Technofreak: I thought we were discussing the Herald not some over paid TV and radio reporters.

Plenty of them write columns for the herald or other publications.  Hoskings is one example.

MikeB4:

 

SaltyNZ:

 

I think it's high time for a Mike Hosking channel. Nothing except Mike Hosking in a 24/7 live-streamed monologue of all Mike Hosking's opinions on all the things Mike Hosking has an opinion on, which is of course everything.

 

 

a plague on your fish and chips for suggesting such a thing sir.

 

Mike Hosking's opinion on how ridiculous is the idea that Auckland needs public transport, streamed live from his Ferrari in peak hour traffic. Mike Hosking's opinion on the housing "crisis" being a load of bollocks, streamed live from his phone as he enters his Remuera mansion. Mike Hosking's opinion on how the tree hugging greenies need to stop preaching about the climate change myth, live streamed from his lounge room as he cranks the air conditioning up to full and relaxes on his sofa with a margarita with a little paper umbrella in it, overlooking kids in the swimming pool in the back yard. Mike Hosking's opinion on how the *real* crisis is the lack of decent avocados in June, live streamed from the Mexican Cafe as he dollops a fist-sized blob of guacamole onto his quesadilla. Mike Hosking's opinion that the real villain here is video games, live streamed from the bathroom at 3.30am as he shaves before work (follow up: the schools need to take more responsibility, live streamed from the laundry as he drops in his dirty clothes at 7.30pm after returning from the last broadcast of the day). Mike Hosking's opinion that if people can't make ends meet, it's because they are bad at managing finances, live streamed from the kitchen (in the background the nanny is herding the children down the hallway, and the cleaner is scrubbing scrambled eggs out of the frying pan).

How could you not want to see this?

@kryptonjohn:

 

Fairfax is even worse.

 

You mean Stuff.

myndlyz:

dejadeadnz:

 

They would have to pay me to read Mike Hosking's incoherent, drooling-moron-on-drugs "opinions".

 

Can you please explain why you, a lawyer, have posted potentially defamatory accusation about someone?

 

I don't think @dejadeadnz said Mike is drugged, only that the output is characteristic of those.

Or The Hosk's opinions are carefully composed to wind people up and keep his name in the media; 

The Hosk has built his career in this way;

The Hosk is wise and knows any PR is gris to the mill;

The Hosk grows strong on the derision of his critics;

The Hosk may be an academic lightweight that dresses funny, but he is successful - to the chagrin of many.

dejadeadnz:

 

I have a distinct impression that a few people on this forum would lap that up! No words for how sad that makes me.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's agree that too much of *any* one "reporter" would be a sad day in NZ.

Personally, I don't like either Campbell or Hosking very much. I would be happy if they both disappeared from the media.

I would like to go to news sites to read actual news - dispassionate and even-handed reporting that tells me what is actually going on, and digs behind the facade of carefully-spun press releases to find out what is actually going on. I'm happy to form my own views once the facts are known.

I'm not interested in the tedious opinionated spin of a social justice warrior pushing their pet causes. I'm equally uninterested in the fevered ideological ravings of a commentator who seems out to deliberately wind people up to maintain their public profile. I want actual balanced reporting of facts.

At the moment both Stuff and the Herald seem to pad out their increasingly anaemic and threadbare offerings with:

• pointless and uninteresting celebrity gossip - "you won't believe how much Kim Kardashian spent on a diamond-studded dog collar for her Chihuahua";
• cut and paste stories from social media - down to quoting verbatim the quotes of nonentities on twitter and reddit - "user Doug123 said that he hated lasagne-flavoured crisps";
• barely repackaged regurgitation  of press-releases from corporates, politicians and pressure groups;
• opinion from lobbyists like McCoskrie, Greenpeace, vegan activists, and current and former politicians (which is presumably all provided to them for free by people/groups with barrows to push); and
• stale reprints of news from overseas sources, much of which I had already read days before.

All of which is basically the media equivalent of candyfloss - cheap, not very satisfying, and not healthy to consume too much of. But is probably all they can afford given their broken business model.

Which, coming back on topic, begs the obvious question - what exactly is this "premium news content" that they will be offering, which they think will be sufficiently attractive to make large numbers of people part with actual money to read it?

Personally, in terms of paying for news, the Telegraph, Washington Post, NY Times and Economist are all way more compelling and value for money news sources than I suspect the Herald will ever be.

JimmyH:

 

• "user Doug123 said that he hated lasagne-flavoured crisps";

I can't blame him for that, honestly.

JimmyH:

 

Personally, I don't like either Campbell or Hosking very much. I would be happy if they both disappeared from the media.

 

I would like to go to news sites to read actual news - dispassionate and even-handed reporting that tells me what is actually going on, and digs behind the facade of carefully-spun press releases to find out what is actually going on. I'm happy to form my own views once the facts are known.

 

I'm not interested in the tedious opinionated spin of a social justice warrior pushing their pet causes. I'm equally uninterested in the fevered ideological ravings of a commentator who seems out to deliberately wind people up to maintain their public profile. I want actual balanced reporting of facts.

 

At the moment both Stuff and the Herald seem to pad out their increasingly anaemic and threadbare offerings with:

 

• pointless and uninteresting celebrity gossip - "you won't believe how much Kim Kardashian spent on a diamond-studded dog collar for her Chihuahua";
• cut and paste stories from social media - down to quoting verbatim the quotes of nonentities on twitter and reddit - "user Doug123 said that he hated lasagne-flavoured crisps";
• barely repackaged regurgitation  of press-releases from corporates, politicians and pressure groups;
• opinion from lobbyists like McCoskrie, Greenpeace, vegan activists, and current and former politicians (which is presumably all provided to them for free by people/groups with barrows to push); and
• stale reprints of news from overseas sources, much of which I had already read days before.

All of which is basically the media equivalent of candyfloss - cheap, not very satisfying, and not healthy to consume too much of. But is probably all they can afford given their broken business model.

 

Which, coming back on topic, begs the obvious question - what exactly is this "premium news content" that they will be offering, which they think will be sufficiently attractive to make large numbers of people part with actual money to read it?

 

Personally, in terms of paying for news, the Telegraph, Washington Post, NY Times and Economist are all way more compelling and value for money news sources than I suspect the Herald will ever be.

 

The thing being overlooked here is that Hosking doesn't claim to be a journalist or reporter. He's a media personality and commentator. Nobody should consider what he says as "news". It's "opinion" and like it or not, he's the most popular one out there. 

Nobody is forced to watch Hosking or Campbell. 

SaltyNZ:

 

JimmyH:

 

• "user Doug123 said that he hated lasagne-flavoured crisps";

 

I can't blame him for that, honestly.

 

Well I like lasagne and I like crisps.  It should be good right?

Oh wait ... I just remembered burger rings.  They don't taste like burgers ...

MikeAqua:

 

 

 

Oh wait ... I just remembered burger rings.  They don't taste like burgers ...

 

But they are freaking delicious!

networkn:

 

MikeAqua:

 

 

 

Oh wait ... I just remembered burger rings.  They don't taste like burgers ...

 

 

But they are freaking delicious!

 

But what do they taste like?

MikeAqua:

 

But what do they taste like?

 

Burger rings!