Exposes like this are unlikely to change the perceptions of those (Laws) in the 'let's sterilise them' camp. But in any case such people clearly have their own impidements to living a prosperous life.

----------

RIP Steve Irwin. Poor old Steve. At least he died doing what he loved. Or maybe Germaine Greer is right and the animal world is getting its payback for years of manhandling.

The Egg Has Landed - 30/8/2006

2006-08-30T13:41:00.000+12:00

I always thought of media and political blogging as self-indulgent puff, a glorified letter to the editor without the abridgement and intervention of a professional with news sense. So when presented with the opportunity to take over this one from my predecessor, naturally I jumped at the chance. My predecessor and I used to work together for a media baron - of sorts - and through working for said baron we both developed the growing sense we were merely conduits through which misinformation, xenophobia and stupidity passed. He started this blog as a means of taking a critical stance on the media, I read it and agreed with pretty much everything he said. He's moved to greener pastures now, too busy to keep up a blog, but I've taken the reins of his media blog empire fully intending to keep up the same tradition. What does one person's opinion matter? A lot, hopefully.

This blog won't be a Leighton Smith-fest. As we all know, Smith, Michael Laws et al, while clearly being, let's say, Muslim adverse, are often controversial for controversy's sake. It's in their job description. That's not to say what they propagate on talkback radio shouldn't and won't be challenged on this blog. But for now I'm going to start on something else, simply because I already know how to flog a dead horse.

Newspaper cartoonists aren't often flogged. When they are it's because they've done something outrageous like offend a large group of Muslims in Europe, the rage spreading to the Middle East and resulting in rioting and killing. The Dominion Post's Tom Scott has never provoked the same level of controversy, thankfully. However during the recent Israel- Hezbollah crisis one of his cartoon's feature a desecrated Torah - from my interpretation representing how Israel's actions in Lebanon where at odds with the Jewish faith - attracting a stream of letters from readers, both for and against. The cartoonists who do their job well have found a fine balance between challenging their readers without being overtly offensive. Good examples are the Guardian's Steve Bell and even our own Bromhead. A casual reader of the Dom Post could be forgiven for thinking Scott's cartoons are a public service - his forte seems to be predictable RIPs when notable public figures die. So on this occasion, some praise for Scott.

Misc - 22/06/2006

2006-06-22T15:42:00.000+12:00

This will be one of my very few posts over the next two weeks as I frantically attempt to finish writing a thesis. Nothing particularly noteworthy has been happening since the last post. Radio Live continues to get its facts wrong, Leighton Smith and Michael Laws continue on their sensationalism-fuelled campaign to destroy political correctness (whatever that maybe), and John Banks... well who knows what he's up to. Is Radio Pacific even still on the air? Anyway, there's little or no structure to this post, so here're a few things which have annoyed me over the past week.

- Leighton Smith spoke to caller Dennis on Monday, who wondered what Green MP Keith Locke would do if he was sitting on a plane and terrorists overran it. Leighton told Dennis he would probably join up and help them. Is that right Leighton? Honest opinion or slander? I guess it's a fine line sometimes. Maybe it's just a pre-conceived and irrational hatred mixed in with a bit of stupidity. To say any of our current members of parliament would support the killing of innocent civilians is not an opinion worth consideration. Yes Leighton, there are people who disagree with you on certain policy platforms, and no, they don't all support killing civilians. Instead of ridiculing and slandering political positions you disagree with, why not facilitate debate and engage them intelligently, because that is your role as a talkback radio host.

- I've been commenting a lot on Michael Laws recently. Now I don't want to take the place of Laws Watch and will refrain from Laws attacks for a while after this post. But he really really annoys me. I'm sick of the emotive language, the sensationalist spin, and the anti-intellectualism. Yes Michael, many agree it would've been nice if the Pacific states had voted with the anti-whaling block, but calling them names isn't going to help. How hard can be it be to illustrate issues from an intelligent and insightful angle? Obviously for Laws, too difficult. And no, I don't think he'll ever change, which is why Radio Live need to fire this man, and quickly.

- If there's one thing that makes me angry, it's when news bulletins withhold key information until the last second, because they're worried about the listener switching the station. Withholding information doesn't just leave viewers confused, it can also present a distorted illustration of the situation. Here's an example of what I mean.

The news story will be introduced as follows: "Employers think a bill before Parliament will help young workers get into jobs". The story continues, and not until the final segment two minutes later do we find out the 'employers' was a spokesperson from the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), and the bill was Wayne Mapp's 90 day Probationary Emplyment Bill. Surely using the general term 'employers' is more than a bit misleading since the EMA hardly represents anywhere near all employers. And also, it is important when the story is being detailed that listeners have all the relevant facts. Presenting a two minute story without telling us about the main actors and influences isn't going to help listeners gain a clear understanding of the issue at hand. The substance of the story becomes quite confusing and misleading when we don't know who specifically is being affected, and by what. I'll post a few specific examples in my next post. For now, I'll leave it at that.

More Radio Live Incompentencies - 15/06/2006

2006-06-16T11:59:00.000+12:00

Another rejoinder. I really do hope Radio Live clean up their act. Here're another two examples of the sheer incompetency of their news service. I had to listen to only a single broadcast to pick up these.

From the 9am news broadcast 15/06/2006

------

Regarding the story of some Air New Zealand staff being accused of giving away travel privileges for sex.

- "Air New Zealand was informed of the alleged breach by a New Zealand magazine she [Air NZ's spokesperson] won't name"

Well Newstalk ZB and National Radio managed to name Investigate as the magazine in question on their 6am broadcasts! The information was all over major news websites by 9am as well. Radio Live desperately need to get their act together.

------

Regarding the story of violence breaking out between German and Polish football fans.

- 'Polish and German fans have fought running battles in the streets of Munich, where their teams are scheduled to play....mmmm....teams played at 7 o'clock this morning'

The newsreader quickly corrected the mistake that the teams hadn't played yet. The game being over by 9am. But another error somehow found itself into the broadcast. The game took place in not in Munich, but in Dortmund (about 600km away). Maybe before Radio Live broadcasts international stories they should do a quick check of BBC World. Might as well check Radio NZ for the accuracy for New Zealand stories while they're at it. At least that way they might get something right.

Incompetencies - Radio Live, Week ending 14/06/2006

2006-06-14T13:42:00.000+12:00

A bit of a rejoinder to last week's post. Over the previous week, my dismay at Radio Live's absolute incompetency has continued. Not only have their operational skills proven utterly inept, but the sheer number of factual errors made in its news reports are just ridiculous. Let me provide an example of each.

First, Martin Devlin today on Radio Live's morning show 'Devlin Live' show made me both laugh and cringe. I'm not sure whether the producer or the host was at fault for the following operational error, but either way, it's one of a long line of examples which illustrate the terrible standards at Radio Live. One would think it's important to sort out basic operational matters before one conducts an interview. For example...oh I don't know...like confirming you're talking to the right person before interviewing them on air. Here's the transcript of a very brief interview conducted by Devlin, who thought he was talking to Dave Walker from Auckland's motorway police (the interview was to be about people throwing objects off motorway bridges).

--------------------------

Martin Devlin:
Joining us is Inspector Dave Walker, who's in charge of the motorways police in Auckland.

Interviewee (sounding confused):
Hello there?

Devlin:
You collated the figures after Chris Currie's death. How surprised are you by those numbers?

...silence...

Interviewee:
Sir, who do you wish to talk to?

Devlin:
Is this Dave Walker?

Interviewee:
No it isn't Sir.

Devlin:
Oh.. it's not is it?

...silence...

Devlin cuts the interviewee off.

---------------------------

OK. Sure. The BBC have made a similar mistake before, in a case I'm sure is familiar to most. And one might've been able to excuse such an operational error were it rare and restricted. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the current context. Radio Live continue to make operational mistakes over and over again. And even worse, on top that, it seems the incompetency also extends to the station's news service. It consists of a patent inability to get their facts straight. Two examples:

1) When the story broke last weekend about a Yemeni man who had been deported for security reasons, Radio Live, like other media, jumped on the story, considered by most media as headline material. But unlike other news outlets, Radio Live got an important fact surrounding the case wrong. Listeners were told the deported man was Saudi. No - he wasn't. He was a Yemeni man who had lived in Saudi Arabia for a time. Surely when news outlets all around you are proclaiming a Yemeni man has been deported, one would check the facts for confirmation. Well, it seems not to be so at Radio Live, where sensationalism tends to crowd out factually correct news.

2) If you had any doubts, this next example proves those at Radio Live really have no business running a New Zealand news media outlet at all. I'm rarely this harsh (exceptions are of course Leighton Smith and Devlin), but this is just plain idiotic. Earlier this week Gordon Copeland MP was complaining about the dog microchipping legislation, demanding working dogs be exempt. The problem is, he was referred to by Radio Live as "United Future leader Gordon Copeland". Sorry - no such leader. He never has been and likely never will be leader of United Future. Peter Dunne is the leader. And if my 10 year old brother knows that, I don't think it too much to expect a major New Zealand news outlet to. If Radio Live can't deliver the news objectively, fairly and factually correct, then they really should cease their operations and free up the radio frequencies for someone else. May I suggest my little brother?

John Key on Hobsonville - 05/06/2006

2006-06-07T13:11:00.000+12:00

A reader e-mailed me about an hour ago asking whether I thought National Party Finance Spokesperson John Key's recent comments about a proposed state housing development at Hobsonville received enough media attention. The crux of the issue is this: Housing New Zealand is proposing a state housing development at the former Hobsonville airbase. This plan is for low-income, middle-income and high-income housing to be built together on the waterfront site. John Key is against the idea of developing low-income housing on the publicly owned site however, because the land is too valuable and 'something pretty good' could be built there. Now, I shall refrain from stating my own view on the matter, but I think Russell Brown makes some worthwhile comments. Whatever one's perspective may be, I do believe the comments are significant. They illustrate quite clearly Key's values and morals - a man who wants to become Prime Minister. In my opinion (and I admit this is to a certain extent a value judgement) this is front page / lead story material. His opinions and views may have a major impact on the entire country should he ever hold the reigns of power. Instead of grappling with issues like cellphone use among young people, Lesley Martin's desire to write a book, and sensationalising the dangers of party pills using a one off case as an example, it would be nice if the media decided to give extended airtime to stories which could significantly impact our lives.

I'll leave the Key comments there. With regards to the sensationalising of party pill use, I'm referring to this story here in the New Zealand Herald. The headline and lead-in paragraph of the article tell us police are increasingly worried about drivers operating motor vehicles under the influence of party pills. They are also frustrated by their inablity to test drivers for the pills. Two points about this article:

1) Read this snippet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constable Sean Drader said young people thought it was legal to drive after taking the pills.

"But if you're driving so poorly that you are all over the road, then it is illegal," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This excerpt implies driving under the influence is party pills is illegal. Though if you look a little closer at the wording, it's clear that the only thing that's illegal is driving 'all over the road'. There is nothing illegal at all about taking party pills before driving, and the media shouldn't be deceiving audiences into believing there is.

2) In the third paragraph we find out these police calls are based on a single incident, involving a young man who decided to swallow 40 pills before taking to the road. In all fairness, that really isn't a solid basis for publishing the police's concerns. I'm sure 40 coffees would've had a similiar effect, should we have mandatory tests for caffeine? And if they felt the need to publish the police's comments, why didn't they also consult an expert (perhaps an academic) on the strength and viability of the concerns? It's just poor journalism. The article is nothing more than a sensationalisation of a non-existent issue based on the calls of a single police officer. Not only that, but the article is framed in such a manner which is bound to confuse people.

Annoyances, Week since 31st May

2006-06-06T11:23:00.000+12:00

Just a quick and late weekend post today.

- Why does the media continue to echo Judith Collins' call demanding 'New Zealand' veteran Nancy Wake be honoured? First of all, despite media portrayals, she's not a New Zealander at all. Wake lived here from the ages of 0 -2. I'm sure she did a very fine job as a British agent, but media echoes that she be honoured as a New Zealander are patently ridiculous. Perhaps New Zealand's newspapers should concern themselves with real issues, do some real work, and stop rewriting pathetic press releases.

- Vernon Small should get his facts right if he wants his opinion to be taken seriously. In his column today, Small states "After being left at the altar three times while Labour formed governments to its right, it is an understandable stance for the Greens to take". Well no. In 1999 Labour went into coalition with the Alliance... I'd hardly call the Alliance a party of the right. Today's editorial in the Herald made the same mistake. It's difficult to take the mainstream media seriously when they can't grasp basic New Zealand political history.

- It distresses me more than it amuses me that Radio Live thought it more important to broadcast world stories about Tony Blair flying on a budget airline and Olivia Newton-John's missing boyfriend, than include any New Zealand stories in its 9am broadcast. It does amuse me however that Newstalk ZB's 9am Auckland broadcast had a minute long story about a man who stabbed a police dog, putting the animal in a critical condition, and in the story afterwards proceeded to tell listeners "And in news just at hand, we're getting reports of a police dog stabbing... another police dog stabbing... with the animal in a critical condition." Either there were two police dog stabbings at 9am this morning or the Newstalk ZB newsroom screwed up. It's not difficult to decide which is more likely.

Crime Statistics - Michael Laws, Devlin Live, Radio Live, 31/05/2006

2006-05-31T16:17:00.000+12:00

If there's one thing worse than a biased presentation of the facts, then it's a completely false presentation of the facts. This seems to happen again and again within the realms of commercial media. The problem with false facts is they reinforce ideas which may have little or no merit. When media present falsities its primary purposes are undermined; to inform, incite intelligent debate and to air ideas. There was a particularly bad instance of the airing of such falsities on the wireless today (Radio Live). The issue surrounded youth crime and punishment.

The main points of the issue which have incited this recent debate are as follows: There has of late been a shortage of beds in youth justice facilities. Some young people have instead been put away in police holding cells. In response a meeting was held between police, CYF, the Ministry of Justice and the Children's Commissioner. Recommended short-term outcomes from this meeting were greater use of supervised bail, supported bail in the community, ankle bracelets, community/family homes, and better use of existing bed. But some radio broadcasters (in particular Michael Laws) weren't satisfied with these solutions and instead put forward their own - solutions based on blatent falsities.

This morning Laws reported on the above issue. He then proceeded to interview the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, and the head of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Garth McVicar, about the 'epidemic of violent youth offending'. Kiro picked up on Laws' use of the term 'epidemic' to describe youth offending. She proceeded to correct him and told him 'youth offending rates have been relatively stable for at least ten years'. Now that is fact. And the young people for whom there is no room, have not actually been convicted of any crime - they're awaiting trial. McVicar went on to claim there has been an escalation of violent youth offending, another falsity. Kiro cleared that up aswell. It seems she was the only one who had bothered to research the statistics. But the problem is Laws and McVicar continued to restate false facts on youth offending (presumably to garner support for youth conscription). They both continued to tell the story of a country whose youth were a violent raging mob. When Kiro went to correct Laws a second, third and forth time, he simply cut her off. He continued stating false trends in youth crime statistics. He gave himself the final word on the issue and that's where he left it.

This kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated in our media. We cannot have an objective, impartial and unbias discussion about youth crime when people like Laws broadcast and reinforce misconceptions in the public sphere. In this case I would urge everyone who heard the broadcast to make a Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint (though presumably very few would have heard it considering Radio Live's poor listenership). Issues and ideas must be judged on their objective merits. Debate is stifled and pluralistic democracy put as risk when some judge it in their interests to deceive the public.

Week in Parliament - Sunday Live, Radio Live, 28/05/2006

2006-05-28T15:39:00.000+12:00

Tom Frewen's Week in Parliament (formerly on National Radio) is an informative and interesting segment on Radio Live's Sunday morning programme. Listening to this morning's edition, I couldn't help but think the issues and speeches on which Frewen reports deserve a hell of a lot more coverage than they get in general news broadcasts. On today's show the listener was treated to Finance Minister Michael Cullen's reply to criticisms of the budget. Last week, Frewen criticised media coverage of the budget and broadcast at length opposition's criticisms. And the week before that, a report on the standards of parliamentary debate was broadcast. The information contained in these reports is in the utmost public interest (hence its funding through New Zealand On Air). Important debates surrounding the budget and other legislation are surely more important to New Zealanders than a U.S. crime story chosen because it contained an oddity (a feature on Radio Live's news the same morning). But the main advantage the reports is that the listener is presented with lengthy and important soundbites of politicians' speeches and subsequent replies. Based on these segments, listeners are left to make up their own minds on issues of importance. Frewen sometimes comments on style.

The greatest advantage of the Week in Parliament is listeners hear directly from the mouths of politicians, without the Radio Live, TV One etc. newsdesks blurring the facts through attention grabbing headlines (the focus of my next post). It is true that often news or current affairs reports will have a sound bite from a politician's speech, but more often than not, they last a mere three seconds, lack significant substance and are frequently taken out of context. The media should be presenting facts and stories, not sensationalising material to encourage listener/viewership. Its role is to act as the town hall of our nation-state, and to present ideas openly, honestly and intelligently. There are few means of better achieving this than through the direct presentation of a politician's views, and those opposing her/him. A news organisation's opinion shouldn't feature in a news item, only the news itself. Radio Live should take the Week in Parliament as an example of how its political news items should be structured. News segments should feature more lengthy and wisely chosen sound bites from politicians' speeches, whilst refraining from making gestures which blur facts or state an opinion (Wellington's Newstalk ZB news reader Sue Burgin is absolutely notorious here. Last week she let out a great 'yeah right' sigh after reading out the government's opinion that most New Zealanders didn't want tax cuts - Stick to news reading will you Sue?). Anyway, I'll leave it at that for this weekend. Keep up the solid reporting Tom... and keep sticking to those important issues. My post next Wednesday will focus on critiquing the general styles and structuring of news bulletins in New Zealand's media.

Foolishness - Martin Devlin, Devlin Live, Radio Live

2006-05-24T14:23:00.000+12:00

Martin Devlin's breakfast show on Radio Live is of extremely poor quality. Devlin often doesn't understand the issues at hand, makes ridiculous claims, focuses on irrelevant points and splurts out stupid offensive remarks he thinks are funny (he makes homosexual jokes for god's sake). These aren't the only problems of course, he lacks a long list of characteristics any quality compere should have.

During the so-called media 'silly season' over summer I remember Lindsay Perigo filling in on the Radio Live breakfast slot. Now I'm not a Perigo fan, but it was such an incredibly pleasant change to have an intelligent, lively and focused individual on in place of Devlin, I simply had to e-mail Radio Live demanding Perigo be put on the breakfast slot permanently. Of course, no one listened. And weekday after weekday I continue to be dismayed at Devlin's persistent broadcasts from 6am - 9am.

Today, I received a perfect example of how terrible this man actually is at his job (hence the post). A reader sent me a brief e-mail critique she/he sent to Devlin and the two replies subsequently received. I am relieved there are others out there fighting to keep the Devlins of this world away from the public microphone. And here it is, for your reading pleasure, a perfect example of why Devlin doesn't meet the standards of a good radio host in our pluralistic democratic society:

(I won't put up Devlin's e-mails without permission, that'd be a bit unethical. But I will make a brief note of the substance of his reply)

------------------------
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 9:13 a.m.
To: Martin Devlin
Subject: Prebble interview.

Just listened to your interview with Mark Prebble. God you're a dimwit Mr. Devlin.

------------------------

Martin Devlin sends an e-mail asking for the listener to 'extrapolate' himself.

-----------------------------------

From: XXX
Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 10:30 a.m.
To: Martin Devlin
Subject: Re: Prebble interview.

Okay, you asked for a reply - fair enough. I hope you honour your challenge and read this on air.

* You stated "there has been a $2b mistake here" and "the consequence is the most serious economic disaster for a company ever in New Zealand". Clearly, the money was not wiped off as a result of the leak. Telecom's shares lost value because the government removed their effective monopoly over the local loop. Had it not been for the leak, the shares would most likely have plummeted by $2b today after the budget announcement. So to say that the leak cost $2b is either disingenuous or stupid - take your pick.

* You focused a good part of the interview arguing whether the leaked document on unbundling was the "most sensitive commercial document that the country has ever seen" and, even more hysterically, that it was "bigger than probably every other document that has been in that office". Aside from being largely irrelevant to the case at hand, such a claim is dubious at best, especially considering that we as private citizens don't know what kind of documents go through cabinet.

* You insisted that a messenger should not have been allowed to handle sensitive documents, but as Prebble points out, these people are employed precisely to handle such documents. Any system relies on a certain level of trust.

* You tried to draw a distinction between Maatern Wevers 'offering his resignation' and 'tendering his resignation'. Prebble was quite right when he said "that's complete nonsense". The question was idiotic. I refer you to the Merriam Webster dictionary's definition of 'tender':

tender
Main Entry: 3tender
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ten·dered; ten·der·ing
1 : to make a tender of
2 : to present for acceptance : OFFER

* You implied quite clearly that Mark Prebble - the State Services Commissioner - is a spin doctor for the Labour government. The reality is that he is a highly respected public servant, well known for his record of impartiality.

* When you introduced Gerry Brownlee as "the National Party's a-opposite...their State Services spokesperson", implying that Prebble is a minister in the Labour government. Technically, Prebble is a public servant, and hence a neutral servant for the government of the day. To call this into question is a serious charge, and one that deserves a bit more thought than your flippant remark.

* Your interview with Gerry Brownlee was ridiculously soft. Why weren't you as critical of his claims as you were of Prebble's? Why didn't you ask him what a National government would have done differently, or how he could possibly talk given National's recent embarrassment over leaks? You again referred to Prebble as a 'spin doctor'. You repeated the nonsense about the leak itself costing $2b.

Look Devlin, I'm sure you're a swell guy, but I think your ignorant sports jock stylings are unsuited to serious political commentary and are actually harming our democracy. You constantly make stupid, biased and uninformed claims. You make grievous fuckups on a regular basis, and I'm sick of it.

Here are two examples (there are plenty more):

* Your treatment of people with mental health issues is disgraceful, discriminatory and not in line with the accepted research on the issue. The "baked beans horsey lala" comments in particular were a new low in shock jock journalism.

* A couple of months back you referred to Transpower as 'a government department' when it's clearly an SOE, and complained that it shouldn't be having a dispute with the Electricity Commission because 'they're both government departments'. This showed a laughable lack of understanding about the regulatory regime for electricity.

And don't give me the line that I don't have to listen to your show. If I didn't have to listen to your show for my job then I wouldn't. I mean, come on, I mean, Paul Holmes beat you at the Broadcasting Awards for God's sake!

All I'm asking is that you do a bit more research and try to be a bit more balanced. If you can't manage that, then I suggest you move on so a proper journalist can take your place.

Kind regards,

XXX

------------------------------

Devlin tells the listener he knows more about the Telecom leak than he'll ever know about. He doesn't make reference to any other point of the critique.

------------------------------

I don't necessarily agree with all the points made by the listener, but most readers will be able to agree she/he does make good points which deserve an answer. If Devlin can't perform the responsibilities he as a radio host has been entrusted with, then it's about time he made way for someone who can.

The Not So Independent - Dominion Post, 17/05/2006

2006-05-18T11:56:00.000+12:00

Page C5 of the Dominion Post yesterday, featured an advertisement for the Fairfax owned Independent Financial Review (Formerly The Independent). The ad features a giant gangsta caricature of Helen Clark. It questions what the 'GOVERNMENT should spend its HUGE BUDGET SURPLUS' on? It then seemingly gives the reader two choices. First, between Health and Education, and Cullen's Super Fund. Second, betweeen Tax Cuts, and More Hip Hop Tours. It then goes on to invite the reader to participate in debate surrounding the budget by indulging in a purchase of The Independent Financial Review. And if you're smart enough to do just that, you'll be rewarded with 'diverse opinion on today's business issues'.

Well, if by diverse they mean a team full of National Party sympthisers and Chris Trotter thrown in for good measure, then.... maybe. But without going into the specifics of the publication itself, I'll let the advertisement speaks for itself. Though The Independent Financial Review claims independence and neutrality, it is anything but. It needs to change its name, state its views explicitly, and engage the reader with open and intelligent debate. A closer look of the example at hand reveals its unintellectual sensationalist bias.

Let's start with Hip Hop tours. There is an infatuation with Hip Hop tours amongst critics of the current government. This all started with the relevation Creative New Zealand had used $5000 of public money to fund a hip-hop tour. This caught on with critics, not because it was overly significant, but because a lot of their potential voters don't like hip-hop (It is hard to imagine similar criticism over a publicly funded NZSO tour). The Independent's use of the hip-hop slogan goes a long way to show not only its (and Fairfax's) political convictions, but their willingness to use irrational sensationalism to incite support for their cause. They attempt to create support for neo-liberal economic policy, not through intelligent and open debate, but through mindless pandering to prejudice. Even worse, on top of that the reader is presented with the false dichotomy of a choice between hip-hop tours or tax cuts. It is rather absurd; hardly an objective, neutral and intelligent invitation to debate. The same applies the presentation of Health and Education versus the Cullen Fund.

That the Independent Financial Review is a neo-liberal publication isn't ground-breaking news. Most financial (or indeed most commercial) publications support neo-liberal economic policy. I don't think there's too much of a moral problem with that. Publications, like individuals, are entitled to their views. But don't try and claim you're Independent if you're not.

[This Saturday's post is delayed until Monday as I'm away. But might have someone to put up an opinion piece in the meantime.]

Advertising Complaints Authority - Morning Programs, Newstalk ZB, 12/05/2006

2006-05-13T16:47:00.000+12:00

Yesterday the Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld several complaints made against a Toyota advertisement. The ad depicts a violent tussle between a couple vying for control over their car. Since the initial broadcasting of the ad, nineteen of your regular breed of concerned family values driven individuals complained it was too violent and would upset children. The Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld those concerns and the advertisement is no longer allowed to be broadcast. That made for heavenly talkback pickings.

Paul Holmes and Leighton Smith were outraged at this politically correct nonsense (if someone out there has a good definition of what the hell political correctness actually is, please let me know, I'm still confused). They claimed this was simply another example of the nanny state imposing its maternal instincts and stifling freedom. Another good example of why we should vote out this socialist - nay communist Labour-led government. Caller John Smith agreed of course. First the smoking legislation, now this? It's all too much Leighton.

Leaning in close to my wireless I couldn't help but be bemused by what I was hearing. The Newstalk ZB morning hosts obviously had no idea the Advertising Standards Complaints Board wasn't a government entity at all. It's the executive arm of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a self-regulatory organisation set up by the advertising industry. And funnily enough, The Radio Network (Newstalk ZB's owner) is via its membership of the Radio Broadcasting Association, a member of the ASA.

Well done Paul. Well done Leighton. Instead of blaming the government for this 'politically correct nonsense' you should probably be pointing the fingers at your own employer. Can you imagine it? Holmes: 'I'm tired of this station telling us what we can and can't do. It's about time someone put a stop to this PC epidemic running through the corridors of Newstalk ZB'. Well, no. Quite hard to imagine isn't it? Holmes and Smith don't really care about the issue at all. Their behaviour reflects nothing more than an opportunistic unintellectual cheap shot at a government they don't like. If there are no coherent and solid arguments at hand, they don't have a problem throwing lies out into the public sphere to advance their own interests. Good honest fair and ethical behaviour? I think not. This is simply another example of a media not playing its required role in our pluralistic democratic society. The media's role is act as society's public forum where issues can be debated honestly, openly and intelligently without framework limitation. Holmes and Smith as morning broadcasters on a major radio station share in this responsibility, and it's about time they faced up to it.

Radio Awards - Radio Broadcasters' Association

2006-05-10T13:01:00.000+12:00

As noted in my previous post, the Radio Broadcasters Association has recently held the New Zealand Radio Awards 2006. I was quite confused as to how nominations for the various awards were decided upon. That Leighton Smith in particular was nominated was really beyond belief. On what basis are nominations and winners of these awards decided upon? Well I couldn't find any criteria at all on the Radio Broadcasters' Association website. I e-mailed Executive Director David Innes and asked him on what basis the awards were judged. He never got back to me. Either he couldn't be bothered replying or didn't really have any solid guidelines at hand to give out. I do think it is important considering publicity surrounding the awards there is some kind of transparency as to what basis they are judged upon. The public is told Paul Holmes is the best host, but no one tells them why. Holmes' ratings go up, more people listen to him, but no one knows why. It all seems rather silly doesn't it?

Well who are the Radio Broadcasters' Association? They describe themselves and the tasks for which they are responsible as:

...to maintain high standards of commercial radio broadcasting in New Zealand and to represent the commercial radio industry to its many partners and stakeholders within government, business and the community.

They are effectively the commercial radio industry's self-regulatory body. Its board is made up mostly of representatives from CanWest and The Radio Network (New Zealand's two major commerial operators). By virtue of its make-up then, the RBA is little more than an advocate for commercial radio in New Zealand. And according to its own submission, is strongly against public broadcasting (i.e. National Radio). It believes commercial radio can successfully fulfil the important requirement of impartiality and quality. Now, what does this mean for the NZ Radio Awards which are run directly by the RBA?

When I first glanced through the list of nominations and winners I was extraordinarily surprised at the lack of recognition of publicly funded journalists / broadcasters. But now it all makes sense. It isn't in the interests of the RBA to allow National Radio to receive any commercial important awards. Instead, it is obvious that the RBA has a clear interest in ensuring its members dominate both nominations and awards which fit this category. Dominance here will help ensure higher listenership and hence greater advertising revenue. That Paul Holmes therefore won Best Talk or Current Affairs Host isn't surprising. Once you cut out National Radio (which includes Sean Plunket, Mary Wilson, Geoff Robinson, Kathryn Ryan, Kim Hill) much talent disappears from contention. Not only that, but National Radio is as a publicly funded model generally more objective in its reporting. By excluding it from the most essential awards, the RBA ends up reflecting success in less impartial and objective hosts / shows.

The Radio New Zealand Awards are essentially little more than a PR exercise. They shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't receive the publicity they do. By handing out awards to commercial hosts / shows and cutting out National Radio, it is no surprise the awards do not reflect objectivity, impartiality, quality of information, intelligent opinion or issue comprehension.

[My next post will concern Best Host winner Paul Holmes. He is a prime example of exactly why the Radio Awards are farce]

Home Invasion - Newses, Radio Live et al, 06/05/2006

2006-05-06T16:00:00.000+12:00

I was going to post my opinion of Paul Holmes' recent winning of Best Host at the New Zealand Radio Awards today, but I'm waiting for some more information on the awards before I comment. So that will just have to wait till Wednesday. Instead, today, I want to comment on this story which has featured prominently in various media this weekend. Two victims of a home invasion in Rotorua have expressed their displeasure at what they say is a too low a sentence for a man involved in the crime. This story of course is not unique. It is common and indeed understandable that victims of crime should feel that perpetrators' sentences should be harsher. And these concerns are often reflected in news reports. Now media reporting of such outcries is often problematic in itself, but I shall leave that topic for another time. With regards to this specific case, the standard of reporting left much to be desired.

Here's a brief synopsis of the story. An employee in Rotorua told his associates that his employers' (an elderly couple) house would be a good place to burgle. Subsequently the employee's associates illegally entered the employers' house and assaulted the male occupant.

Media reporting of the incident however blurred the facts surrounding the incident. Whilst reading today's Herald I was quite confused. It seemed a man (the employee) who had viciously attacked an elderly couple was convicted of nothing more than a light jail sentence with possible home detention. Only after noticing a brief sentence in the middle of the article, did I realise the employee himself had not actually committed the attacks himself. Likewise Radio Live news this morning implied the same as the Herald article. The newsreader told in emotive language of a victim who was 'disgusted' that a man involved in the attack was let off with a light sentence. Exactly what kind of involvement wasn't divulged. Instead the listener was left with the impression that the employee himself had committed the assault.

Now I don't want to pass any kind of judgement as to whether or not the employee deserved a harsher penalty for the part he played in the crime. But either way media have a duty to present us facts with clarity. Obscuring the facts for whatever purpose is unethical behaviour. It creates false impressions of both issues and persons and undermines the media's position in democratic society.

[In reply to some of the comments on my previous post, I refer you to the first post of this blog in which I detailed the role I believe the media must play in our society. In reply to some comments on expectations of talkback, I will just say this: I criticise where I see criticism is fit. Maybe nothing can be practically done about my concerns in the short-term. Nonetheless, where criticism is due and deserved, it should be made.]

Radio Awards - Leighton Smith, Newstalk ZB

2006-05-03T14:48:00.000+12:00

So Leighton Smith was a finalist for the 'Best Talk or Current Affairs Host Award' at the New Zealand Radio Awards. Paul Holmes won. It really had me wondering, what do they base such awards upon? I can't seem to find any specific measures on the Radio Broadcasters Association's website, but clearly objectivity, intelligence, relevance, importance and understanding of issues were not among the guidelines. Before this website turns into a Leighton Smith bashing campaign, let me note this will be my final remark about him for a while.

I'll stick to one example to prove my point. Week after week Leighton Smith tells listeners that immigrants to New Zealand should have to conform to 'our' values. That's fine and dandy, he's welcome to voice his opinion (which I don't share) on his Newstalk ZB morning slot. But as a public forum his show has a duty to broadcast a wide variety of views and opinions, and then proceed to discuss them intelligently. So I decided to pull Smith up on his principled stance and engage him - to see if he would accept my points as valid and engage me in an intelligent manner.

I noted to things about Smith before e-mailing him. 1) He is Australian. 2) He constantly criticises new immigrants who don't conform to 'our' values, yet gets angry at any mention of government policy.
To me, that seemed like a bit of a contradiction. Here is a snippet of what I said.

-----Me-------

Leighton,

I don't share your opinion about immigrants having to conform to a state's culture upon their arrival. But, by *your* rationale you should in theory, if you don't like it, go back to Australia. Obviously, since you don't agree with the majority decision the people of this country made when they voted for a liberal socialist government then you don't conform to 'our' cultural values.

But of course you won't. Because somehow you think you're different or special. Hypocracy is a nasty habit... you really should get over it.

----Smith------

Patently my missionary work has a way to go !

---------------

And later he went on air saying that he received an e-mail telling him to go home, and by goodness he was home! New Zealand is his home and he wants to make it better. Well no, that wasn't what I said nor the point of my e-mail at all. It was rather to pull him up on a contradiction in an argument he makes week after week. So, it goes to show one of two things. First, either Smith couldn't grasp the point I was making. Or second, he didn't want to engage the argument because it might've undermined his own position. Either way, the man has no business being on the morning slot on one of Auckland's major stations. He is unfit to be a broadcaster. He's either unobjective or an idiot. Either way, his poor performance as a radio host is contributing to the undermining of an important public forum. How he was nominated as a finalist for ANY award is beyond me.

(I'll leave my criticisms of the winner Paul Holmes for my next post. I've set aside time to update this website twice a week - Wednesday and Saturday - so there won't be any long droughts betweens posts anymore. I was going to flag altogether, but I received a fair bit of positive encouragement.)

Argh - Leighton Smith, Newstalk ZB, Morning of 27/04/2006

2006-04-27T10:50:00.000+12:00

No - my comments have not permanently ceased. I've been rather busy (and away). But I shall begin posting again this weekend (specifically about Leighton Smith). Quick note about his recent comments. He has been consistently misrepresenting the views of others who hold opposing opinions to his own. Not just minutely either. He misrepresents in such grossly underhanded way, that intelligent and objective debate is completely stifled. Smith is an absolute disgrace to New Zealand broadcasting. My week's analysis of his show will follow this weekend.

Racism - John Banks, Radio Pacific, 10/04/2006

2006-04-12T22:09:00.000+12:00

John Banks isn't known as the most liberal (or sane) individual in New Zealand. In fact, many a person has told me he is absolutely barking mad. His talkback show is filled with religious rhetoric (which recently included a sychophantic interview with Brian Tamaki), bigoted generalisations and some really really odd stuff. Now, one would think I shouldn't feel the need to comment on such nonsense. Everyone knows about it, hardly anyone listens to it, so might as well just let it run its path.

But, let's not forget one of the pivotal roles of the media: to act as a public forum within which the views of society can be aired and heard freely. All media outlets, no matter how insignificant, need to be criticised. Banks himself loves to refer to his show as the 'people's parliament'. Well, I presume then he sees himself as the speaker of the people's parliament, the independent moderator of debate? If he does, he should be framing debate within an intellectual context, not a racist one. On his show yesterday, just after 7am, a caller named Peter called Banks saying there should be a sign at Auckland Aiport telling tourists that hitch hiking is dangerous. Banks replied there should be sign 'Welcome to Aotearoa, but be very wary of the natives'. Now, I guess in certain contexts that could be funny. But not in Banks'. His constant bagging of Maori among other ethnicities is far from light-hearted. He is quite serious. There's really not much else to say, except that it is completely unacceptable for any media outlet to allow such junk to fill the airwaves. Banks shouldn't be on the air if he can't help but make pathetic racist remarks and generalisations. It stifles intellectual debate and is just plain stupid.

(Leighton Smith (Newstalk ZB) may not be so obvious, but the implicit racist/cultural generalisations he makes are far beyond reasonable)

Talkback Radio - A Different Perspective

2006-04-10T17:02:00.000+12:00

Here's an opinion piece on Talkback Radio that was sent to me by a young, wishing to remain anonymous, journalist. It's far better than anything I could ever write, and I think it encapsulates the talkback experience marvellously. I shan't comment on what I think the evident shortcomings of the media it exemplifies, but instead invite to you draw your own conclusions:

------------------------------------------------

It’s a Thursday morning and the burqa debate is fresh in everyone’s mind. The most provocative take on this issue, delivered in the most ponderous of tones, is being argued matter-of-factly.

“To be perfectly blunt with you I find the thought and the idea of a burqa an absolute absurdity, a joke, stupidity. When I see on television a New Zealander wearing a burqa, a NZ white woman, the absurdity is exaggerated.”

It’s twenty-eight minutes to ten and Leighton Smith is here to take your calls. Muslims’ requests for such measures as women to be able to wear burqas while driving are making inroads on our democracy, little by little. Smith, described on the Newstalk ZB website as sophisticated and urbane, warns, “Once they have a firm hold, look out.”

Caller Stuart says allowing women to wear burqas while driving is the first step on the path to anarchy. Elegantly-accented Smith says burqa-wearing motorists could potentially get away with crime. Do other listeners agree? What are their thoughts? Hold the phone, it’s time to talk to Rod Jendon from Wet & Forget.

Newstalk ZB brings you the news as it happens. On the early morning show before Smith, the perpetually world-weary Paul Holmes delivers his take on the news and current affairs as quickly as he’s able to read from the previous night’s sauvignon blanc-induced notes.

“Number one is this joker Mr Stavenhagen, who came here from the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, whatever the hell that committee is! A Mexican with a name like Stavenhagen! … what do we make of a fellow who comes from Mexico called Stavenhagen?”

Well, what do the listeners think? Caller John tells Stavenhagen to go home, he’s not welcome here. Caller Mary says stop meddling in our affairs.

A break for news, an interview with Roger Kerr of the Business Roundtable, and then it’s back to this joker Stavenhagen.

“Must be a former activist hiding out in Mexico! He’s a curious geezer, Stavenhagen. Mr Stavenhagen ain’t my kind of man. He might be a Hagen but he ain’t starvin’ and that’s a fact!”

If you listen carefully the compere falls off his chair in a fit of internal laughter.

Across town at Radio Live, Mark Bennett, who usually courts attention via the Broadcasting Standards Authority, is standing in for Michael Laws. This morning the burqa issue has ignited Bennett’s sense of justice.

Bennett: “I can’t understand why the ordinary New Zealander isn’t allowed to wear balaclavas in public while Muslim women can wear burqas while driving. The balaclava is sacred to all New Zealanders!”

Caller Edna is worried terrorists could hide behind the burqa. Caller Steve doesn’t know why women wear it at all. Bennett says it’s because they’re all ugly.

Break for ads, then Bennett, who once compared homosexuality to paedophilia and necrophilia, admits he’s trying to locate the love child of the just-deceased Gene Pitney. The mother’s name is Karen Wood.

Radio Pacific is based in Auckland but John Banks chooses to broadcast from planet Mars. In the news today the government is reviewing immigration laws, the Chinese Premier has arrived in NZ, there’s that Stavenhagen report, plus the burqa issue, of course. What’s dwelling in Banks’ mind first thing this particular morning? Hygiene.

Banks, who has a peculiar fascination with the elderly, informs listeners – “roosters” – that he disinfects his studio everyday before he begins his show. “I like everything clean.”What’s probing listeners’ minds? Anything? Caller Lorna says if Banks had been elected Prime Minister he would’ve made her proud.

Banks: “I’d be proud if you were my grandmother.”

Banks, unintentional comedian, the world’s most unlikely city mayor, is a man facing just one challenge: the 21st century. Today he’s the bearer of the bad news that the Labour government is likely to be in charge for the rest of our lives. Meanwhile there’s the pressing Zaoui issue to contend with.

“Two-and-a-half million dollars in legal fees for one client! An Algerian interloper! Aren’t we just a pack of mugs! See his little lawyer on TV last night? She’s razor sharp, Deborah Manning.”

Oddly-voiced Banks went for a walk down Dominion Road the other day. There was hardly any English writing anywhere, lots of Arabic, Chinese, Korean, but hardly any English. Caller Dave of Blockhouse Bay says a different nationality, a brown one, tried to talk to him at the beach.

“What he was trying to say I don’t know. I call them liquorice allsorts. Do you remember them Banksy?”

Banks: “Yeah, I think I do. Lollies.”

Caller Kate says people in Mt Roskill are transacting food vouchers for alcohol.Banks: “We need to get to bottom of this.” The show cuts to Trackside.

Summing up at the end of the show, Banks says: “Well, she’s a beautiful lady our Lorna. It’s twenty-five past eight. Truth Radio. Broadcasting from the Fortress of Arrogance!”

At 11.30am on Newstalk ZB, the news update reports that the Chinese Premier is now in talks with Prime Minister Helen Clark, there’ve been further suppression order breaches relating to the Louise Nicholas rape trial, and police have broken up a major P syndicate in South Auckland. Ad break, and then Leighton Smith introduces Martin Dunne of City Sales, experts in inner-city apartment real estate. There’s an apartment suite near Grafton Bridge that’s really well-priced. It has two carparks.

The urbane one: “That would make it, I would’ve thought, sort after.”

I love commercial radio. In a way.

------------------------------------------------

Wen Jiabao - NZ Herald, 08/04/2006

2006-04-10T16:25:00.000+12:00

On Saturday, a friend pointed me to the New Zealand Herald's interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao:

When the Premier of the world's most populous nation came calling this
week, he gave his only one-on-one interview to the Herald.

So why did the Herald waste this precious opportunity to conduct an important critical analysis of human rights violations? The Chinese Government's abuse of human rights has affected thousands of ex-Chinese residents now residing in New Zealand (not just Falun Gong). A Nine to Noon interview just last week featured a New Zealand citizen who was tortured by the authorities in China. One would think that torture and general rights violations of not just former Chinese citizens, but current New Zealand citizens, would surely incite New Zealand's largest newspaper to use its monopoly on Wen's time to make an issue of this abuse.

But the word rights didn't feature at all in the article. And the word human was mentioned only in the context of 'human resources'. The Herald piece rivalled John Campbell's most gushing of all interviews. But why? Perhap conditions were attached to the interview. But that excuse doesn't wash, because the piece itself isn't actually published in interview style. It's an article about the interview. The writer could have easily inserted a paragraph on the issue of human rights; that they were a problem; why they weren't addressed during the interview. But there was nothing. Nothing at all. The only logical reason behind this vaccum, seems to be that the Herald wouldn't like to damped its chances for another interview with Chinese officials in the future. But that's hardly a good reason to print an uncritical article on an authoritarian dictatorship, which has directly affected the lives of many New Zealanders.

Drinking Age - Newses, Various Media, 06/01/2006

2006-04-07T09:56:00.000+12:00

It was nice to see the media reporting what youth thought of a raised drinking age (Stuff, Radio Live, Newstalk ZB). Time after time interviews with parents, teachers and health 'experts' have dominated broadcasts and print. Now the Ministry of Youth have, to provide an outlet for youth opinion, set up an advisory group made up of 15 - 21 year olds - those who would actually be directly affected were the legislation to pass. Two members have just presented the group's opinions to the select committee hearing on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. It's about time the media picked up that youth have ideas that deserve to be heard aswell. But it most certainly shouldn't have taken the entirety of a submission to a select committee by a Ministry of Youth created group, for the media to take note that those affected by the legislation also have opinions on it.

Listening to the views of a sector of society which has no say in formal political society is crucial. Should the law pass this year, those who since the last election have turned 18 wouldn't have yet had the chance to vote. Hence, 18 year olds directly affected by the raising of the drinking age wouldn't have had any formal democratic input into a law that would constrain their rights as adults. And, it was exactly that, which this group of youth had concerns about - that their rights as fully grown individuals would be severely affected. The media hadn't reported on right constraints thus far, instead choosing to focus purely on health issues. The reason being of course, that those whose rights were being curtailed were never actually asked what they thought about it. As I noted in my previous post on the drinking age, the media have a conventional duty in a democratic society to air the diverse opinions of all sectors of society. It's nice to see those affected by the proposed changes to liquor legislation now being heard. But, they should've been listened to a long time ago, and more importantly, they must continue to have their views considered.

PS. Thumbs down to the Herald, which reported on the all to familiar teenage binge drinking story instead.

British Sex Scandal - Morning Newses, Newstalk ZB, 03/04/2006

2006-04-03T16:09:00.000+12:00

That's right. A sex scandal involving a British Conservative MP featured on Newstalk ZB's newses this morning. I can't describe the broadcast of this story as anything else than utterly inept pointless behaviour. We have over the past few months endured the New Zealand media's persistance of trying make the David Benson-Pope affair 'matter'. But broadcasting a story in which the public have no vested interest over and over again is not going to create any vested interest. So the public was forced to endure this ridiculous media onslaught which had no relevance to individuals' lives. Public opinion was largely in Benson-Pope's favour, not because his actions were endorsed but because most people sympathise with the fact that politicians' personal lives are exactly that - their own private sphere. The media's role is to act as the forum through which political ideas can be aired and debated. Relegating this importance to pursue allegations against specific individuals undermines pluralistic democracy. How can the many various opinions held by New Zealanders on issues in which they have a vested interest, be heard above the loud superficial media scoops of personal lives? If any alleged midconduct of public officials (or anyone else for that matter) is criminal and serious enough, then it is the role of the police to undertake an investigation, not the media. And if it isn't criminal or serious, then the media have no business putting important issues on the back burner to broadcast someone's private sphere to the world.

So after much of the public voiced exactly that opinion with regards to the Benson-Pope (and David Carter) affair, what the heck is Newstalk ZB doing broadcasting a story which is not only far less significant in substance but on the other side of the world?! It's a big slap in the face to the New Zealand public who may have finally hoped that these wasteful stories would cease...at least for a little while. Newstalk ZB, time after time, continues to pursue the line of a media outlet with no more interest (or competency?) at broadcasting important and objective news than a primate with a typewriter. They are not fulfilling the role of a large and important national broadcaster and are subsequently contributing to stifled debate and a less valuable pluralistic democratic society. They need to urgently clean up their act and start playing the role they have been entrusted with - a forum for public ideas and debate.

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

2006-03-31T15:39:00.000+12:00

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

2006-03-29T12:44:00.000+12:00

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

2006-03-25T15:41:00.001+12:00

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

2006-03-24T15:48:00.000+12:00

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

2006-03-23T10:16:00.000+12:00

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

2006-03-18T12:01:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-17T10:58:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-17T09:17:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-15T15:08:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-13T10:24:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-09T11:28:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-08T11:48:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-07T10:12:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-06T19:17:00.000+13:00

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

2006-03-05T17:26:00.000+13:00

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.