Followers of this blog may appreciate this clever piss-take.
Doesn't this say it all. I live in Australia and the program Media Watch would no doubt point out this bias.
Is that a piss-take ?Looked more like real-time replay to me.
Great one. Surely these TV political journalists must be aware that their credibility as independent journalists is damaged.
Unknown,If your Media Watch is like ours (and I'm told it is), I would have no confidence that it would highlight left-favouring media bias.
MediaWatch aint wot it was, RIP. And this clever edit confirms for me why I haven't watched the podium of tooth since the 1st lockdown, days in. Karl...are you going to comment on Gavin Ellis' piece defending the integrity of journos, I wondered?
Friendly questioners only - bet Mike Hosking would not get in the door.His questions are too hard,
If your Media Watch is like ours (and I'm told it is), I would have no confidence that it would highlight left-favouring media bias.I enjoy the ABC MediaWatch for its weekly sneering denunciations of Scott Morrison, The Australian and all the other hate figures of Sydney's Inner West and Melbourne's inner-north.And though I adore our NZ Media Watch's twice-weekly Mike Hosking Hate, Colin Peacock and his boy wonder offsider just can't match the polished smirking sneering of the ABC's Paul Barry.
Colin Peacock wrote a Mediawatch piece for RNZ, throwing cold water over the alarm about hate speech laws. He claimed the laws only covered incitement to violence, and in his article renamed the govt's 'Proposals against incitement of hated and discrimination' to 'Proposals against inciting violence and hatred'. That's Mediawatch being either extremely careless or deliberately misleading. Both something they'd castigate the media for. I emailed him to point out the error but the article remains unamended.here's the link https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018802186/media-turn-up-heat-on-hate-speech
Hilary,I’ll say only that having endorsed the Pravda Project through his direct involvement, Gavin Ellis possibly felt obliged to defend it. Anyone interested in his article can see it at https://knightlyviews.com/2021/09/21/trashing-journalists-is-not-in-the-public-interest/
Thanks Karl...yes, my thoughts too. In fairness I've been reflecting on his piece since reading it, so it made me do that. I still come down on your side of the argument.
Thanks for the Gavin Ellis website Karl. The more I read his diatribe, the more I wanted to throw my phone at the wall. As a former editor of the NZ Herald, he has bought the company line in a big way. How can he possibly defend the PIJF when one of its objects is to “ actively promote “ something? Journalism is many things but it is not for promoting an issue in its reporting unless clearly identified as opinion. The fact that no questions about this “treaty partnership” can even be asked, let alone discussed says that the PIJF is fundamentally flawed. If Ellis doesn’t think the media in this country has been bought, here’s a few cases for the prosecution? 1. Souxie Wikes beach excursion spiked by TV1 news after 5 days.2. James Shaw and entourage flying to Glasgow not mentioned for its hypocrisy until the MIQ ramifications were raised two days later.3. Footage of Judith Collins buying an ice cream without a mask couldn’t get on the TV news fast enough.Need I go on?This is before the complete absence of discussion or questions on important matters such as the Covid Plan B group ideas, whether forcing New Zealanders into two distinct groups (covid vaccinated and non- vaccinated) with two distinct sets of privileges is an acceptable concept in a so-called liberal democracy, and the appalling youth suicide increase in the last few months as a consequence of lockdown induced depression. (Did the fact that one of the authors of this report, Gerald Sundborn, is a member of Covid Plan B have anything to do with its suppression? I would say most definitely)Who is reporting or questioning these significant issues? And can we really ever find out why unelected Iwi need a place at the table of the proposed new water entities? It wouldn’t be about putting a charge on water use with proceeds to Iwi would it? As somebody who doesn’t pay any extra for my water over and above my local body rates, I’d really like to know if if a fraction of a cent will go to Iwi every time I flush the dunny in future. Where’s the “independent” media asks that question and pushes for an honest answer?Sorry but I’m very sceptical about people like Gavin Ellis who can comment on media all day long, but they’re not looking at the issues with their eyes wide open.
Excellent comments Punch. You are not alone. I actively campaign against the NZ media these days, they are despicable quislings.
I agree Punch. Muriel Newman recently did a TV interview with Andrew Bolt discussing the current political situation in NZ. Newshub flew out of the blocks within 24 hours to attack Muriel with a so called "fact check". The fact check was clearly BS and actually made me feel quite sick to see the NZ media behave in such a way. Essentially attacking and trying to discredit a New Zealand citizen who has criticised the NZ Government. This is how the media operates in Moscow.
Just as if to reinforce what commenters above have been saying, there's a comment thread right now on the Kiwi Journalists Association FB group attacking John Key for writing a comment piece in the Herald critical of the Government's continuing covid-response of locking the country down.The thread was begun by television's John Hudson and joined in by many other of our journalistic luminaries including media professor emeritus Gavin Ellis, who last week wrote a column attacking journalist Graham Adams for criticising (in an essay Karl quoted on 16 September) the Government's $55 million slush fund for state-approved journalism. The basic thrust of the KJA thread is that because John Key wrote the article, it should not have been published. The thoughts of one of our longest-serving prime ministers on the biggest issue of the past two years should not be heard, and many journos are furious they were heard, and heard widely after broadcast media picked them up. But one significant dissenting voice has appeared on that KJA thread, none other than that of Graham Adams! He has written: A piece by Mike Munro, Ardern's former chief of staff, in the NZ Herald this morning was so gushy I thought it was a spoof. ("Ardern's trademark empathy and keen intuition were on show as she gently coaxed her million-plus audience to hang in there."😂) No objections to that, I suppose, on this site? I guess Munro has the *correct opinions*, huh?A nice rhetorical question which of course the Key-hating journos of KJA have been (so far) unable to answer. I am surprised the tyrannical Moderator/Censor/Monarch of KJA even let Graham into that group, which is populated by journos endlessly jeering the very concept of freedom of expression and sneering at the public's right to know unapproved facts. They threw me off for raising a contrary view much more subtly than Graham's.As I post this, I also note a prominent piece has appeared on Stuff also attacking Key for his column -- a piece written by none other than Anna Fifield, editor of the DomPost. Key's views are so dangerous that their celebrity editor has to be wheeled out to attack him! You couldn't make it up, these "journalists" are so blatant.
Further to my just-posted comment, which quoted the comment Graham Adams posted in the KJA group questioning the attacks by journos on John Key's opinion piece, I just checked KJA again and the Moderator/Censor/Monarch has removed Graham's comment, claiming it was "off topic." I suppose a comment by a journalist questioning the comments by other journalists attacking a former prime minister for writing a column critical of a major government policy is "off topic" in that unlike the other comments, it is not overtly critical of John Key.But, Jesus wept, it certainly proves my belief that KJA is nothing but an echo chamber of journalists opposed to freedom of expression and a cesspool of them sneering at the public's right to know unapproved (by them) stuff.But I am pleased I saw Graham's comment and posted it to Karl's blog in the few minutes it was visible before said Moderator/Censor/Monarch dealt to it. I wonder if Graham has also been banned there now for his audacity in not following the party line?
"David" brings up John Key's speech - and the criticism of it from our biased media. This morning I wrote a letter-to-the editor of NZ Herald, as follows (I doubt it will be published!):[“Almost two-thirds of Kiwis opposed to opening borders” a poll shows (N.Z. Herald Sep.27). This was released after John Key’s “Hermit kingdom” speech. But Sir John’s speech was really centred on showing the absurdity of the panic and fear which politicians together with the media are so successfully managing to grow in New Zealand - and the poll result is precisely as it is because of that very panic and fear! The way this new corona virus is dominating everything in the western world is quite out of proportion to its real importance in a modern world with hugely better hospital facilities and medical equipment. After all, we are only faced with a very ordinary flu-like epidemic – and not a very dangerous one at that. Yes, real killer plagues did create panic in the past – but this one is simply not in the same category. And Sir John stressed the cruel, unjust and uncharitable side effects of lockdowns – to my mind the worst of it all.]
I have just happened upon these comments regarding KJA group. Had never heard of them before and will certainly not be drawn into the Facebook snake pit. Somewhere on this blog site previously I commented that the NZ Media (present company excluded) is a closed shop of closed minds. All of the above comments seem to confirm that thought.I read John Key’s opinion piece in the Sunday Star Times and thought he made some strong points. The North Korea and Hermit kingdom remarks are basically gimmicks and attention seeking lines. Throwaway lines often spoil the effect of an opinion piece. Anna Fifield seized on the bait in order to put out there part of her CV. I have had a couple of email exchanges with Anna Fifield and she comes across as being more than a wee bit snooty.
Post a Comment