Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7


Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680623 1-Dec-2016 11:30
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

 

 

A truly good journalist would probably recognise that and be working for the BBC or some other world class news organisation I imagine. 

 

 

Maybe they want to live in New Zealand. Some people here actually value that.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


19115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5563

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1680625 1-Dec-2016 11:33
Send private message

Fred99:

 

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

yet for just 4.5 Millions souls we excel in so many fields and actually survive.

 

 

Sure, we do, but in my opinion, not Journalism. In sport we would be one of the top countries in the world. We also lead in Child Abuse, and a bunch of not so impressive things too :) 

 

I miss the good old days of Andrea D'audrey and the like. Paul Holmes could be an utter prat, but he put people like John Campbell to shame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a different world.  The concept of conducting an interview where the interviewee isn't demanding to be given a list of questions to be vetted, to prepare answers under the guidance of trained experts, to counter with a list of topics which can't be mentioned, in a competitive market where the interviewee is a celebrity of some kind, politician or public figure, well, you take the interview on their terms - or someone else gets the interview, the viewers, and the adverting revenue.

 

 

 

 

I'd argue that with today's PC society, people are exceptionally more wary of what they are being asked, and how they are going to respond. Some might say it's a good thing, some a bad. I think it's both.  I think people are too quick to crucify others for an unpopular opinion but this leads to be people being very guarded and not agreeing to be interviewed in an open manner. 

 

I believe you don't need to smash someone in an interview. If you are smart, you can get what you want from an inteviewee by allowing them the rope to hang themselves. A lot of interviews (back to JC for a moment), the interviewer is really just after the response they want, not prepared to listen and consider the other persons opinion, or statement of facts. I am not sure I am conveying that thought process very well... 

 

 


 
 
 
 




Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680627 1-Dec-2016 11:36
Send private message

networkn:

 

 

 

I miss the good old days of Andrea D'audrey and the like. Paul Holmes could be an utter prat, but he put people like John Campbell to shame.

 

 

Finally something we can (almost) agree on. I don't share your contempt for John Campbell and I was never a fan of Paul Holmes, but I do agree that the good old days of current events reporting were far, far superior to anything we have now. That I also miss.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


19115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5563

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1680631 1-Dec-2016 11:40
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

A truly good journalist would probably recognise that and be working for the BBC or some other world class news organisation I imagine. 

 

 

Maybe they want to live in New Zealand. Some people here actually value that.

 

 

 

 

Ok. So let's look at this from a different perspective. You *seem* to be putting the poor state of journalism firmly at the feet of media companies who employ these "poor held to hostage journalists".

 

 

 

You understand these media companies are businesses first right? They have shareholders, and staff, and costs like other businesses, and the CONSUMER dictates what they want. If the media company doesn't offer that, the consumer doesn't "pay" and everyone employed or involved in the media company loses. 

 

I despise most reality TV shows (the occasional cooking show being the exception), but I know a LOT of people (seemingly otherwise intelligent humans in my experience) who LOVE them. THIS is why there is so much RTV On screen. 

 

Newsroom was a very interesting series. They went against the grain and produced different material, but to do this you need a benefactor or share-holder with DEEP pockets. NZ doesn't have any media companies that fit that bill. 

 

Even our beloved Fair Go is now not so much investigative journalism as individual crusades against businesses. 

 

 

 

 


19115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5563

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1680632 1-Dec-2016 11:41
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

 

 

I miss the good old days of Andrea D'audrey and the like. Paul Holmes could be an utter prat, but he put people like John Campbell to shame.

 

 

Finally something we can (almost) agree on. I don't share your contempt for John Campbell and I was never a fan of Paul Holmes, but I do agree that the good old days of current events reporting were far, far superior to anything we have now. That I also miss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of my contempt is over the way I have seen him behave personally toward service staff at restaurants and cafes on a couple of occasions. The guy really does love himself. 

 

I find you can tell a lot about a person about the way they treat other people. 




Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680637 1-Dec-2016 11:51
Send private message

networkn:

 

I'd argue that with today's PC society, people are exceptionally more wary of what they are being asked, and how they are going to respond. Some might say it's a good thing, some a bad. I think it's both.  I think people are too quick to crucify others for an unpopular opinion but this leads to be people being very guarded and not agreeing to be interviewed in an open manner. 

 

I believe you don't need to smash someone in an interview. If you are smart, you can get what you want from an inteviewee by allowing them the rope to hang themselves. A lot of interviews (back to JC for a moment), the interviewer is really just after the response they want, not prepared to listen and consider the other persons opinion, or statement of facts. I am not sure I am conveying that thought process very well... 

 

 

Actually you are doing a pretty good job. I understand what you are getting at and I think it is a valid point. I also don't  think JC walks on water, in spite of his initials, but I often (not always) enjoyed Campbell Live and it was sure a hell of a lot better than Story or Seven Up (thanks for that one, whoever said it first). There is a place for critical, crusading, investigative journalism and I miss that. I do agree that some interviewers are unnecessarily aggressive and go overboard, apparently more interested in point-scoring than getting at the truth, but I still prefer this to the lap dogs asking patsy questions and regurgitating government press releases.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680641 1-Dec-2016 11:58
Send private message

networkn:

 

 

 

Part of my contempt is over the way I have seen him behave personally toward service staff at restaurants and cafes on a couple of occasions. The guy really does love himself. 

 

I find you can tell a lot about a person about the way they treat other people. 

 

 

That of course is an entirely different matter. I don't have that experience of him and the one time I corresponded with him he came across as quite decent. I feel the same contempt you do for people with an inflated sense of self-importance who feel that entitles them to be disrespectful of others. If that is how he behaves in private, he deserves to be condemned for it but I would want to know more before passing judgement. We all have bad days.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


19115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5563

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1680645 1-Dec-2016 12:04
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

I'd argue that with today's PC society, people are exceptionally more wary of what they are being asked, and how they are going to respond. Some might say it's a good thing, some a bad. I think it's both.  I think people are too quick to crucify others for an unpopular opinion but this leads to be people being very guarded and not agreeing to be interviewed in an open manner. 

 

I believe you don't need to smash someone in an interview. If you are smart, you can get what you want from an inteviewee by allowing them the rope to hang themselves. A lot of interviews (back to JC for a moment), the interviewer is really just after the response they want, not prepared to listen and consider the other persons opinion, or statement of facts. I am not sure I am conveying that thought process very well... 

 

 

Actually you are doing a pretty good job. I understand what you are getting at and I think it is a valid point. I also don't  think JC walks on water, in spite of his initials, but I often (not always) enjoyed Campbell Live and it was sure a hell of a lot better than Story or Seven Up (thanks for that one, whoever said it first). There is a place for critical, crusading, investigative journalism and I miss that. I do agree that some interviewers are unnecessarily aggressive and go overboard, apparently more interested in point-scoring than getting at the truth, but I still prefer this to the lap dogs asking patsy questions and regurgitating government press releases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. I don't think any journalist should be "crusading" as this implies non-impartiality. I believe their job is to investigate thoroughly, take both sides stories and present it in a balanced way. I don't think JC does this. He clearly sees on party as the underdog and will champion their cause. If that's what you like, that's fine, but I don't think it could be called Journalism and I don't think it has any place at a 7pm timeslot. 

 

You honestly don't find his tone over exaggerated or over the top? You find him really genuinely sincere?

 

 


12401 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4096

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1680648 1-Dec-2016 12:08
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

A truly good journalist would probably recognise that and be working for the BBC or some other world class news organisation I imagine. 

 

 

Maybe they want to live in New Zealand. Some people here actually value that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has value; however, if your career as a world class journalist matters to you, NZ is not the place to best further it I would suggest.








Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680651 1-Dec-2016 12:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

Ok. So let's look at this from a different perspective. You *seem* to be putting the poor state of journalism firmly at the feet of media companies who employ these "poor held to hostage journalists".

 

 

 

You understand these media companies are businesses first right? They have shareholders, and staff, and costs like other businesses, and the CONSUMER dictates what they want. If the media company doesn't offer that, the consumer doesn't "pay" and everyone employed or involved in the media company loses. 

 

I despise most reality TV shows (the occasional cooking show being the exception), but I know a LOT of people (seemingly otherwise intelligent humans in my experience) who LOVE them. THIS is why there is so much RTV On screen. 

 

Newsroom was a very interesting series. They went against the grain and produced different material, but to do this you need a benefactor or share-holder with DEEP pockets. NZ doesn't have any media companies that fit that bill. 

 

Even our beloved Fair Go is now not so much investigative journalism as individual crusades against businesses. 

 

 

My argument is twofold: First, I think it is utterly shameful that we are the only western country without public service television. I think this is a responsibility of government and I think we have been badly let down. It would also provide a much-needed platform for some of that essential quality journalism.

 

Second, I think those responsible for programming decisions on commercial media should be taken out and shot. It is a race to the bottom. TV One may be doing better in ratings, not that it means much when there is no effective competition, but it has achieved this by selling its soul and dragging the rest of the country down with it.

 

TV 3 had for a long time the core of an excellent news and current events service with programs like Campbell Live, The Vote, 3D, The Nation, and others. But it decided to compete with TV One by trying to be exactly like TV One so it dumped the news organisation and people built up over the years and now it is falling apart, with even worse ratings than it had before. My argument here is that they didn't have to beat TV One at brain-dead television, they could have done fine as a quality niche broadcaster and now the idiots in control have thrown all that away. 

 

Did dumbing down save TV 3's bacon? No, it just accelerated the death process. If they had gone the other way and continued to build on what they already had, they would have been providing a unique service that would have drawn sufficient viewers to also draw sufficient advertising revenue and eventually other income streams to keep it going. You don't always have to have the biggest dong in the pool to be successful.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




Glurp
9256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4296

Subscriber

  Reply # 1680665 1-Dec-2016 12:53
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. I don't think any journalist should be "crusading" as this implies non-impartiality. I believe their job is to investigate thoroughly, take both sides stories and present it in a balanced way. I don't think JC does this. He clearly sees on party as the underdog and will champion their cause. If that's what you like, that's fine, but I don't think it could be called Journalism and I don't think it has any place at a 7pm timeslot. 

 

You honestly don't find his tone over exaggerated or over the top? You find him really genuinely sincere?

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I do think he got it wrong some of the time. I do also honestly think he did a lot of good. I am not a sports fan but his campaign to bring the All Blacks to Samoa really mattered to the people there, and he pulled it off. I don't think it would have happened without him.

 

There is no question in my mind that his crusading for the victims of EQC in Christchurch was sincere, and I think he did a lot of good. The people he went to bat for there absolutely love him. 

 

There are many other examples of things he got right. Politicians started refusing to appear on his program because he was one of the very few journalists, and just about the only one with media exposure, who would ask critical questions and try to penetrate to the truth of the matter. I don't see this as a bad thing. We need a lot more of it here.

 

I also don't see his passion as bad. Yes, journalistic reporting has a duty to be as objective and impartial as possible, but there is also a place for crusaders and I don't have a problem with that at all. Many social injustices have been exposed and corrected over the years as a result of journalistic crusading. In my community a little girl with severe birth defects was able to get essential treatment in the USA because of our local newspaper's crusade on her behalf, and the last I heard she was finally able to lead a normal life back here. There is nothing wrong with crusading for a worthwhile cause.

 

I don't doubt there are better journalists than John Campbell, but if he is the only game in town, that is still a lot better than nothing.   

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2606 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1277


  Reply # 1680829 1-Dec-2016 19:22
Send private message

I also don't like journalists who are crusading, championing one side in a story, or trying to push a particular personal agenda.

 

The job of a good journalist is to uncover facts, and report what is happening succinctly and accurately. The job of a good interviewer is to hold the interviewee to account, extract information from them, in as unbiased a fashion as possible.

 

Too often it seems that they have instead been provided with a pulpit to bully people and push their own agendas rather than act as an unbiased channel to uncover and disseminate information.

 

Which is why I don't like JC either. I did, however, think Lindsay Perigo was good in his TV heyday (before he went a bit mad on the Radio Free Liberty nonsense). A couple of interviews he did of Muldoon were probably the high-water make of NZ TV interviewing.

 

 


14781 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2766

Trusted

  Reply # 1680834 1-Dec-2016 20:01
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

 

 

My argument is twofold: First, I think it is utterly shameful that we are the only western country without public service television. I think this is a responsibility of government and I think we have been badly let down.

 

 

 

 

Um hang on. You are anti establishment. Thats very clear, and no issue with that. Now you want Govt to control news?

 

What about Govt make a high quality news service and we pay for it to subscribe? User pays.

 

 

 

Now what is a high quality news service??? I thought I knew but after reading this thread, which I unsubscribed to, I have no idea. One poster here talks about high quality news, then the hype is ok? JC is great, but he is not news he is sensationalism. Which is exactly not high quality news.  News is facts. The Kardashian stuff we see on the websites is good as gold as dont need to click. TBH I dont really see the issue. There are many outlets for news, lots of choice, pick what suits. (Fox excluded)


gzt

10520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1680


  Reply # 1680909 1-Dec-2016 21:26
Send private message

Jonathan18 And, moving back to more on-topic, it's worth pointing out another new news/current affairs site - Bauer media (owns most NZ magazines) has launched www.noted.co.nz, which is a totally free collection of articles from their stable - most importantly the Listener, North and South, and Metro.

That is excellent news. Long overdue. Cheers for that.

7752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4134


  Reply # 1680937 1-Dec-2016 21:48
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

There are many outlets for news, lots of choice, pick what suits. (Fox excluded)

 

 

 

 

Why exclude Fox?

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.