I know I'm falling into the marketing ploy, but...

When I go to my local supermarket, I tend to spend a good twenty minutes flicking through the magazines. This is purely because I'm too cheap to buy them (I'm a student) and I'm too lazy to go to the library.

That being said, I was in for a bit of a shock in my last visit.

They've had a bit of a reshuffle of the titles at the Chaffers St New World - a jockeying for position of sorts - and I was most unimpressed.

Right at the front of the current affairs section was the leading luminary of conspiracy theorists - Investigate Magazine. I'm not so pretentious as to deny flicking through it every now and then (while the prose and content is normally atrocious, I'll grant that Ian does break the odd good story), but I held my head in my hands when I considered that this rag was seated next to Time and The Economist (and only two away from New Scientist) while the NBR (a fine publication - even for a liberal like me) was hidden in the back row.

I know it coincides with the release of his new TGIF digital edition, but surely Howling at the Moon Publishing does not have the cash to buy front row slots for Investigate in the nation's magazine sections.

All I want are two things:

- for someone to confirm that the public does not have an appetite for Investigate's ongoing inquiries into the PM's sexual preference or the Feminist-Islamo-Fascist conspiracy;

- and that Mr Wishart doesn't have the money to pay for this kind of marketing manipulation and is reaping the benefits from some nefarious figure lurking in the background (everyone loves a conspiracy).

Somebody?

Anybody?

Please...?

N2N - When a baby journalist speaks to a baby consultant

I was talking with Baby Consultant last week (it may help that I live with her), and she's taken to listening to the radio while working on her projects.

I take full responsibility - she tends to disregard our best news media outlet (Radio NZ), dismissing it as "the talk talk" because all they do is talk - as I weaned her on to it with late night talkback, and while she usually listens to the cream of New Zealand (daytime talkback radio), I left it on RNZ as I walked out the door and she couldn't get the station to change.

Left with Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon, she listened intently to the programme for its duration and came away unimpressed.

Her major criticism was Ms Ryan's tendency to let people say what they want and avoid asking probing questions, and hadn't done enough research - something I would have thought to be the prime requisite for an interviewer on a broadcaster's flagship programme.

The piece which swayed her opinion of Ms Ryan was her interview with Sheriff Arpaio. There's a moment (18 minutes into the interview) where Ms Ryan asks about several legal challenges our favourite hardliner is facing, and he dismisses her concerns, stating the class action began 35 years ago, before he was sheriff. When she raised this issue, she mentioned this was one of several challenges, but her response to his answer was "Okay." Changing tack and trying to corner him into slipping up on prisoners' human rights didn't help matters - it was weak. I've been informed by Baby Consultant, that it also ignored the class action against the sheriff by the American Civil Liberties Union - the major action against Sheriff Joe and something Ms Ryan could have followed up on quite easily.

I've been an advocate for Ms Ryan in the past, I fondly remember her as the political editor of RNZ - I had a lot of time for her analysis in the lead-up to the last election (it was actually there) - and I wasn't overly impressed with number of snide comments made when she took over the chair of N2N regarding her thick NZ accent (although I did make a few).

But when someone who has traveled the world and watched, read, and listened to all types of media speaks, I pay attention, and when Baby Consultant opened her mouth (she is a baby consultant after all), I had to agree.

I was going to let this post slide a couple of days ago, but I saw John Drinnan's media column in the Herald (an excellent weekly read), and I couldn't let it slide:

NINE TO GLOOM
Radio New Zealand is standing by its survey assessing the cumulative audience for National Radio, despite the fact that they are comparing different methodologies. RNZ is claiming the results in its latest survey - comparing 2006 figures - show an increase in all shows. But it is understood that other figures dating back to June, while solid among most shows, was disappointing for the Nine To Noon show with Kathryn Ryan. My sources say that RNZ - which recently appointed producer Allen Walley to work on the show, has become concerned with the tone and ratings for Nine To Noon. It is a subjective matter of course. But under Ryan, Nine To Noon had become rooted in "Ailment of the Day" with bleak schoolmarmish discourse and mini-lectures. Walley carries high hopes for change, but RNZ insiders say Ryan is not known for taking advice and continues to dominate on air and off.

Interesting to see the insiders aren't happy with N2N either. We can only hope that it'll improve soon.

Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant.

Thank you Colin James - thank you very much.

It seems that unlike the majority of pundits, Mr James picked up on the fact that National's campaign pledge for a referendum on MMP is actually major news.

When the Nats put out their ten election pledges (August 3 - a Sunday), RNZ jumped on to the MMP aspect, as did Stuff and the Herald. Some superficial coverage followed, but no-one actually asked any questions about why they were pursuing the referendum, and why Jonkey was the under the assumption that "the country may well vote MMP out but I think they will vote in another proportional system," (my emphasis). Supplementary Member was later touted as a possible replacement, and while DPF gave us a fairly good comparison with MMP, Idiot/Savant shot it down pretty quickly.

My point is - the only people who seem to be railing against MMP are the same reactionaries who railed against it when it was voted in, and have railed against it ever since. People like Garth George.

Everyone I know (and I am aware I'm a weekend socialist) seems to be rather fond of MMP. In fact, some go as far to say that they actually like the fact that gummints can't ram through legislation willy-nilly as they could in yesteryear.

I'm no constitutional expert, I leave that to Palmer and Son, but there's something inherently wrong with either major party lobbying for a less representational system (and we all know both would love to see a return to the glory days).

Like most of my peers (unfortunately I fall into Gen Y), I can't really remember the glorious years of unbridled power, and that (ironically) makes me slightly more cynical than James, who seems to think the public has been well-served by the Fourth Estate and can make an informed decision on most matters:

So Key's self-serving referendum may actually be superfluous. The electorate is wiser than he credits it. It owns the party system and is working out how many parties it wants in Parliament.

I don't think so.

One of my guilty pleasures is listening to talkback radio, and while I think it has enormous potential in offering the wider populace a platform for their opinions and the ability to debate the issues (much like blogging), it usually falls well short, degenerating into the cynical sensationalist broadcasting that attracts the lowest common denominator, and often becomes a strong indicator of public sentiment - it's why the powers that be keep an eye on the watchmen.

If this is the case and Mr Key's assumption is correct, as George Bernard Shaw wrote, we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Taking DPF's advice, I aim to do this in under 30 minutes.

Tory hack writes:

The Sunday Star-Times best efforts to re-elect the Government continue. They try a double header today.

Socialist hack writes:

Tracey Watkins is said by some of her colleagues to be spending an ‘unseemly’ about of time hanging out in John Key’s office, she’s certainly spent enough time at National HQ recently to get similar with the wall hangings. So, it’s fairly safe to say we know where her loyalties lie, and it’s not with journalistic independence.

Baby hack hopes partisan communication specialists who engage in tit-for-tat games on the interwebs recognise irony.

Paranoia's not the problem - it's the reptiles that we should be worried about

I dutifully read Fran O'Sullivan this morning and thought well done. Well done indeed. It's given me the opportunity to fly the latest in my long line of conspiracy theories that I often keep under wraps, and both Bomber and Jafapete have only themselves to blame (points were deducted from Jafapete for hat-tipping to the Standard - loverly guys but this vid was a poor piece of propoganda).

Theory number one comes from people (like myself) who like the long game. I've had theories about how the Hon Bill English is one of these people - I won't bore you with the details, but the general gist is this. If you go back to the end of last year, Fran's wish-list for the top stories of 2008 holds this wee gem:

4. John Key and Bill English cut succession deal Key offers English a secret deal that he will step down as Prime Minister after two terms in favour of his Treasurer (English). The former currency trader recognises that English - who virtually single-handed ran the Electoral Finance Bill story that catapulted National back up the polls - deserves to succeed him. This assumes Key has read the lessons from the reigns of Tony Blair and John Howard about what happens to unity when talented finance supremos are left to fester for too long.

Lew will pooh-pooh me as he thinks Key is "It's a dog eat dog world and I've got bigger teeth than you," but I like to think of Fran in her Winebox days - if something smells fishy, that's probably because there's a snapper lying around.

Tenuous correlation number two came from reading the Armstrong-O'Sullivan combo, and isn't linked to the above at all. Yoda wrote:

National will know soon enough from its own private polling just how big a hit it has taken. Many people will wonder what all the fuss is about. Others will simply blame Labour for the dirty tricks. As a minimum, however, National can probably wave goodbye to securing a majority in its own right. (My emphasis)

Obviously, it was the last line that caught my attention.

I've got a bet with a few friends that ACT's going to ring in 6% of the vote. Seems obvious to me - you've got 5% of the population who are libertarian, neo-lib, and neo-con nutters, just like you've got 5% of the population who not only like Winston, but actually believe him too.

The issue is that 45% is not too much of a stretch for the Nats, and if you tack on ACT in a formal coalition you've got a prime opportunity to go back on any promises you made on the campaign trail ("we don't want to, it's Rodney's and Roger's fault"). Expediency is a wonderful thing.

This is only wild speculation on my part - I'm sure there are many minds that can rip this flight of fancy to pieces - but if our next Government (and even this pinko commie's coming around to a centre-right coalition) is blue and yellow, I'm looking forward to front row seats. I was too young for Lockwood's about-face last time and I wouldn't mind witnessing a repeat.

To all the blogs I've loved before.

When I read Vernon Small's blog on blogging and journalism this morning I pegged it as rant worthy for later in the day. Unfortunately, being a baby journo, I hit the bar with some of my classmates instead, and now I've found every half decent (yes, it's an exaggeration) blogger has already covered it in much greater depth than I would have. So instead of reading my rants and raves, check out Dim, DPF, Idiot/Savant and Adam Smith, and make sure you wade through the comments too. My 2c go to Dim, purely because I/S sounded way too smart for me at this time of a Friday night.

Oh, and check this out on stuff, it's the best news for a poor beleagured (rich) girl in a long time (hey someone's gotta have a soft spot for the gal).

REDUX: Thank the blogging gods for this thread! It's finally given Queen Bee the opportunity to write something worth reading - something she's been struggling to do for quite some time (it's all Winston's fault naturally). Her coverage of Georgia is keeping me optimistic...

Stuffs' subs seize the day

Just noticed the Speaker's quote on my previous post that had been dutifully copied and pasted had a typo - "impolications" instead of implications.

It was a breaking story and the need to beat out Herald (and more importantly, DPF) was high, so the little glitch is forgiven, especially when all was rectified by the time I hit refresh.

Well done Stuff subs - it almost makes up for the dismal showing by your spokesman on the latest installment of Mediawatch.

Almost.

The Whinebox Inquiry

It's finally happened - Tracy Watkins of the Dompo's reported that Winston's up before Parliament's privileges committee.

Admittedly it's only the ongoing Owen Glenn donation that wasn't but actually was, and not the latest debacle with Bob Jones' money (that's a doozey), but it isn't often that Winnie has to account for his dealings.

I love the direct/indirect quote from the Speaker Margaret Wilson:

She told Parliament Mr Peters had provided her with a "very full and compelling"explanation of his position, but she had referred to the privileges committee because of the "high public interest and the impolications for the reputation of members and the institution of Parliament".

Here's hoping for some compelling drama to come. Regardless, it'll be prime pickings for Dim.