Mana Party top list candidates. 'Everyone of them has convictions' leader Hone Harawira joked.
Sorry, I’ve been a bit busy to post. Over the weekend, on Saturday I covered the Mana Party campaign launch at Otara — an upbeat, good-humoured event which spouted talk of revolution and smashing/overthrowing the system. Invigorating rap songs and anthems bookended passionate speeches from this country’s radical literati — living treasures of the left-wing and Maori ‘radical’ movement.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Annette Sykes and Matt McCarten and attended a post-launch media conference with the ‘top table’ and then Hone Harawira. All good stuff.
Then yesterday, Sunday, I covered a NZ First meeting in Kelston — about half the number of people and a very different demographic — where Winston Peters announced NZ First’s post election position that they will NOT go into coalition with any other party, but would aim to be an ‘effective Opposition’ … if they get back into Parliament. (ahem)
Winston Peters arrives to speak at Kelston.
Fair enough.
Take that as preamble. Here’s what I wanted to share:
Winston Peters’ speech yesterday ranged over three key issues he says are of grave and historic concern to all New Zealanders. For the purposes of this conversation it doesn’t actually matter what they are but they are these: The Treaty of Waitangi (secretly) being used as the basis of our constitution in behind-closed-doors discussion, the Foreshore & Seabed legislaton (race-based) and state asset sales.
So, that was his “unholy trinity” and after railing against them, he effectively ruled out working with any other party, and said no party should rule alone.
After his speech, and Q&A, we (the media) approached Peters at the back of the stage for a ‘stand up’… that’s an impromptu media conference where we each ask him questions and listen to each other’s questions and the newsmaker’s answers.
And here’s my point:
Rebecca Wright: telling a politician he's out of date as if her opinion actually counts? Hmmm.
The delightful Rebecca Wright (right) from 3 News asked Peters if the issues he raised (constitutional issues, the treaty and asset sales) weren’t ‘yesterday’s issues‘ … sparking this very interesting interchange about the role of the news media, listen: (mp3 1min 45 secs)
Link to the MP3 file here
What I ask you to do is allow the public to know what we’re saying …
You’re entitled to your view, but please don’t present your view to the public. We’re a political party, I’d like you to present our views to it. That’s what is called ‘being the medium’. — Winston Peters speaking to reporter Rebecca Wright of 3 News.
I strongly believe there are times when the media just has to get out of the way, and serve as an as-neutral-as-possible soapbox or a noticeboard, amplifier or megaphone for the views of those upon whom we are reporting. Providing a clear channel, not editorializing. No matter what our own opinions.
What do you think?
– P
I am getting frustrated by politicians and media claiming various policy’s being thrown about have racist tones. This is absolute grandstanding and shit stirring. Take Brash he is trying to make it fair for everyone, that’s the exact opposite of a Race game. Yet the media keep harping on with the Race angle. Morons.
But to answer your question. I believe the Media should get out of the way and just print what they see hear I agree 100%. but reality is they have to much bias and often make storms out of teacups. recent example Woods vs Williams. However its almost impossible to achieve when Media are compromised / bought out. Or when the media person in question has a huge personal bias from the outset.
Just like you here. May sound harsh, but its just how humans function.
No I disagree about the “print 100% of what they see/hear” thought.
There’s a time when a journo is being spun a load of old cobblers or ideology justified (or disguised?) as economical imperative or ‘question of the moment’. Like inconsistent positions or misleading cant, It needs to be exposed.
That’s different to immediately trying to discount or filter a Party’s position on something (anything) through an attention-deficit membrane rather than report it … and report reaction. To me, Rebecca’s question smacked of doing the work of Peters’ opponents for them.
And you lost me at ‘huge personal bias’. Referring to me? I think you imagine things, Craig.
– P
No you are correct I agree. I think we are on the same page. I think the Media/journos need to dig deeper “ask the question” to expose the issues as you say. But as soon as they leave the interview I believe they take too much creative license from the facts of the interview. And even make the story about the reaction to a question rather than the answer.
A really general example.
Question: Have you ever watched Porn?
Reaction: Hesitation what um um sure maybe, um No. There is a story here a huge story we must run this at 6pm Start the presses.
Well yes it looks bad the journo claims the public want to know, in fact they need to know. blah blah blah. Context everyone, well male at least 🙂 would most probably be lying if they did indeed say no.
And there is a difference between digging deeper on the spot which needs digging or leading the questioning to storm in a tea cup reaction/answer which often completely ends up being non-sequitur and out of context.
I think Journos (sorry they are not journos I refer to them as talking heads) when they do this feel they are on top of their game when in fact they are just douchebags.
I am no sure whether your joking or not re the last Paragraph?
“And you lost me at ‘huge personal bias’. Referring to me? I think you imagine things, Craig.”
Well pete – you know what i think already. I agree with you.
Theres a truckload (several truckloads in fact) of biased and skewed interviewing and reporting – Wright is but one of the dollybirds who have barely given up on their training bra – trying to play with grownups.
Some media (some) have a nasty habit of making it very clear which way they vote (i think the term is “vote themselves an income…”) – i feel like mailing them a rosette so they can make it even clearer.
Talking of which i had the hilarious experience of watching an old “intrepid journeys” episode where Paul Holmes dressed up in a Burqa in (i think) Pakistan (i was too busy gagging at his very public stupidity from start to finish) and ended up soiling his Y Fronts when the locals started to wise up that this clown was affronting their cultural mores in their country.
I guess he votes ????? for someone who minces down catwalks and has 3 way palmtickling masonic handshakes.
Gee that’s pretty denigrating about Rebecca Wright, you sexist.
That’s not how I see her nor what I was trying to say.
I also think you’re a bit quick to see malfeasance in the media.
– P
Well Pete – perception is reality i guess and i dont see malfeasance – more that bias seems to be quite openly displayed. Watch interviews by the same people with Goff – and with Key. Spot the difference.
And at least i didnt mention lost productivity due to womens issues – that has to count for something. Wasnt saying you thought that about her – its how i perceive her. I may be wrong and i may be “wright”.
Holmes was sexist – and denigrating to Muslims – i mean – dressing up in middle eastern drag … and then we have to believe he is a serious commentator / interviewer etc etc …. to quote you (cough) I’d just love to see him with full burqa on Q and A – probably a great improvement. It was very funny though – like a giant cigar wrapper with cross trainers pumping his little legs to get into hiding when he realised big hairy annoyed muslim men were after his hide.
Anyway – a good post Pete
[…] his (conspiracy?) theories, we can really only punch the issues and provoke discussion about them (like this) … but his issues are worth reading […]