Media watch – Monday

26 June 2017

MediaWatch

Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

18 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  June 26, 2017

    A feel good story from the Telegraph today to start your week.

    A lions fan had his accommodation fall through the night before the Blues game and was offered the floor of a member of the committee from the Ponsonby Rugby Club. Turns out the woman’s sons were Rieko and Akira Ioane.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/06/25/meet-lions-fan-slept-blacks-hero-hour-rieko-ioanes-floor/

    • So when are we getting the truth about what Kirton and the Labour board knew Pete K?

      • Blazer

         /  June 26, 2017

        Deal with the important issue,not the manufactured,diversion non event…Dave.

  2. Pete Kane

     /  June 26, 2017

    How would I know, other than through the same source as you. the media Dave?

    • Gezza

       /  June 26, 2017

      Cetacean Station?

    • my point exactly Pete – the media are doing a piss poor job chasing the Intern story down……but its pretty standard operation from NZ Media

      • Blazer

         /  June 26, 2017

        hard to chase down an invisible…target…Dave.

        • yeah right Blazer….. keep pushing that worn out old barrow….. nothing to see here because Labour is like freshly fallen snow: pure, pristine…… Barclay has gone and rightly so expert hit job by Winnie and cohorts… but it wont snare English no matter how they try to spin it….

          Whereas the intern thing reeks on so many fronts but the Labour/Greens friendly media are trying hard to ignore…

          And you know what National will still be the biggest party come 24/25 September this year and probably the core of the next government…… “no matter what we do” says Katie. Must be soul crushing

  3. sorethumb

     /  June 26, 2017

    NZ’s broadcasting standards are relaxed on balance. This comes down to the bill of rights which gives primacy to freedom of expression (a Geoffrey Palmer type innovation)?
    Broadcasters would like to do away with the balance standard – well why not they know about everything?.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 26, 2017

      It’s all part of their dirty tricks campaign.

  4. sorethumb

     /  June 26, 2017

    What’s happened to Chris Trotter: he just came to a halt with no explanation? He appeared to be under pressure to censor his commenters?

  5. sorethumb

     /  June 26, 2017

    Mai Chen is on the Panel.
    Mai Chen of Superdiversity fame
    “the uptake of the slippery slogan is not surprising. The aesthetic appeal of truthiness and the illusion of novelty, contemporaneity and relevance undoubtedly explain some of the attraction yet we cannot ignore the fact that the advent of superdiversity provided scholars of multilingualism with a new means to move up the academic ladder, distinguish their publications, and fund their work.”
    http://www.academia.edu/21163221/Superdiversity_and_why_it_isnt_Reflections_on_terminological_innovation_and_academic_branding_2016_
    http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/TheSuperdiversityMyth.pdf
    “…for adverse public opinion
    on a given question to be an
    effective political constraint
    someone has to articulate it.”

    Governing elites find it hard to pursue policies that fly in the face of public opinion. But for adverse public opinion on a given question to be an effective political constraint someone has to articulate it. The question has to be placed on the national agenda. This role can fall to the Parliamentary Opposition but when bipartisan positions are adopted, as happened with immigration in 1980, formal political channels are blocked. This does not necessarily stifle adverse opinion but, if it is to be heard and to be effective, it must be promoted by other means. For example, organized protest groups can form, and with competent and articulate leadership they can provide a voice for an electorate disfranchised by bi-partisanship, a voice that politicians will be obliged to heed. Where these groups gain the sympathy of the media, the process will be accelerated. But, if the intelligentsia are not interested and the media unsympathetic, protest groups may not even form or, if they do, they are likely to remain on the fringes. Their activities will be ineffective and they will easily be written off as cranky and irrelevant.
    In the past only a small proportion of the population had university degrees and professional occupations, and it was enough for leaders to be intelligent and committed. By contrast contemporary society has been transformed by mass education, and by the growth of higher education for a substantial minority. Most potential leaders have spent a long time in the education system and if a cause cannot attract at least some of the highly educated it will probably be stillborn. Even without an organized following, members of the highly educated middle class are able, by virtue of the positions in the media, the universities, education, welfare, and reform groups, to put political questions on the public agenda if they wish, as was evident in the 1987 debate on the Australia Card.
    A number of intellectuals, as a consequence of the kind of work they do, have privileged access to the means of communication. In many cases the opinion that is actually heard is either that of members of the national �lite or it is the opinion of intellectuals. Intellectuals can form an ‘attentive public’, actively engaged in political debates and controversies and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the kinds of opinions voiced at seminars and conferences, in media interviews, and in ‘letters to the editor’ will be taken as the working equivalent of ‘public opinion’. But there is no necessary reason why educated and articulate opinion should mirror public opinion in general and by the late 1970s the educated and the less educated were at odds on the question of immigration. The general opinion of people with tertiary qualifications was quite unlike the general opinion of less educated people.
    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0104/article_56.shtml

  6. sorethumb

     /  June 26, 2017

    Steven Franks is dissing social psychology on The Panel.