On Journolism...

The Pink Rabbit has some contact with Kiwiland, has some mates here, and I must confess trots a worthwhile line of debate on occasions; well as far as everyone agrees with him that is. One of the latest asks the question whether NZ has a "Journolist". For those who have not yet come across the term, it relates to journalists with whom the uber-right-whingers "have issues". It is just another of those convenient buzz-words... I did try to paste the following as a comment but such is the Pink Rabbits obsession with free speech it has not shown on the page. Ahh well, I will fight for his free speech just as strenuously.

If the Edwards referred to in the comments is the same one as I am thinking of then I am hardly surprised at the lack of response. It seems that to "succeed" in the world of information distribution the first qualification is the ability to ignore any truth other than that of the "masters". That same truth can be applied to the many bloggers who hold themselves out as "disseminators of the truth".

The instant reaction to a truth which does not fit with the reporters line could best be simulated by taking a swig at the aftershave bottle. When a primary income source is dependent upon people making the news (see the associated Edwards web-page if it is the one I am thinking of) then the pursed lips get even tighter still.

News and reportage here in NZ is pretty homogenous and weak-kneed. The most independent used to be Scoop (www.scoop.co.nz). In recent times even they seem to have become less investigative and more "populist" (the news you want to hear rather than the news you should hear). The reputation they built with the exposure of the Diebold problem has gone somewhat mouldy. Otherwise, 99% of NZ news comes from NZAP, AP Reuters and the American sources.

True investigative reporting seems to have died (globally, not just NZ) with Watergate. There seems to have been little since that has not had political interest as a primary motive rather than the public's need to know. In other words, investigate to prove a particular point of view - usually political - rather than determining an objective truth. As a result the "investigations" are monocular and slanted, presenting only those facts that lead to the desired end. IMO there is little difference on that count - other than the colour of the politics - between Fox, NBC, and Pravda or Peoples Daily.

Hence you can take your list and apply to NZ with impunity.

Personally, I filter for my news; look for a story and then filter off all AP and Reuters links... Add a good dose of salt and cogitate. The sad fact is the most people tend to select one broadcaster as"the truth" and accept that truth without question. :cry: Even if it is Rush Limbaugh.

There is a larger question here; one I have touched upon in the past. It is the news media's (particularly television's) penchant for taking "press release" video and presenting it as news. Nothing wrong with that, provided that the viewer is aware of its provenance - for the thick that means who prepared it and why. In some years past (the last eight to be precise) probably 25% to 50% of the news on some very specific subjects came from such sources. Amongst the worst of the disseminators of this "hand-massaged news" in my exoerience were TVOne, Reuters and Fox. Understand, this was news reportage prepared not by the media but by those whom the "news" was about. Understand that it was presented without any disclosure that the "report" came from an interested source.

Here in NZ the progress toward "celebrity news" - the person presenting the news is more important than the news being presented - is very near complete. At least the likes of Paul Holmes, Paul Henry, and Michael Laws have been kept from the studios of the very little editorial and analytical commentary we get dished out.

So far.

Quick update as I strolled around my "news" sources -

The New Republic has a good little article of which I will quote just the last para -

It's fashionable to draw a parallel between MSNBC and Fox News. But MSNBC's liberal commentary occupies just a couple hours of its evening lineup. It is intended as a supplement to the news, not a substitute for it. The premise of Fox News, Limbaugh etc. is that the mainstream media is totally corrupt and should be completely ignored in favor of news sources controlled by the conservative movement. That premise has no parallel on the left.

(Emphasis is mine)

As I see the world, that makes Fox's marketing premise very clear.

On television -

On Tuesday night, Maori Television here showed a documentary on Uighur leader Rebiya Khadeer, much to the consternation and distaste of the Chinese government. In the interests of "balance" Mtv followed the documentary with a Chinese government "press release" on the Xinjiang riots in July this year.

As a result, there has been considerable criticism of Mtv for showing "blatant Chinese government propaganda". That it certainly was, and in the ol probligo's mind that is exactly a very good reason why it should be shown. After showing some 15 minutes of street scene cctv of people beating up on others, breaking windows, and setting a couple of fires, police escorting some 25 "prisoners", and all of that without commentary, the film concluded that the riots had been orchestrated by the World Uighur Congress and Khadeer was the only individual named.

What many seem to miss is that showing this kind of government crap is so important simply because it is part of learning differences between factual (and there was fact in the CPR film; people were rioting) and the distribution of political cant based upon broken and missing logical conclusion. That the riots were Uighurs taking out their frustration on the Han is also factual. That is little different to the government here saying that Ngai Tuhoe live in the Urewera.

As I have posted to a couple or three fora -

"I also commend MaoriTV for showing the China Government film after the Uighur doco. NOT because I have any support or affiliation for the Chinese government; quite the opposite.

By showing the “press release” (about the most polite and desriptive appelation I can find) anyone watching it should be able to see through the propaganda to the underlying truths. If they can not, then that shows the importance of broadcasting this and similar propaganda releases.

Why? Simply so that we all can learn to recognise government propaganda when it appears on our screens. Whether it is government sponsored “analysis” of riots in China, or police action against Te Urewera in this country, we the general public must be able to recognise what we are being told for what it is."

Just because CPR says that the rioting was "orchestrated by the WUC" does not make it so, any more than the NZ government saying that there was a "terrorist training camp" at Ruatoria makes that so. I believe it is a technique that was sometimes termed "drawing a long bow".

While on the subject of television viewing, Brian Edwards (a broadcaster and man of many letters for whom I hold considerable regard) published a "Brickbats and Bouquets" list earlier in the week. One of his top bouquets was in praise of a locally produced soap "Outrageous Fortune". I have tried to watch this hour of agony a couple of times and given up on it. Totally. I expressed this opinion in support of another commenter who thought he might be the only person who does not like this particular "entertainment". BE took some exception to my opine that he would also enjoy Coro St. and Shortie St. and accused me of being somewhat "elitist".

Ah, the good old kiwi tall poppy syndrome again.

Piha Rescue

The very short 2007 season of one of my most favourite television programmes has finished tonight.

The programme linked through the heading might last for a couple more weeks before TVNZ wipe it off. It will give you an idea of the quality of the programme.

Tonight's closer was a full hour long programme, instead of the usual 30 minutes. It follows a team of juniors (as young as 15) who are in their first patrol season, and some of whom have been qualified for beach duty less than a week. After a fairly stormy close to the afternoon (quite a neat NZ version of a thunderstorm)a family reports that their father went swimming about 30 minutes beforehand and has not returned. The programme follows the resulting search; I will not tell you the outcome.

See if you can get hold of it on the TV One site - use "Piha Rescue" in google if you must, but it makes a better keyword than search key.

See what the best of NZ youth are capable of, and how they react in extremely stressful conditions.

The Best of NZ Sport -

... the very best in fact.

I was hoping to link through to TV1 archive so that you (my casual readers) could enjoy the presentation of the Halberg Sports Awards which took place last night. Obviously, copyright and piracy being what they are TV1 has decided not to put this programme out on the 'Net.

So, you are missing out on seeing and hearing Valerie Vili win the Sportswoman of the Year, Mahe Drysdale's acceptance speech for Sportsman of the Year, Tana Umaga receiving a very overdue award for leadership and a Lifetime Achievement Award for Ken Elliot who at the age of 91 is still active in golf.

A shame the video is not available. It gives a very real picture of what NZ is, what our people are, and the combination of pride and humility displayed by our top sports men and women.

The Goody, the Baddy, and the Fugly - the true face of latent racism

What a storm in Britain! All over a few chance remarks in the midst of one of these time-waster tv programmes - the kind that relies upon the prurient interest of the audience in how personalities interact in confined circumstances.

But, given the hooha that has blown the latest series into the limelight -
mebbe I will have to change my mind somewhat.

Regulars here will know that I have had a fairly unique life - including experiences that would be limited to very few. For example being one of only 12 pakeha in a school of 120 gave me an idea of "culture shock" long before Toffler (was it his?) came up with the idea. That does not give me the right to claim that I have no prejudices. The proof of that pudding is in the hands of everyone else. For that reason I am loath to judge individuals.

What this Goody hooha has shown in very cold and sharp light is that the attitude we might have toward others - prejudice, preconception, and acceptance - is far more deeply ingrained and insidious than many of us would be prepared to admit.

Who remembers old Alf Garnett? He of "curry muncher" fame? A very biting and cruel portrayal of the British character of the 60's and 70's. "Nah! I'm not like that!" came with the just slightly embarrassed laughter.

And it is the cringe that is coming through on the wires now that make no better of the situation. Not that Dan Sabbagh's thoughts are in any way inconsistent with the several op-eds I have read.

What has happened to Shilpa Shetty, a genuine megastar, in the past few days has been deeply uncomfortable — but also compelling — viewing. It will divide opinion, offend many, and it will also get people thinking. To believe that Britain in 2007 is a uniformly nice place is to display staggering naïvety; if it takes reality television to remind us of that, so be it.

There are limits, of course, but there is no need for intervention in the programme at the first whiff of controversy. Intervention should be required only when the law (in this case against inciting racial hatred) has clearly been broken. Channel 4 is just about right when it says that “no overt racism” has occurred, although that does not absolve the broadcaster of a duty to warn housemates if that does occur.

Sabbagh's statement that "...the programme will ("should" would be a much better word I suspect) get people thinking..." deserves to come true. I suspect that in fact the number who "think" will be relatively small. The 10,000 objectors/complainers might comprise 20% of that number. That is still a very small slice of the population.

I would suspect that the far more common reaction will follow the kind of "review" that followed each week's programme of Alf Garnett - "Did ya see... Wasn't it hilarious!!" followed by instant brain-death on the topic until the morning after the next programme.

The truth of that is supported by the synopsis from the Guardian revealing that Goody was not the only participant with similar views...

In one exchange, Goody was heard saying of Shetty: "She makes me feel sick. She makes my skin crawl", while her now evicted mother Jackiey continually referred to her as "the Indian". Later Lloyd claimed that the Bollywood star "wants to be white" and called her a "dog".

After Shetty cooked a roast chicken dinner, Lloyd had said: "They eat with their hands in India, don't they. Or is that China?" She added: "You don't know where those hands have been."

The complaints were further fuelled when Tweed was reported as calling Shetty a "Paki". Channel 4 insists that in fact the word he used, which was bleeped out, was "cunt".

So while the Goody might be the whipping-girl for the hooha that has developed, there is an even deeper current running within the microcosm of the programme.

In Bangalore, Gordon Brown faced journalists questioning him on the merits of a reality show he claimed not to have seen. "I understand that in the UK there have already been 10,000 complaints from viewers about remarks which people see rightly as offensive," he said. "I want Britain to be seen as a country of fairness and tolerance. Anything that detracts from that I condemn."

Later Tony Blair's spokesman added: "What clearly is to be regretted and countered is any perception abroad that in any way we tolerate racism in this country."

That would seem to point to a level of denial that has even wider implications.

Who remembers the introspection and intent navel gazing that took place in Britain after the 7/7 bombings. How could people from England contemplate doing such a thing - after all they are part of our society and we treat them as equals. They are nice people...

That they may well be. What about the rest of us...