Discussion:
A good response to appalling ''journalism''
(too old to reply)
Rich80105
2020-12-23 04:28:34 UTC
Permalink
The Broadcasting Standards Association was for a long time an
apologist for almost anything a broadcaster or newspaper allowed
through, but it is good to know that they were prepared to act in this
case:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/433430/mediaworks-fined-3000-over-iwi-interview-about-roadblocks

Sean Plunket was reasonably good when he was on the RNZ Morning
programme years ago, but since he left that role he has descended into
rabid extremism; does not always sound rational, and is part of the
'desperate for ratings' and 'shock jock' group that thinks they are
justified in ignoring journalism standards or any pretence of truth.
There has been justified anger at Hoskins that prompted is said to
have prompted The Herald to stop printing his rants; I suspect there
will be similar calls in relation to Plunket as well. This is the
market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing that they have
a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
Gordon
2020-12-23 06:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
The Broadcasting Standards Association was for a long time an
apologist for almost anything a broadcaster or newspaper allowed
through, but it is good to know that they were prepared to act in this
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/433430/mediaworks-fined-3000-over-iwi-interview-about-roadblocks
Sean Plunket was reasonably good when he was on the RNZ Morning
programme years ago, but since he left that role he has descended into
rabid extremism; does not always sound rational, and is part of the
'desperate for ratings' and 'shock jock' group that thinks they are
justified in ignoring journalism standards or any pretence of truth.
There has been justified anger at Hoskins that prompted is said to
have prompted The Herald to stop printing his rants; I suspect there
will be similar calls in relation to Plunket as well. This is the
market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing that they have
a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
Maybe profits still rule okay. The media become aware that the person has
for many years been declining into the abyss and the line has been crossed
as circulation is becoming lower so drop the raving ranter and hope that not
too much damage has been done.
James Christophers
2020-12-26 21:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
The Broadcasting Standards Association was for a long time an
apologist for almost anything a broadcaster or newspaper allowed
through, but it is good to know that they were prepared to act in this
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/433430/mediaworks-fined-3000-over-iwi-interview-about-roadblocks
Sean Plunket was reasonably good when he was on the RNZ Morning
programme years ago, but since he left that role he has descended into
rabid extremism; does not always sound rational, and is part of the
'desperate for ratings' and 'shock jock' group that thinks they are
justified in ignoring journalism standards or any pretence of truth.
There has been justified anger at Hoskins that prompted is said to
have prompted The Herald to stop printing his rants; I suspect there
will be similar calls in relation to Plunket as well. This is the
market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing that they have
a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
Maybe profits still rule okay. The media become aware that the person has
for many years been declining into the abyss and the line has been crossed
as circulation is becoming lower so drop the raving ranter and hope that not
too much damage has been done.
A fact-based view (April 2020):

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018741210/mike-hosking-s-many-contradictory-takes-on-covid-19

As far as I know, the above piece has so far gone unchallenged.

On-the-skids NZME's recent bail-out has been generously underwritten by the Bank of Mr and Mrs Kiwi Taxpayer:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122541885/nzme-profit-rises-despite-covid19-shrinking-business

A significant portion of NZME is owned by foreign financial institutions. So who, Mr and Mrs Kiwi Taxpayer might well ask, are the top 20 shareholders in NZME? Here they are:

https://www.nzme.co.nz/investor-relations/major-shareholders/
Willy Nilly
2020-12-25 23:02:11 UTC
Permalink
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
Nellie the Elephant
2020-12-26 03:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
I don't always agree with you and that is probably healthy. This time
you are absolutely on song.
You have got Rich80105 pinned down, but as you will have anticipated,
he will respond with faux plausibility.
Sam
2020-12-26 06:20:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:37:42 +1300, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
I don't always agree with you and that is probably healthy. This time
you are absolutely on song.
You have got Rich80105 pinned down, but as you will have anticipated,
he will respond with faux plausibility.
Agreed, Why is he so silly?
Rich80105
2020-12-26 08:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
Your selective snipping and deliberate mis-representation of my post
clearly demonstrates your inherent dishonesty.
John Bowes
2020-12-26 09:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
Your selective snipping and deliberate mis-representation of my post
clearly demonstrates your inherent dishonesty.
The only inherent dishonesty on this ng is yours Rich. Always has been. Funny how good you are at seeing your own flaws in others but still continue to display them yourself. Guess it's a case of do as i say not as I do so typical of the failed left!
Gordon
2020-12-26 21:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
Your selective snipping and deliberate mis-representation of my post
clearly demonstrates your inherent dishonesty.
The only inherent dishonesty on this ng is yours Rich. Always has been.
Funny how good you are at seeing your own flaws in others but still
continue to display them yourself. Guess it's a case of do as i say
not as I do so typical of the failed left!
My Mother some time ago pointed out that we see flaws in others that we have
ourselves. It is a human trait.
Tony
2020-12-26 20:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
This is the market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing
that they have a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
You clearly have neither an understanding of how free markets work,
nor of your own limitations in adjudging morals -- but you sure show a
moral imperative. And obviously you don't believe in a free press,
only a "moral" one, ie, conforming to your own standard of
self-righteous leftism with all other viewpoints prohibited. I'll bet
you think you're for the very people you want to suppress. You are a
self-parody.
Your selective snipping and deliberate mis-representation of my post
clearly demonstrates your inherent dishonesty.
I note that you do not address Willynilly's accusations, merely abuse him.
More importantly there is an almost profound irony here. One that Willynilly
and James clearly understand and you clearly do not. I shall leave it up to you
grasp it or one of them to advise if they wish.
Crash
2020-12-27 00:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
The Broadcasting Standards Association was for a long time an
apologist for almost anything a broadcaster or newspaper allowed
through, but it is good to know that they were prepared to act in this
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/433430/mediaworks-fined-3000-over-iwi-interview-about-roadblocks
Sean Plunket was reasonably good when he was on the RNZ Morning
programme years ago, but since he left that role he has descended into
rabid extremism; does not always sound rational, and is part of the
'desperate for ratings' and 'shock jock' group that thinks they are
justified in ignoring journalism standards or any pretence of truth.
There has been justified anger at Hoskins that prompted is said to
have prompted The Herald to stop printing his rants; I suspect there
will be similar calls in relation to Plunket as well. This is the
market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing that they have
a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
Rather than rely on a journalists view (even if they work for RNZ),
the BSA decision (note that the 'A' stands for Authority, so is a
Statutory Authority rather than an industry player) is here:

https://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decisions/tualamalii-and-whittaker/

Shows like this (Magic Talk Afternoons) and the journalist that hosts
it (Sean Plunket) are always into the ratings game. Controversy is
the game they play to get noticed which in turn leads to audience
size. This goes both ways - any controversy they generate may well
drive away more listeners than they attract. It is classic
risk/reward stuff.

The BSA made a decision in favour of the complainants, with two
orders, the first of which addresses the unfairness of the broadcast
and the second the requirement to pay (very modest in commercial
terms) costs.



--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-12-27 03:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The Broadcasting Standards Association was for a long time an
apologist for almost anything a broadcaster or newspaper allowed
through, but it is good to know that they were prepared to act in this
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/433430/mediaworks-fined-3000-over-iwi-interview-about-roadblocks
Sean Plunket was reasonably good when he was on the RNZ Morning
programme years ago, but since he left that role he has descended into
rabid extremism; does not always sound rational, and is part of the
'desperate for ratings' and 'shock jock' group that thinks they are
justified in ignoring journalism standards or any pretence of truth.
There has been justified anger at Hoskins that prompted is said to
have prompted The Herald to stop printing his rants; I suspect there
will be similar calls in relation to Plunket as well. This is the
market working as it is supposed to - companies seeing that they have
a moral duty that goes beyond just making profits.
Rather than rely on a journalists view (even if they work for RNZ),
the BSA decision (note that the 'A' stands for Authority, so is a
https://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decisions/tualamalii-and-whittaker/
Shows like this (Magic Talk Afternoons) and the journalist that hosts
it (Sean Plunket) are always into the ratings game. Controversy is
the game they play to get noticed which in turn leads to audience
size. This goes both ways - any controversy they generate may well
drive away more listeners than they attract. It is classic
risk/reward stuff.
The stations are more concerned with advertising revenue. I understand
that objections from advertisers were one of the reasons that The
Herald stopped printing the Hoskin rants. Turning off listeners does
turn off advertisers as well, but the shock jocks know that there are
enough listeners who will follow controversial statements.
Post by Crash
The BSA made a decision in favour of the complainants, with two
orders, the first of which addresses the unfairness of the broadcast
and the second the requirement to pay (very modest in commercial
terms) costs.
I agree that it was a very modest fine; but it is better than the
''relaxed'' approach the BSA normally adopt to objectionable material.
Campaigns to ''punish" poor programming are I think more common
overseas than here, but letting advertisers know of product boycotss
for ads close to extremist rants have worked in the past; usin the
market to police itself can be effective.
George Black
2020-12-27 19:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Rather than rely on a journalists view (even if they work for RNZ),
the BSA decision (note that the 'A' stands for Authority, so is a
https://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decisions/tualamalii-and-whittaker/
Shows like this (Magic Talk Afternoons) and the journalist that hosts
it (Sean Plunket) are always into the ratings game. Controversy is
the game they play to get noticed which in turn leads to audience
size. This goes both ways - any controversy they generate may well
drive away more listeners than they attract. It is classic
risk/reward stuff.
The BSA made a decision in favour of the complainants, with two
orders, the first of which addresses the unfairness of the broadcast
and the second the requirement to pay (very modest in commercial
terms) costs.
NZ journalism died when they went the scholastic route.
Up to then all journos were trained inhouse and nothing like a month of
reporting on matronly meetings cleared biases wonderfully.

Loading...