The Hosking petition

There has already been discussion here about the petition directed at TVNZ to ‘GET RID OF HOSKING’.

I don’t like watching Mike Hosking on Seven Sharp so I hardly ever watch him or any of the show.

Anyone has a right to start up a petition about anything they choose, but I think that campaigns to try and force television presenters out of their jobs is stupid. If I thought it might be an effective way to shut down voices that people didn’t like I would condemn it as anti-free speech.

But the petition is just as likely to boost interest in Seven Sharp and Hosking so he and TVNZ may actually benefit.

Petitioning Minster of Broadcasting NZ Hon Amy Adams MP and 3 others

Get Rid of Hosking

GET RID OF HOSKING. [ It is our opinion ] TVNZ broadcaster Mike Hosking is an offensive and thoughtless media personality who continues to arrogantly and ignorantly disregard the struggles of everyday New Zealander’s. Hosking’s attitude and comments continuously cause offense, upset and disdain to reasonable and innocent people ; both viewers and non-viewers of TVNZ. Supporters of GET RID OF HOSKING expect that TVNZ acts as a responsible and mature public broadcaster and respects this request from thousands of New Zealanders – That is –  We no longer wish to see or hear any more from Hosking on our TV screens.

This petition will be delivered to:
  • Minster of Broadcasting NZ
    Hon Amy Adams MP
  • TVNZ
    Kevin Kenrick CEO and Jeff Latch Director of Content TVNZ
  • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    Broadcasting Standards Authority
  • ASB BANK Executive General Manager Marketing & Communications at ASB
    ASB BANK – Roger Beaumont

There are currently 18,115 supporters.

I guess it’s ok that the petition is aimed at TVNZ. It’s up to them whether they take any notice of it.

Although it depends on to what extent pressure is put on TVNZ to dump a presenter. If it goes to the extent of a campaign to boycott TVNZ I would be concerned.

A similar campaign was waged against TV3 over their axing of John Campbell. That appeared to affect their ratings, which in turn could impact on their viability.

I would be disturbed if a TV company or public broadcaster was shut down because of campaigns against them. This would significantly reduce options for free speech.

Why has the Minister been included? I would be appalled if a Minister intervened in TVNZ decisions on how presents their shows.

Why is the Broadcasting Standards Authority included? I would be appalled if they tried to tell TVNZ who they should or shouldn’t have as presenters.

The ANZ Bank being included has an insidious angle. Attacking a major sponsor could potentially have a significant effect on the financial viability of part of TVNZ’s operation.

A couple of contrasting blog views on this.

Kiwiblog: The haters of freedom of speech

I’m tempted to call these people cultural fascists.

First of all do they really think the bloody Government should decide who is and is not allowed to appear on television as a broadcaster?

Secondly they seem to hate views they disagree with, and want Hosking gone because he says things they don’t like.

I think NZ is better when it has diversity of views on air – I think it is good both Hosking and Campbell are broadcasters.

But these cultural fascists hate views that are not their own, and think the Government should decide who is allowed to be on air. They can get f****d.

The Standard: Dirty Politics Farrar and freedom of speech

In another fine example of the Streisand effect, poor wee Dirty Politics Farrar doesn’t like it.

Not being one for self-reflection, DPF hates views that are not his own and thinks they shouldn’t be expressed. Or perhaps he just doesn’t understand what free speech is.

It’s good that both Farrar and ‘Natwatch’ have the freedom to speak about this as they see fit.

Should Mike Hosking be shut up because many of us don’t like what he says? I don’t think so.

Who is Dan Wayman? He is a lawyer, sometimes from Wellington. Stuff has some information on him and his motives:

Wayman, who describes himself as a New Zealand-enrolled barrister-solicitor who divides his time between New Zealand and Shanghai, where he works at the British Consulate, says he started the petition because he “just felt something needed to be done really”.

“[Hosking’s] socially irresponsible comments are damaging to the New Zealand public, and especially as the face of the national broadcaster in the 7pm timeslot, being a family show, I think it’s harmful for the next generation to receive those types of sentiments from Mr Hosking.”

Seven Sharp is a family show? I can’t imagine that many young people would watch it. An increasing number of young people watch little or no broadcast television.

Wayman said comments made by Hosking over the crowdfunding purchase of the Awaroa beach and over the New Zealand flag debate as examples of why the broadcaster should be removed from TVNZ.

Wayman said: “It’s the constant lack of empathy and dismissive comments of New Zealanders struggling, even following stories on Seven Sharp – he just does not get it, and I think it’s harmful.”

“The ultimate goal is to have a more appropriate face on the national broadcaster in the 7pm slot,” he says. “That’s the ultimate goal. I’m not worried about his radio career, but I think the platform that he’s got (with Seven Sharp) – he’s not the right person for that platform.”

TVNZ said:

“We welcome feedback on our programmes, which we get in the form of daily audience ratings, quantitative and qualitative market research, and direct feedback from viewers. Given we engage with around 2.5 million New Zealanders per day, we typically get a broad range of views expressed about our on-air and online content. There are a number of viewing options.Seven Sharp is the most watched show at 7pm.”

There are a number of viewing and doing options at 7 pm Dan. As a lawyer don’t you value free choice and free speech?

Marvelling at ‘middle New Zealand’

It is sometimes claimed that New Zealand is Middle Earth, but the term ‘middle new Zealand is increasingly being used.

I think I could be from ‘middle new Zealand’ in some ways, I’m somewhere around average income and my political beliefs are sort of centrist and have straddled left and right.

But it’s not a pigeon hole. Pigeons fly in all directions.

Lizzie Marvelly asks: Middle NZ: Just what does it mean?

Middle New Zealand. I can’t get my head around it. I’ve spent the week having an identity crisis. What on Earth is middle New Zealand? Am I part of it? Or am I lower, higher, further to the right or further to the left of it?

The use of the word “middle” suggests that middle New Zealand denotes the majority, the average, the cluster that represents the most of us – but if I’m to believe what Mike Hosking says, that cluster does not include me.

Recently, Seven Sharp broadcast a segment about the New Plymouth Mayor, Andrew Judd. Mayor Judd has decided he won’t seek re-election. Why? Because of the abuse he and his family have been forced to endure since he began to call for Maori representation in New Plymouth.

It’s nasty stuff. Understandably, Mayor Judd has had enough of it. The kinds of attitudes displayed in the Seven Sharp clip belonged in the 1960s, I thought as I watched it. Then Mike Hosking weighed in.

“He’s completely out of touch with middle New Zealand,” Hosking said, adding there was “nothing wrong with Maori representation on councils” because “if you’re good enough you’ll get voted on”. His comments are now the subject of a formal complaint made to TVNZ.

I have no doubt many people will agree with Hosking. They may well be the “middle New Zealand” he’s talking about.

That’s a very odd leap.

Equating “many people” who might agree with Hosking on a single issue with a very general “middle New Zealand” makes no sense.

I don’t often agree with Hosking – I don’t listen to what he says much, he’s not someone I look to for opinion.

I’m not sure whether it’s my age, whakapapa or abhorrence of racism that excludes me, but evidently middle New Zealand I am not.

Evidently Marvelly disagrees with Hosking on this but he isn’t an authority on what constitutes ‘middle New Zealand’. And neither is Marvelly.

If Hosking had said “he’s completely out of touch with New Zealanders” (similar to the way a number of politicians speak) would that provoke Marvelly into stating ‘evidently New Zealander I am not’?

Marvelly goes on to discuss ‘white privilege’ but that’s worth a post of it’s own sometime.

What is ‘middle New Zealand’ apart from a sign of growing obesity?

It seems to be nothing more than a generalised term used by people in the Beehive bubble, which is located approximately in the middle of New Zealand but seems increasingly out of touch with the diverse views of New Zealanders.

Message to Lizzie – even though I may have fairly average views on many things (but far from all things) what Mike Hosking (an Auckland media mouth) says is not representative of my views from southern New Zealand.

BSA smacks Hosking’s hand, sort of

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld four complaints against Mike Hosking but did not make any order, meaning this amounts to criticism without consequences.

Stuff: BSA rules against Mike Hosking

In April this year, a waitress said that she took offence to Key repeatedly tugging her ponytail when he came into the cafe she worked at.

Broadcaster Mike Hosking covered the topic at the time on the television programme Seven Sharp.

He said the waitress’ motivations for speaking out were “selfish” and “a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks”.

He also said the café owners were the “victims” of the situation.

He said: “To quote the waitress concerned today, ‘I felt New Zealand should know’. What a puffed up, self-involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work. The owners were the people to consult, not a blogger.”

The Authority upheld the complaints that these comments were unfair to the waitress.

the Authority said the nature of this segment meant there was no opportunity for any response or defence to be given.

They also said that while public figures can be subjected to this sort of criticism, the waitress was not a public figure and should not have been scrutinised as such.

“[A] person who is not a public figure should be able to speak up and make assertions whether they are right or wrong without being treated unfairly and in an intimidatory way by a television presenter speaking from the platform of a powerful broadcaster”, the Authority said.

The Authority held publication of the decision was sufficient to mark the breach and did not make any order.

Hosking could do the decent thing and apologise on Seven Sharp tonight.

Disappointing debate, pointless polls

I was disappointed with the leaders debates. Maybe I just wasn’t in the mood for it, but I didn’t see anything that I thought wouold make difference.

Cunliffe held his own so won’t have been harmed by it. He interrupted too much and too many preachy wee speeches. Pros and cons on points made.

Key looked strained but probably won’t have harmed his chances, Some pros and cons as well, nothing remarkable.

Hosking allowed too much talking over each other, sometimes all three were trying to compete. Often seemed messy.

I doubt many minds would be changed.

The online and text polling and online metering were a farce, totally meaningless. There is no way of knowing who was voting or measuring responses so no way of knowing how biased the participants were.

The National minions seem to have been busier on TV1’s text poll and Labour’s on Newstalk ZB’s online poll. Or something. Tells us nothing useful.

They were worse than pointless, they add useless noise to commentary on the debate.


Labour have sharpened their knitting needles

Earlier this week David Cunliffe acknowledged that he had made mistakes but would be starting a fight-back and focus on the things that mattered.

Stuff reported: Cunliffe: The fightback begins now

“I am sure that the caucus will be as determined as I am that we stick to our knitting and to our core messages about jobs, homes and families, and avoid distractions,” Cunliffe said.

“We have got past anger a long time ago, we are focused on what a campaign needs – a positive contribution by everybody and focused on the issues that matter.”

Labour’s campaign slogan is VotePositive.

The big thing being discussed today was sparked by another Stuff article:  Labour claims Hosking’s biased.

The Labour Party is in a standoff with TVNZ over plans to use presenter Mike Hosking to moderate the live televised leaders’ debates.

A Labour source said that, despite protestations, the party was unlikely to pull out of the two scheduled TVNZ debates. “When we heard it was Hosking the initial reaction was ‘Are you f…ing joking?’ But we are trying to get it changed. We are not making a hullabaloo about nothing, we’d rather they get someone else.”

Senior Labour MP Grant Robertson said he was not part of the negotiations, but joked: “If it’s true, we’d rather have Jeremy Wells as Mike Hosking, than Mike Hosking.”

Cunliffe said he was not involved in the negotiations. Chief of staff Matt McCarten is understood to be overseeing the arrangements.

It’s all over Twitter. And Labour blogs are full of it:

Rob Salmond at Polity:  Mike Hosking and this has been re-posted at The Standard: Polity: Mike Hosking

Is this Labour sticking to it’s knotting?

They have sharpened their needles and are taking stabs at the media.

It almost looks like Labour has conceded defeat already and are making excuses in advance. “Poor us” laments and blaming the media are only going to increase the electoral damage.

It’s a very difficult situation for them but they have to do something to not contradict their ‘VotePositive” slogan.


New Zealand Day? Protest Day? Apathy Day?

Every Waitangi Day I see calls for having a day we can celebrate our country.

Waitangi Day commemorates the signing of the treaty, a significant event – as Edward Ellison has pointed out, especially for descendants of those who signed the treaty. But Waitangi Day doesn’t look like it will ever been seen as a celebration ofNew Zealand. Some Maori see it as a platform to air ongoing and historic grievances and media will keep higlighting that.

Hone Harawira sees Waitangi Day as an opportunity for “robust discussion” (he just said that on Firstline).

And that turns many others off the event. They certainly don’t see it as something to celebrate.

Anzac Day is another commemoration day, remembering those who have died for or served our country in war.

So there are calls (again) to have a day we can celebrate New Zealand, where we can say “We do know how lucky we are”.  Some of those views…

ODT Editorial: Shambles at Waitangi

Almost all New Zealanders, however, will do nothing in particular to ”celebrate” our nationhood. Apart from treating the day as another public holiday, any wider meaning is largely ignored.

And that is perhaps the biggest shame of all, because this is a nation – problems and all – that is blessed in its land, its people and even its institutions. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight to the annual Waitangi upheaval. It is little wonder that for many New Zealanders the focus and feeling of a ”national” day is on Anzac Day, the one time when unity is widespread, when dignity is upheld and when New Zealand is one nation.

Peter Dunne: Waitangi Day – time to rethink as we celebrate?

I think it’s time to establish a separate national celebration, a genuinely New Zealand Day incorporating all of the features of Waitangi Day, but also incorporating all of the things that make this country good and great.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog: Waitangi Day for Honours?

What I do advocate is that we establish a separate New Zealand Day. This should be a day to unashamedly celebrate the wonderful country we all live in, our many achievements, ourselves. It should be the equivalent of US Independence Day, Australia Day or French Bastille Day – a day of fun and joy.

Mike Hosking at Newstalk ZB: Mike’s Editorial: Waitangi Day isn’t what it should be

A national day to be truly national needs to reflect the whole story, not just one part of it.

A national day should resonate, it should permeate the national psyche, it should be a day off with special bits.

We, the people of New Zealand, could decide on a special day to celebrate our country, and just do it.

But possibly the best reflection of feelings would be having a National Apathy Day – if anyone could be bothered.