It is a programme that I have watched only very occasionally and then under duress from SWMBO. For that reason alone I must resist the temptation to go into too much detail...my opinions would not be fair and impartial, and in fact could result in the probligo being charged with all manner of civil crimes of which libel and slander would be the least. As a comparatively poor man, and with Paul Holmes a very rich man - at least three wives at different times and several million dollar plus mansions later testify to his wealth - my chances of pleading "fair comment" as a defence would be slight indeed.
So, why this rant now?
For those in the US, think Rush Limbaugh. Take equal portions of Dopey and Doc, from the seven dwarfs; and a good slice of Elmer Fudd. Add a small measure of Gollum and mix well. There, you have Paul Holmes.
In this past week, one of his nightly programmes was devoted to a South Auckland family who, through circumstances partly beyond their control, had been living in a totally substandard and dilapidated house. Descriptions of it included "foundations floating in sewage", damp, rotting and worse. Holmes, bless his little cotton sox, picked up on this story and undertook the role of benefactor. After seven months the family had a new home and the time came for the "grand opening". This, a "one hour special", has created more than just a ripple with the local tv reviews.
Some samples, from this morning's Herald...
"But this was no plain reporting of a happy outcome. There was something more, something unsavoury and disagreeable, in the tone and substance of Monday night's Holmes. Here, essentially, were the givers not only wanting to be seen to be giving.
Here were the givers demanding that the beneficiaries make payment through a very public homage to their patrons."
...
"And Holmes might have been right when he said those who had helped gave purely through generosity - although I'm sure that having their businesses promoted heavily during the show was hardly an unexpected reward.
But it is not they, the donors, but Holmes who was stage-managing the episode's greatest prize - publicity.
It leaves me sickened and speechless..."
Both of those quotes from Greg Dixon.
Gordon McLaughlan, professional journalist and past editor of Listener, suggests that had another of Holmes' shows been a job interview then he would never have got the job.
The interview in question was with the two leading mayoral candidates in the coming local body elections. One, the incumbent mayor, has in the past year or so made some rather unfortunate (to say the least) comments on quite a number of subjects. Two in particular head the list. The first was a comment regarding the mayor of NorthShore City ( a bit like San Francisco and Bay ). The second about "immigrants spitting in the streets". He sums up by saying;
"Almost everyone I know with professional media experience - in fact almost every intelligent, educated person I am associated with - despises Holmes' cheap tabloid style of subject and treatment. It is a travesty of current affairs.
Why can't we have a daily programme run by professional journalists proud of their craft, and backed up by intelligent briefing and quality information? An informed, thoughtful population is the bedrock of democracy..."
There is nothing in either of those critiques that I can disagree with. The pity is that for some reason a very large number of people every night think otherwise. For as long as the ratings continue to pay Holmes' salary the programme will, regrettably, stay.
No comments:
Post a Comment