Paul Henry Show...Can it be improved?

Forums › Off topic › Paul Henry Show...Can it be improved?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1572379 15-Jun-2016 13:35

frednz: So some people don't like Duncan Garner or Paul Henry so what about Mike Hosking does he rank any better?

They all do the same thing which is to keep you up to date with current events so is too much attention given to the presenters who are just doing their jobs as best as they can?

Fred

Is he the one that always looks like he slept in the hedge after a night on the sauce?

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1572406 15-Jun-2016 14:05

frednz: So some people don't like Duncan Garner or Paul Henry so what about Mike Hosking does he rank any better?

I used to quite like Mike but I can't stand him on what is now one of the worst programmes on TV - Seven Sharp. When it first started I though it was a breath of fresh air and he did some pretty good interviews but he doesn't do any interviews now, just introduces the 'womans magazine' style articles with the other disaster Toni Street.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1574449 15-Jun-2016 15:09

It doesn't matter who the talking heads are. The problem is with the moronic concept behind all these programmes. I have absolutely less than zero interest in looking on while a Ken and Barbie team fondle each other with pompous pronouncements on the state of the world. I don't care what they think. I am perfectly capable of doing my own thinking. What I care about is information, and precious little of that is to be found. What an asinine, contemptuous (of the audience), imbecilic, arrogant style of presentation this is. You may not realise it, people, but the makers of this tripe are telling you to roll over and take it in the backside while they laughingly have their way with you.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1574464 15-Jun-2016 15:38

All these presenters are the same, start OK'ish then they start to believe the PR stuff about them etc and they think they know stuff. The only one I liked in recent years is Mark Sainsbury.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1574471 15-Jun-2016 15:47

I also liked the Walrus. I thought he was pleasant and inoffensive. I preferred John Campbell, but that had more to do with the programme format than the man. What I object to now is the fluff and gossip magazine style. I find it insultingly condescending and I think it does a disservice to viewers. It doesn't matter which channel you watch since programming in this country consists of looking at what the other one is doing and imitating that as closely as possible. This is why I do my viewing elsewhere.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1574500 15-Jun-2016 16:03

Dingbatt: So do the people that are deriding the show actually watch it? Or is it all on reputation and hearsay? I would figure most of the people who watch this show know what they are in for. Otherwise it is the same as people being offended by Billy Connelly's foul language or Jimmy Carr's off-colour jokes. As far as the politics of the show go, people obviously haven't seen him go after the Ministers of Health, Social Development, Immigration and Defence of recent times. At least he makes no bones about where his politics lie. Unlike any number of so-called political reporters employed by both news channels.

I'm happy to admit I'm one of the 30-50 000 that watches the show. In fact I haven't watched the one on One since he started just over a year ago. Probably to do with age and gender, but the advertisers would do well to note the disposable income as well.

To address the OP's question, Jim could probably handle the sports interviews, but the guests aren't really there for a technical discussion. More a case of interviewing the personality.
Look at the tech segments. Nothing too deep, just interesting and entertaining.
Ingrid is warming to her role. Give her a chance to get comfortable. We have often commented that Paul would not be the easiest workmate but the job certainly wouldn't be dull. Their biggest challenge would be to not be led into saying something that Paul Henry will get away with, that they won't.

I stopped watching Paul Henry - final straw of many - when he became a giggling mess mocking 8 year olds trying to raise money for charity. You could see people on the scene were just.......looking at him.

I prefer not to let disgrace my TV anymore.

I tend to find people who like him may be a lot like him: inconsiderate and all about themselves.....which is why they just don't understand it when other people say they can't stand Paul Henry.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 556

#1574503 15-Jun-2016 16:16

I quite liked the breakfast TV format when I first saw it, which was the Today show in Australia in the mid-late 1980s hosted by Steve Liebmann and Liz Hayes/Tracy Grimshaw, with Eric Walters/Ian Ross reading the news. It seemed more substantial then, i.e. more news and current affairs and less fluff, but over time the hosts changed and it became more lightweight. When I watch it now, or One's morning show, it seems one step removed from watching E!.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

quickymart

14141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11935

ID Verified

#1574570 15-Jun-2016 17:14

SJB:

frednz: So some people don't like Duncan Garner or Paul Henry so what about Mike Hosking does he rank any better?

I used to quite like Mike but I can't stand him on what is now one of the worst programmes on TV - Seven Sharp. When it first started I though it was a breath of fresh air and he did some pretty good interviews but he doesn't do any interviews now, just introduces the 'womans magazine' style articles with the other disaster Toni Street.

I remember him on The Tonight Show on Radio New Zealand in the late 1980's and early 1990's. He was actually quite good then, but it seems over time he's got a bit more up-himself.

Problem is (as I view it), they could put any crap on weeknights at 7 o'clock on TV One and millions will still tune in to watch it. Bit sad really.

Dingbatt

6771 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3629

Lifetime subscriber

#1574635 15-Jun-2016 19:49

Linuxluver:
Dingbatt: So do the people that are deriding the show actually watch it? Or is it all on reputation and hearsay? I would figure most of the people who watch this show know what they are in for. Otherwise it is the same as people being offended by Billy Connelly's foul language or Jimmy Carr's off-colour jokes. As far as the politics of the show go, people obviously haven't seen him go after the Ministers of Health, Social Development, Immigration and Defence of recent times. At least he makes no bones about where his politics lie. Unlike any number of so-called political reporters employed by both news channels.

I'm happy to admit I'm one of the 30-50 000 that watches the show. In fact I haven't watched the one on One since he started just over a year ago. Probably to do with age and gender, but the advertisers would do well to note the disposable income as well.

To address the OP's question, Jim could probably handle the sports interviews, but the guests aren't really there for a technical discussion. More a case of interviewing the personality.
Look at the tech segments. Nothing too deep, just interesting and entertaining.
Ingrid is warming to her role. Give her a chance to get comfortable. We have often commented that Paul would not be the easiest workmate but the job certainly wouldn't be dull. Their biggest challenge would be to not be led into saying something that Paul Henry will get away with, that they won't.

I stopped watching Paul Henry - final straw of many - when he became a giggling mess mocking 8 year olds trying to raise money for charity. You could see people on the scene were just.......looking at him.

I prefer not to let disgrace my TV anymore.

I tend to find people who like him may be a lot like him: inconsiderate and all about themselves.....which is why they just don't understand it when other people say they can't stand Paul Henry.

I find your last statement personally offensive. You are entitled to your opinion of Paul Henry and have valid reasons for it. You do not have the right to make gross generalisations about those whose views differ.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

alasta

6738 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3168

Trusted

Subscriber

#1574671 15-Jun-2016 20:00

No argument there, except I have seen Duncan Garner in other contexts (The Vote comes to mind) and then he was bright, witty, informed and spot on. Maybe the same can be said for Henry, but I don't think so.

The problem is the terrible format Duncan Garner has been forced to fit into. Story is an appalling, contrived, dumbed down invention of TV3 and I can't stand it, either. I feel sorry for Garner but he needs to feed his family and I think he is trying to make the best of it, but the sooner Story is canned, the better. It is one of the stupider ideas to make it to screen in this country, and that is saying something.

I like Duncan too, but these days I tend to tune in to John Campbell on RadioNZ and I don't bother with Newshub or Story. Story doesn't hold a candle to Campbell Live, and I find Heather Du Plessis Allan really irritating. Actually, you get the impression that she irritates Duncan as much as she irritates the viewers - sometimes he looks as if he wants to strangle her.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1574704 15-Jun-2016 21:05

alasta:

No argument there, except I have seen Duncan Garner in other contexts (The Vote comes to mind) and then he was bright, witty, informed and spot on. Maybe the same can be said for Henry, but I don't think so.

The problem is the terrible format Duncan Garner has been forced to fit into. Story is an appalling, contrived, dumbed down invention of TV3 and I can't stand it, either. I feel sorry for Garner but he needs to feed his family and I think he is trying to make the best of it, but the sooner Story is canned, the better. It is one of the stupider ideas to make it to screen in this country, and that is saying something.

I like Duncan too, but these days I tend to tune in to John Campbell on RadioNZ and I don't bother with Newshub or Story. Story doesn't hold a candle to Campbell Live, and I find Heather Du Plessis Allan really irritating. Actually, you get the impression that she irritates Duncan as much as she irritates the viewers - sometimes he looks as if he wants to strangle her.

I quite like Heather Du Plessis Allan and I think she and Duncan generally get on quite well together. I suppose you could say the same about Mike Hosking and Toni Street but a bit of sparking (and giggling etc) between them is perhaps designed to "brighten up" the viewers from some of the drab news that is reported on! Perhaps a little too much attention is centred on the presenters instead of the news of the day?

I also quite like John Campbell on Radio NZ, but when you watch it on Freeview TV, the program has a few video interviews but quite a lot of just video of John Campbell. The TV program would be a lot better if it featured video all the time, but I guess it's mainly for radio consumption and that "full" video may take a while to achieve, possibly because of cost factors?

Fred

quickymart

14141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11935

ID Verified

#1574709 15-Jun-2016 21:08

"...but the sooner Story is canned, the better. It is one of the stupider ideas to make it to screen in this country"

Oh come on, what about Melody Rules?

alasta

6738 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3168

Trusted

Subscriber

#1574710 15-Jun-2016 21:09

frednz:

I quite like Heather Du Plessis Allan and I think she and Duncan generally get on quite well together. I suppose you could say the same about Mike Hosking and Toni Street but a bit of sparking (and giggling etc) between them is perhaps designed to "brighten up" the viewers from some of the drab news that is reported on! Perhaps a little too much attention is centred on the presenters instead of the news of the day?

I'm not familiar with the other two people you mentioned, but I always found the dialogue between Duncan and Heather to be a bit awkward. Maybe it's just my perception - I'd be interested to know what others think.

I also quite like John Campbell on Radio NZ, but when you watch it on Freeview TV, the program has a few video interviews but quite a lot of just video of John Campbell. The TV program would be a lot better if it featured video all the time, but I guess it's mainly for radio consumption and that "full" video may take a while to achieve, possibly because of cost factors?

RadioNZ is short of money after years of frozen funding, which is a shame because what they're doing with Checkpoint proves that they would be quite capable of providing good quality public service television if they had a bit more money.

BarTender

3614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2539

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1574724 15-Jun-2016 21:51

MikeB4:

SJB:

MikeB4:

but he is a racist and a misogynist

TBH I'm not sure he is a racist either. On occasions he can be rude about anyone regardless of race, creed or colour.

E.G Remember his remarks about the India MP?

Or this little nugget with a slightly younger looking PM.

He's ok. At least he has some charm unlike Mike Hosking who I just find vile. We more often than not have him on the TV in the background during breakfast. But I am equally as happy with silence now that Hilary has left as she was a good calming motherly influence on Paul Henry.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1574738 15-Jun-2016 22:42

Dingbatt:
Linuxluver:

Dingbatt: So do the people that are deriding the show actually watch it? Or is it all on reputation and hearsay? I would figure most of the people who watch this show know what they are in for. Otherwise it is the same as people being offended by Billy Connelly's foul language or Jimmy Carr's off-colour jokes. As far as the politics of the show go, people obviously haven't seen him go after the Ministers of Health, Social Development, Immigration and Defence of recent times. At least he makes no bones about where his politics lie. Unlike any number of so-called political reporters employed by both news channels.

I'm happy to admit I'm one of the 30-50 000 that watches the show. In fact I haven't watched the one on One since he started just over a year ago. Probably to do with age and gender, but the advertisers would do well to note the disposable income as well.

To address the OP's question, Jim could probably handle the sports interviews, but the guests aren't really there for a technical discussion. More a case of interviewing the personality.
Look at the tech segments. Nothing too deep, just interesting and entertaining.
Ingrid is warming to her role. Give her a chance to get comfortable. We have often commented that Paul would not be the easiest workmate but the job certainly wouldn't be dull. Their biggest challenge would be to not be led into saying something that Paul Henry will get away with, that they won't.

I stopped watching Paul Henry - final straw of many - when he became a giggling mess mocking 8 year olds trying to raise money for charity. You could see people on the scene were just.......looking at him.

I prefer not to let disgrace my TV anymore.

I tend to find people who like him may be a lot like him: inconsiderate and all about themselves.....which is why they just don't understand it when other people say they can't stand Paul Henry.

I find your last statement personally offensive. You are entitled to your opinion of Paul Henry and have valid reasons for it. You do not have the right to make gross generalisations about those whose views differ.

Some great irony there - was it intentional?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4