Media agreement on coverage of Tarrant trial

David posted this comment:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/01/self-censorship-media-new-zealand-white-supremacist-2019-226766

Kiwiblog also covers this. Its an outrage that the press has self censored itself as a collective with the government complicit.

“The Kiwi editors don’t appear to trust their readers and viewers to handle the difficult and disturbing material that’s sure to billow out of the Tarrant trial. They regard New Zealanders as children who must be sheltered from the heinous and despicable lest they become tainted with its influence.”

Its worth reading the story from an outsiders point and shines a light on the paternalistic overview that our “betters” in the media exhibit. I would like to see full coverage without sensationalizing the bits that irresponsible media usually do, I want the different perspectives of a varied and uncensored free press usually give. And its appalling that the government and the press think that if we hear what this loon says we will see it as a call to arms. Bloody ridiculous.


Here are the “agreed editorial guidelines” – Reporting the Trial of Brenton Tarrant

MEDIA STATEMENT – NZ MEDIA FREEDOM COMMITTEE
REPORTING THE TRIAL OF BRENTON TARRANT
[1 May 2019]

Senior editors of the major accredited news media companies in New Zealand (TVNZ, Stuff, Mediaworks, NZME and RNZ) have committed to a united approach in reporting the trial of Brenton Tarrant following the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March, 2019. The group of editors, representing the New Zealand Media Freedom Committee, has agreed a set of protocols to ensure that the outlets they represent cover the upcoming trial comprehensively and responsibly.

A group statement and a copy of the agreed editorial guidelines is attached for your information.

Requests for further information or comment should be directed to the respective media organisations.

MEDIA STATEMENT – NZ MEDIA FREEDOM COMMITTEE

REPORTING THE TRIAL OF BRENTON TARRANT 

We are the senior editors representing the major accredited news media companies in New Zealand (TVNZ, Stuff, Mediaworks, NZME and RNZ).

As a group and as individual editors we are committed to ensuring the outlets we represent cover the upcoming trial of Brenton Tarrant comprehensively and responsibly.

We have agreed to abide by these guidelines throughout the trial.

BACKGROUND 
Brenton Harrison Tarrant is charged with 50 counts of murder and 39 charges of attempted murder relating to shootings carried out at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March, 2019.

Victims of the terror attack include citizens of twelve different countries.

We represent accredited New Zealand media organisations that plan to attend the trial and associated proceedings for the purposes of reportage.

As editors we are mindful of the public interest in the trial, in New Zealand and internationally.

We are also mindful of our role as the “eyes and ears of the public” in the context of court reporting. In this instance, we acknowledge the particular importance of this function, given the many victims’ friends and families outside New Zealand who may otherwise be unable to engage in the trial process.

We are aware that the accused may attempt to use the trial as a platform to amplify white supremacist and/or terrorist views or ideology.

GUIDELINES
We agree that the following Protocol will apply to our outlets’ coverage and reportage of the trial:

(a) We shall, to the extent that is compatible with the principles of open justice, limit any coverage of statements, that actively champion white supremacist or terrorist ideology.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt the commitment set out at (a) shall include the accused’s manifesto document “The Great Replacement”.
(c) We will not broadcast or report on any message, imagery, symbols or signals (including hand signals) made by the accused or his associates promoting or supporting white supremacist ideology.
(d) Where the inclusion of such signals in any images is unavoidable, the relevant parts of the image shall be pixellated.
(e) To the greatest extent possible, the journalists that are selected by each of the outlets to cover the trial will be experienced personnel.
(f) These guidelines may be varied at any time, subject to a variation signed by all parties.
(g) This Protocol shall continue in force indefinitely.

SIGNED:
Miriyana Alexander (NZME and chair of the Media Freedom Committee)
John Gillespie (TVNZ)
Shayne Currie (NZME)
Mark Stevens (Stuff)
Paul Thompson (RNZ)
Hal Crawford (Mediaworks)


This is an unusual approach for what is an extraordinary situation.

Media always make judgements about what court cases they will report on and what they will report. What is different here is agreement between all the major media organisations.

Thins could change if circumstances change – “These guidelines may be varied at any time, subject to a variation signed by all parties.”

Allegations of sexual harassment at TVNZ

I was sexually harassed by a senior manager when I working at TVNZ in 2010. He organised a lunch then cancelled all the attendees except for me. He started skulling Peronis and kept telling me to keep up with him… all the while asking me why I never wore low cut or tight tops.

I went to the loo, he followed me in, pinned me against the wall and started trying to grope/kiss me and said he’d booked a motel room across the road. Thankfully I was able to shake him off. I ran out of the restaurant, down Parnell Rise and into a taxi.

A couple of days later I decided to talk to the head of HR at TVNZ about it – she was female. I booked a time with her, told her I wanted to make an official complaint because I had been sexually harassed by an executive.

She burst out laughing and said “Don’t be ridiculous Andi. I haven’t had anyone allege they’ve been sexually harassed for over 20 years. No-one will believe you.”

I got up and walked out. I tweeted that because this still happens every day.

TVNZ should respond to these allegations.

They are historical claims but there at least needs to be assurances that this sort of thing would be properly dealt with now.

TVNZ baby boob

It hasn’t taken long for media to breach the strict controls on coverage of Jacinda Ardern’s baby at Parliament. TVNZ stuffed up yesterday.

Newstalk ZB: TVNZ apologise for filming Jacinda Ardern breastfeeding

An apology from TVNZ after one of its cameramen filmed Jacinda Ardern feeding her daughter Neve

The Prime Minister today attended the announcement that plastic bags would be banned, and brought her eight week old baby Neve along with her.

While standing at the back of the hall, a One News cameraman turned and filmed Ardern while she was holding Neve.

A blanket is covering Neve, and TVNZ surmised that Ardern was breastfeeding.

The video has since been taken down.

A TVNZ spokeswoman said the video was removed after they had received a lot of criticism and decided it was wrong.

A spokeswoman told AAP that their focus should have been on the press conference.

“We accept the criticism. We got it wrong,” she told the news agency.

Will the Speaker Trevor Mallard follow through with action? He threatened serious consequences for breaches of his baby coverage ban – see Speaker demands that media censor baby coverage in Parliament:

Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard has issued a warning to journalists planning to take unauthorised photos of returning Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s baby Neve.

The Parliamentary Press Gallery was informed that any journalists who took unauthorised photos would have their accreditation removed and their employer would also be penalised.

If he doesn’t show he has bite to back up his bark then it is likely to be flouted again.

Why was the baby there?

I have to ask why Ardern had her baby with her at what she promoted as a major Government announcement. Is this going to be a normal thing?  Are Government functions going to be subjected to possible interruptions because a baby gets grizzly and wants a feed?

Most working mothers make arrangements for alternative care of their babies. I fed a baby expressed milk while it’s mother worked on night duty. It takes a bit of planning and effort but it’s what most parents deal with.

Ardern risks baby distractions, including unauthorised media coverage, if she takes her baby to work with her.

And I think it’s fair to ask whether Ardern is playing the baby card for political purposes. I don’t think there is any justification for her to have her baby at media conferences. She’s lucky she can even take her baby to her workplace, most parents can’t, it’s either not possible or not practical. And it’s not professional.

Dumbed down news and shallow opinionating by celebrities

We all know how dumbed down the news has become, how sound bite and click bait and chat show dominated it has become. Pablo at Politico is scathing of it in detail, particularly the shallowness of editorial and opinion writing,  in Peddling drivel.

Over the last decade or so there has been a pernicious two-track trend in NZ media that has not only resulted in the dumbing down of the “news” and public discourse in general, but the substitution of informed and considered debate by shallow opinionating by celebrities and charlatans.

The ‘celebrities’ are often self made media marketing constructs.

In NZ the two big players are Mediaworks and NZME. The former controls TV3, Radiolive and various pop culture radio stations. NZME controls Newstalk ZB, the NZ Herald and various pop culture outlets. It has connections to TV One (at least when it comes to newsreaders), while the Mediaworks TV News platforms appears to episodically share personnel with Prime News. Fairfax Media is also in the mix, holding a portfolio of print and digital vehicles.

Because the NZ media market is small and saturated, the “race to the bottom” logic for getting readers/viewers/listeners in a shrinking print advertising market is akin to the “bums in seats” mentality that pushes academic administrators to demand easing up of marking standards in university courses.

Although in the latter instance this creates a syndrome where unqualified people are admitted, passed and receive undeserved (and hence meaningless) degrees, in the media realm this means that scandal, gossip, “human interest” and other types of salacious, morbid, tragic and otherwise crude and vulgar material (think of terrorism porn and other prurient non-news) have come to dominate the so-called news cycle.

This is accelerated by the presence of social media and 24 hours global news networks, which makes the push for original content that attracts audiences and therefore advertising revenues increasingly focused on sensational headline grabbing rather than in-depth consideration of complex themes.

In the editorial opinion field what we are increasingly subject to is the often inane and mendacious ruminations of celebrities, “lifestyle’ gurus  or media conglomerate “properties” who are used to cross-pollinate across platforms using their status on one to heighten interest in another.

That squeezes out op-ed room for serious people discussing subjects within their fields of expertise. What results is that what should be the most august pages in a newspaper are given over to gossipy nonsense and superficial “analyses” of current events.

It must be what people click on so they keep[ getting bombarded with it.

…The Herald also offers us the received (and sponsored) wisdom of lifestyle bloggers  (“how to have the best sex at 60!”) and buffoons such as the U Auckland business lecturer who poses as a counter-terrorism expert (she of the advice that we search every one’s bags as the enter NZ shopping malls and put concrete bollards in front of mall entrances), gives cutesy pie names to the (often sponsored) by-lines of real scientists (the so-called “Nanogirl,” who now comments on subjects unrelated to her fields of expertise) or allows people with zero practical experience in any given field to pontificate on them as if they did (like the law professor who has transformed himself into a media counter-terrorism and foreign policy “expert”).

That extended sentence oozes personal angst – Pablo is a real media counter-terrorism and foreign policy, who one might presume doesn’t get called on by media much to share his expertise.

The pattern of giving TV newsreaders, radio talking heads and assorted media “personalities”  column inches on the newspaper op ed pages has been around for a while but now appears to be the dominant form of commentary. Let us be clear: the media conglomerates want us to believe that the likes of Hoskings and Hawkesby are public intellectuals rather than opinionated mynahs–or does anyone still believe that there is an original thought between them?

The only other plausible explanation is that the daily belching of these two and other similar personages across media platforms is an elaborate piss-take on the part of media overlords that have utter contempt for the public’s intelligence.

I think that a significant part of it is that intelligence isn’t the target market. People who don’t see things critically. and don’t think much about what is shovelled in front of them, are more susceptible to being sucked in by all the advertising.

The evening TV news and weekend public affairs shows are still run as journalistic enterprises, but the morning and evening public affairs programs are no longer close to being so. “Human interest” (read: tabloid trash) stories predominate over serious subjects.

The Mediaworks platforms are particularly egregious, with the morning program looking like it was pulled out of a Miami Vice discard yard and staffed by two long-time newsreaders joined by a misogynistic barking fool, all wearing pancake makeup that borders on clownish in effect.

Its rival on state television has grown softer over the years, to the point that in its latest incarnation it has given up on having its female lead come from a journalistic background and has her male counterparts engaging as much in banter as they are discussing the news of the day.

The TV3 evening show features a pretty weathergirl and a slow-witted, unfunny comedian as part of their front-line ensemble, with a rotating cast of B-list celebrities, politicians and attention-seekers engaging in yuk yuk fests interspersed with episodic discussion of real news.

Its competitor on TV One has been re-jigged but in recent years has been the domain of–you guessed it–that NZME male radio personality and an amicable NZME female counterpart, something that continues with its new lineup where a male rock radio jock/media prankster has joined a well-known TV mother figure to discuss whatever was in the headlines the previous morning.

What is noteworthy is that these shows showcase the editorial opinions of the “properties” on display, leaving little room for and no right of rebuttal to those who have actual knowledge of the subjects in question.

They are largely talk shows promoting ‘personalities’/properties, using selected news as props.

These media “properties” are paid by the parent companies no matter what they do.

It’s part of their job description. There is nothing on the line but ratings and future employment negotiations.

Non-affiliated people who submit op ed pieces to newspapers are regularly told that there is no pay for their publication (or are made to jump through hoops to secure payment).  That means that the opinion pages  are dominated by salaried media personalities or people who will share their opinions for free. This was not always the case, with payments for opinion pieces being a global industry norm.

But in the current media environment “brand” exposure is said to suffice as reward for getting published, something that pushes attention-seekers to the fore while sidelining thoughtful minds interested in contributing to public debate but uninterested in doing so for nothing. The same applies to television and radio–if one is not a “property,” it is virtually impossible to convince stations to pay for informed commentary.

Should expert analysis of news and current affairs be a paid for commodity? That risks getting the opinions of the lowest bidders.

…people of erudition and depth are increasingly the exception to the rule in the mass media, with the  editorial landscape now populated in its majority by “properties” and other (often self-promoting) personality “opinionators” rather than people who truly know what they are talking about.

Rather than a sounding board for an eclectic lineup of informed opinion, editorial pages are now increasingly used as megaphones to broadcast predictably well-known ideological positions with little intellectual grounding in the subjects being discussed.

I thought that editorials were either the opinion of the editor, or more commonly a composite opinion of the editorial board or team. Has that changed?

With over-enrolled journalism schools churning out dozens of graduates yearly, that leaves little entry room and few career options for serious reporters. The rush is on to be telegenic and glib, so the trend looks set to continue.

Style over substance, with new recruits being a lot cheaper than seasoned old hacks. With radio and print media branching out into video presentations, and with the multi-tasking across platforms of the personality properties, and with the continued fragmentation of media, this is likely to continue.

This is not just an indictment of the mass media and those who run and profit from it. It undermines the ability of an educated population to make informed decisions on matters of public import, or at least have informed input into the critical issues of the day.

Perhaps that is exactly what the media and political elites intend.

I don’t think it’s a plot involving media and politicians, it just suits both their aims to dumb things down.

Most of it revolves around marketing. They are selling sound bites and trivial entertainment in order to buy business or votes.

Modern capitalism doesn’t work well with news telling or informing democratic choices.

A Holt to impartial Breakfast TV?

News tellers were again news stories yesterday. Hillary Barry is moving from one TV show to another. Whoop de do. The content of Breakfast and Seven Sharp is largely dictated by producers and their commercial interests. Presenters are more entertainment actors than anything.

A more controversial show shift was also broadcast, ensuring pre-publicity for TVNZ.

Megan Gattey at Stuff asks Is it OK for ex-Green Party candidate Hayley Holt to host TVNZ’s Breakfast

Is it ethical for a former political party candidate to host a national TV show when interviewing other politicians is part of the job description? How will former Green Party candidate Hayley Holt juggle her greenie convictions with her new job hosting TVNZ 1’s Breakfast?

Holt, who stood for the Green Party in the 2017 election, is replacing Hilary Barry on Breakfast. She will start in the role on the first show of the year, this coming Monday, presenting alongside Jack Tame.

Journalists must remain independent from political and commercial influences, but Holt has insisted her political past would not lead to biased interviewing.

“I’m quite happy to play the role of devil’s advocate for any political party – or any guest in studio,” she said.

“When I was representing the Green Party, I was 100 per cent true to their message. In this new role I have the opportunity to look at things from all perspectives.”

That doesn’t say much for her political credentials, but if she was able to act 100 percent true to the Green message then perhaps she is capable of switching to being 100 per cent true to a TV show message.

No longer a Green Party member, Holt said she was “excited for this new venture”.

“I’ve ceased my party council work and resigned my Green Party membership,” she said.

TVNZ head of news and current affairs John Gillespie said he was confident Holt would interview fairly and objectively.

“Hayley is well aware of her journalistic responsibilities and the need to conduct interviews fairly and impartially. There are a number of editorial producers and relevant systems in place to make sure this occurs,” he said.

I have no idea whether Holt will be fair and objective or not, I don’t think I’ve seen her doing anything on TV, despite her being promoted (when a Green candidate) as some sort of ‘celebrity’.

At least if she interviews James Shaw or Marama Davidson some viewers will be aware of her previous political obedience.

Massey University journalism programme leader James Hollings said it was not unethical for Holt to host Breakfastgiven that she’s resigned” from the Green Party.

“As long as she can claim to be impartial then I don’t think it’s too unreasonable,” he said.

But a more important point:

Hollings said it was disappointing that Holt was “the best New Zealand could come up with”.

“She’s not a trained journalist for a start,” he said.

Actual journalism seems to be not that important any more for TV shows, at least on the surface.

(AUT journalism programme leader Richard) Pamatatau said Holt seemed to fit the kind of look Kiwis were used to seeing on their TV screens: “a sporty, blonde, white woman – interesting, edgy but not too edge – very conventionally attractive”.

How superficial is that? Especially from a journalism programme leader – is that what they teach these days?

“There is plenty of lived experience. She is very relatable.”

She is “a New Zealand snowboarder and ballroom dancer notable for her appearances on several reality television series”. Has reality TV become the new breeding ground for politicians?

Pamatatau hoped Holt would be “smart enough to leave politics behind”.

“The next question is, will she use this to boost her profile even more, so when the next election comes around she’ll be even more of a household name?”

That’s a good question. In Hayley Holt: Why I’m starting again she stated:

“I’ve always been interested in politics. I thought I might get into it a bit later in life but it’s just happened that it’s now.”

I guess presenting Breakfast is another way of being involved in politics, amongst the dross of morning TV. Is it another step in her broadcasting career, or a stepping stone for her political ambitions?

She may make a good presenter even if it’s a sideshow in her career path. I may or may not find out, breakfast TV has too much trivial and trite stuff to attract me usually.

Praise and hate after Hosking and Street announcement

I never cared for Mike Hosking. I rarely watched Seven Sharp, it wasn’t a programme that attracted my attention.

In the age of celebrity some media portrayed the announcement last night that Hosking and co-host Toni Street (she was a face without a name to me) were finishing their stint on Seven Sharp as ‘Breaking News!’ That’s become normal lame, ‘breaking news’ is broken.

Of course 1 News praised their highly paid employees, but some of the reaction showed how much hate is expressed on social media.

1 News: Watch as Toni Street and Mike Hosking say they’re stepping down from Seven Sharp after four years co-hosting show

After four years, Toni Street and Mike Hosking are stepping down as co-hosts of TVNZ 1’s Seven Sharp.

Toni is cutting back on her weeknight work commitments to spend more time with her family.

“This decision has not come easy for me, but with two young children, I want to be home more often in the evenings for them.”

Mike says the feelings were mutual.

“This was particularly important to me personally to honour what has been one of the best combinations on television,” he said.

Hosking, like many media ‘personalities’, are not shy to praise themselves.

“That given we started together we end together. It is also always good to leave on your own terms and at your own time, often a rare trick in media.”

John Gillespie, TVNZ’s Head of News and Current Affairs, said the company was working through potential opportunities with Mike for the future.

“Toni and Mike are stepping down tomorrow night. They’re a dynamic and great team and together they’ve made a big difference for viewers and TVNZ. Their leadership at 7pm has been a defining force in our media landscape.”

More media self praise, somewhat embellished. Leadership? Leaders of the trite and banal perhaps, that’s the direction media seems to view it’s salvation as growing numbers of people desert broadcast television.

1 News managed to select some praise of the two people changing jobs ‘A great duo’ – Viewers react to news Mike Hosking and Toni Street leaving Seven Sharp.

Friday night’s programme will be their last, the pair announced at the end of tonight’s show.

It was a show, largely entertainment. For some – I just didn’t watch what wasn’t my style of programme.

But Hosking has been a polarising figure in politics. He has capably conducted election debates, but on shows and radion was seem by the left to be a right wing enemy, so attracted a lot of vitriol.

And on his announcement last night the hate flowed as freely as the praise.

A thread at The Standard included:

 Bye bye Mike…. from 7 Sharp…. And there is now dancing in the streets!

Good job. TVNZ have been a nest of right wing vipers for too long.

TVNZ is a neoliberal propaganda outlet.
It’s managers, editors and senior business and political staff all work towards the goal of disseminating such propaganda.

I agree. Comical Ali was more impartial than Hoskings.

Hosking was the propaganda wing for John Key

He’s also quite thick, has almost no education, and makes no effort to inform himself before one of his drunken rants.

Yep, Hosking is a toxic little twerp who hates Labour so screw him.

Typical ugliness in politics and media.

Similar on Reddit: Toni Street and Mike Hosking stepping down from Seven Sharp after four years co-hosting show

🎶 It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas 🎶

It’s the most wonderful time.. Of the yearrr

Now Mike can finally follow his dream of becoming a National MP! /s (god forbid)

Stepping down? They couldn’t possibly get any lower.

Four years too late.

Leighton gone, hosking on the way out, now we just need matthew hooten to join gloria vale and life will be so serene

now we just need Mark Richardson to contract some sort of disease that silences him

National gone. Hosking out. It’s like the country is waking from a boomer-centric lapel tweaking nightmare.

Whenever I had the misfortune of seeing these clowns on TV I always felt sorry for Toni. If I had seen her in isolation I would have just dismissed her as the vapid bint that she is. Mike has a powerful effect.

There is so much good news this week in terms of NZ becoming a progressive country again Im struggling to know where to look! I wish them both well in their personal lives and Toni in her future endeavours….but Hosking you are a selfish, biased and regressive prick who has no place in public broadcasting…please piss off from NZ media forever you are not needed in this country.

The intolerance, immaturity and toxicity prevalent on many online forums is something that will likely continue.

It’s a shame but we seem to live in an increasingly childish, trivialised and abusive society.

An online opportunity for more free speech serves to highlight, time and time again, the ugly side of human communication.

 

Last debate, Ardern versus English

The last debate between Bill English and Jacinda Ardern will be on TVNZ 1 at 7 pm tonight. I think that Mike Hosking will be back running it after an illness ruled him out of the second debate.

English was rocked by a bad poll result before that debate, but it has swung the other way with tonight’s Colmar Brunton poll has national back up to 46% and labour slipping 7 to 37%.

It will be interesting to see who is finishing the campaign stronger.

The Spinoff:  The final battle: A fight to the death in the last English-Ardern debate

Duncan Greive:

What we saw tonight was essentially the entire campaign, distilled. English: dogged, stolid, indefatigable. Ardern: passionate, idealistic, frustrated.

English looks like he has grown into the task and is enjoying it, Ardern looks like she is just about over it – but she may have to pick herself up on Sunday and launch into another major exercise for a few weeks, which may launch into three years of hard yakker.

Simon Wilson: Ardern failed to land a death blow.

Jacinda need to crush Bill tonight. Land those body blows, leave him looking like he wasn’t sure what day it was.

She was never going to do that with reason or calm reassurance, and certainly not with relentless positivity. The defining characteristics of her campaign have been phenomenally successful, but at this point, like the campaigns of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, they have not been successful enough.

Annabelle Lee: The winner on the day was… that giant desk

Both Ardern and English gave as good as they got and played well to their respective strengths (him: it’s the economy stupid. Her: kids are living in cars stupid) so no clear winner other than the desk which could double as the iceberg in the remake of The Titanic.

Ben Thomas: A plodding draw

It was also a harder English that emerged. Rightly challenged on his characterisation of Labour scrapping planned tax cuts as a “tax rise”, he doubled down. Asked about the now-notorious $11 billion, he nakedly misrepresented the argument and its outcome saying economists agreed there was a “hole” (no economists agreed, either on the accounting or the metaphor). Hosking slumped in his seat exasperated, but Ardern’s response of surprise rather than fury failed to settle the matter for anyone unfamiliar with the facts (still a possibility even after the last few exhausting weeks). She called him “mischievous”, which fed into English’s narrative that it was all just a typical politicians’ semantic playfight.

Ardern’s own vision, expressed during the election period as a concern for the children in poverty and locked out of homes, didn’t make an appearance until the dying minutes. It was her strongest moment, but not enough to save the debate from being a plodding draw.

Madeleine Chapman: Please, god, can this be over now?

This debate was so boring. Usually I can do screengrabs while also remaining engaged but by god, I felt like I was watching a family argue at dinner.

I think a lot of people are over the campaign.

When Jacinda told Bill “look me in the eye” regarding his insistence that Steven Joyce (very much wrong) was right about the $11.7b Labour fiscal hole, I expected her to follow up with an “I’m the captain now” to make all my meme dreams come true. Instead I could only manage some uninspired memes from an uninspiring debate.

I think that most people have already decided or will still be undecided after this debate.

Appalling non-apology from Hosking, TVNZ

On Seven Sharp last night Mike Hosking upset the Māori Party with a comment on voting. He said to co-presenter Toni Street:

“You can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled on the Maori electorate”.

That appears to be incorrect, or at least misleading, because you can party vote for any party, including the Māori Party.

The Maori Party complained in a media statement:

Māori Party co-leaders
Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox
24 August, 2017

Ill-informed Hosking needs to learn the rules

Māori Party co-leaders Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox are questioning the ability of TVNZ presenter Mike Hosking to host any election debates after his major blunder on Seven Sharp last night.

Mr Flavell says he was disappointed by Mr Hosking’s ill-informed comments last night when the Seven Sharp host said people on the general roll can’t give their party vote to the Māori Party.

“He is just plain incompetent – pure and simple. How can Mr Hosking host a debate on the election when he clearly has no idea on an issue around the party vote?

“The Māori Party has been a registered political party since July 2004. You can vote ‘party vote Māori Party’ whether you are on the General or Māori Roll and anyone and everyone can give their party vote to the Māori Party,” says Ms Fox.

“How can it take more than 13 years for the media to understand you don’t have to be Māori to vote Māori Party? Those on the Māori roll get the extra bonus of being able to vote for the Māori Party in the electorate as well.

“The information Mr Hosking gave out last night was misleading and irresponsible. He should do his homework,” says Ms Fox.

“It’s important to give the public the correct information, keep the voters informed and having a person who is so ill-informed hosting the debates is amateur.”

Mr Flavell says the show’s producers have agreed to highlight the mistake and a correction will be aired tonight.

“But frankly the damage has been done. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. There will be some who watched last night’s show, who don’t watch it tonight,” Mr Flavell says.

TVNZ stated:

“We will make a clarification on tonight’s show to clear up any confusion. We advised the Māori Party that we would be setting the record straight on tonight’s show a couple of hours before they issued their media release.”

Tonight Hosking said at some stage through the ‘show’ (not at the start):

“Small clarification for you.

“Now last night in a throw-away line I appear to have confused the Māori Party around the rules of voting in MMP.

“What I was suggesting, what I was meaning, was that the Maori Party, as their representation stands, is an electorate party.

That’s incorrect. The Māori Party has one electorate MP (Flavell) and one list MP (Marama Fox).

“In other words they are only in Parliament because they won an electorate seat. Therefore what I said in referring to voting for them was to vote for them in a Maori electorate you had to be on the Māori roll, which is true.

“Now the fact that anyone can vote for them as a list party I automatically assumed we all knew, given we’ve been doing it for 20 years for goodness sake and it went without saying.

“So hopefully that clears all of that up.”

That’s an appalling non-clarification and non-apology. The only thing it clears up is how badly Hosking has handled it.

He is sort of correct, you can only give an electorate vote for the Māori Party in an electorate they are standing in, and they only stand candidates in Maori electorates. But he explained that very poorly.

And he hasn’t apologised at all for his misleading statement last night, and he hasn’t explained that anyone on any roll can party vote for the Māori Party.

Hosking has made things worse for himself and for TVNZ.

For this Hosking deserves to be dumped from leaders’ debates – at least from the small party leaders’ debate that the Maori party will participate in.

1 News and media re-branding

Re-branding a media organisation is a major and complex task, so careful thought presumably has to go in to decisions to change brands.

3 News changed to Newshub in February this year and that seems to have worked successfully enough, although I don’t know whether many people care or not. I doubt that it helps improve the number of viewers much if at all.

TVNZ has gradually been re-branding TV1 to TVNZ 1 and One News as 1 News over the past few days. This must be a major exercise, complicated by social media where many people now access news.

They have changed all their own on-screen graphics, and I see that Sky now uses their new names.

While online they have changed their logos their URLs seem to be more complicated. Their website still uses  http://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news:

1newswebsite1

This is what you get when you try http://www.tvnz.co.nz/1-news or http://www.tvnz.co.nz/1news:

1newswebsite2

On Twitter they have changed their name and graphics but still use their old handled:

1newstwitter1

But if you try https://twitter.com/1newsnz you get https://twitter.com/account/suspended so they mustn’t have rights to that handle (our doubt that a new account has been suspended).

https://twitter.com/1-newsnz doesn’t exist.

They have been able to switch their handle on Facebook:

1newsfacebook

That’s half of an awful mess of a graphic.

Does any of this matter?

How do you access news websites? Via Favourites? Via Twitter or Facebook? Or by Google?

We used to have easy access to two TV news sites, one or two newspapers (when they were only paper) and a few radio stations.

Now via satellite TV and especially via the Internet we have access to a huge number of news options. Does the name of the media organisation matter much if at all?

I have become far more content orientated rather than source driven. I don’t care much who delivers the news as long as it’s the type and quality of news I want.

I specifically seek TVNZ content sometimes, mainly for Q & A, but that doesn’t use the 1 news branding.

All I care about on broadcast TV is ‘1’ or ‘3’ or ‘4’ or whatever channel I want, but also commonly just browse the channels.

Branding is pretty much irrelevant to me, I’m looking for content and quality.

While TVNZ has changed their number 1 channel branding the One-News (1 News) website looks much the same – very messy. I don’t choose to use it based on it’s presentation, and their news is often lacking in detail, they seem to want you to view their video, presumably so you view their video advertising.

I don’t care about 1 News versus One News. If they come up with some decent news coverage I might be interested.

Incidentally having just researched all their website content no news items attracted my attention enough to get me to look further.

Who else should be dumped?

Taking the lead of Dan Wayman and his attempts to have Mike Hosking dumped from TVNZ’s Seven Sharp – see The Hosking petition – why stop there? Who else should be dumped?

Why not have petitions to shut up other people in media and social media?

Suggestions please on who you think should be shut up, gagged, put in their place (in the silent naughty corner).

Perhaps we could have a whole bunch of petitions and see who are the most despised media presenters, the most hated journalists, the most despised Tweeters and Facebookers and bloggers.

Why not have a bloody good shake up of who is allowed to speak in public.

Then we could have discussions and petitions on who should present Seven Sharp, The Story and run Whale Oil and The Daily Blog etc.

Wayman provides a template:

“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.

Shouldn’t The People decide who has an appropriate face for television?

The ultimate solution for free speech.