From behind the door: The interminable art of trying

Well the morning started off abysmally - late as usual with nary a cup of coffee in sight, and blood on Wall Street slicing the prospects of a straightforward dollar story thrown out the window as the third-quarter earnings of New Zealand's biggest phone company loomed large over me and the boss wasn't in yet and the other boss was in but not making coffee and once Telecom posted its result there wasn't time for me to pick it up because we hadn't had the conversation and it should've been a bit more organised, but that's the life of being behind the door in an office of three, soon to be four, maybe even more, but that's just mere speculation.

So I got through the usual malarkey of getting my soundbite from Mike, he's a good bloke, and my friend says he's very pleasant on the eye and she knows these things so I'll probably tell her to come along next time me and Mike meet up for a beer, though that's likely to be a long way off with the budget looming and other things on the go that I don't even know about yet, and now I'm way off topic so I should get back to finishing off my currency story 'cos it's already 9am and we're trying to get it out earlier and earlier and earlier and Jonathan's got the Telecom result and he's going to do a cheap and nasty version and later on in the day he says we should've sat down and discussed this and made sure that I'd picked it up 'cos I'd done a preview the afternoon before and Telecom's - and the wider telco sphere in general (though I can't call it the telco sphere 'cos Jon hates the word telco and he's the boss after all) - my baby and even though it was challenging at first, I do quite like writing about phone companies and broadband and mobile phones and all the stuff that seems to come in the telecommunications sector.

So I'd managed to encapsulate the cliff that Wall Street dived off after some guy's finger got a little itchy, then I read through Jon's write-through on Telecom and prepared to dial in for the conference - 40 minutes of which was the usual PR flackery that goes on and on and on and turns into a war of attrition until people can actually get an opportunity to ask these masters of the universe questions about the state of their business and what it actually means, and that if the level of disclosure across all the divisions of their company is so great why don't they answer questions when asked, rather than just fob it off as commercially sensitive information, and you know that while you might get something, someone else will use it, which is sometimes a blessing in disguise, 'cos sometimes after an hour and a quarter of listening to people more intelligent and knowledgeable than you, you really don't want to ask your questions because they've been answered in roundabout ways and they aren't really that interesting anyway and you've just taken up 2 minutes that someone else could've used, but instead you gave a nice soundbite to another guy but that's alright because you know that you secretly use their work to give yourself a decent background on the issue, and then you get off the conference and you realise that you don't really have a story, because the numbers were pretty bland, even if they did beat Guy's forecast slightly, and the XT report was pretty lame, even if it did call management immature, which the boss wanted in the write-through, so I had to go for a wander with the boss and try and get my head around what I was going to write about, then I talked to Alan, 'cos he's absolutely lovely and always gives you a good quote and tries to give you something even when there's nothing there, and so I came up with something, and eventually got the write-through, and then the stock price fell to a new low, and I'd already written the story, so I threw that at the top, and lo and behold, it made it to the usual suspects, and everything was alright, but two days on, I'm no wiser about what happened, and if anything, perhaps a little more confused - so until the next thing comes out, it's all business as usual.

And that's life from behind the door.

PB.

Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

For some reason I was rather excited about the prospect of an hour-long special commemorating the glory days of Nightline - 20 years was a decent whack, and much of that was through my formative teenage years (though it had to contend with the delightful Newsnight on TV2 which was tops in my book).

After watching that self-indulgent twaddle on Friday, I felt the need to have my own little whine (cue the old blog routine....).

I like 90s nostalgia. I guess that's the rub of it when you're around my age and everything seemed so much better when it was wrapped in nihilistic, self-effacing apathy. Man, Gen X was coooooool.

Anyway, back to my grizzle - TV3 had a wealth of footage to screen. They had 60 minutes (minus advertising to do it). And what did we get (barring the tributes to Ralston and Dylan Taite)?

Talking heads and voiceovers over montages that didn't mean a hell of a lot. Oh, and people saying it was so great then because we could do whatever we wanted 'cos we were a fledgling network with nothing to lose.

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

Don't mean to be a bit of a nonce, but I woulda liked to see the old Belinda/Joanne duo bounce off each other for five minutes, but I guess that was too much to ask. Allusions through interviews about your own programme are a bit, well, lame.

And there was so much to choose from. Crikey.

I guess everyone was just too hyped up to get a free night on the company card than go through the archives and tee-up some awesome stuff.....

Ah well. Venting over. Sorry about that. We shall resume normal service soon.....

PB.

(Oh, and this vapid piece of crap parading as news could have at least tried to find the top five most outrageous things Belinda Todd did when she was on Nightline rather than just pilfer five grabs from the show....... Jeeeeeeez)

Here's a 1991 Nightline mash-up for y'all who wanted to see some of the good stuff....

A blanker whiteness of benighted snow with no expression

What a strange afternoon.....

It was a simple task - follow up on a bank report into fixed interest securities that was saying investment grade corporate bonds (essentially a big safe company offering to borrow money from joe and jane public) were in high demand and find out if that's the case - 250 to 300 words or thereabouts.

Easy pickings - I've got a dozen or so fixed interest guys to call on......

"Hi, is so and so there?"

"No, s/he's away for the week/day/year/month...."

"Okay, thanks, bye."

Change phone number/name, repeat.

After exhausting everyone (including bigwigs at some of the country's largest fund managers), I finally got through to a pleasant chap who gave me a fairly good idea of what was going on, and was happy to get the odd call now and then (which is always handy).

Then, just on the stroke of 5, one of my guys came through for me with the perfect 8 minute interview explaining how everything worked, why it was doing it, and where to from here.

The only question I have, is what on earth would happen if it wasn't a baby reporter ringing but a big-time investor who wanted to know the state of New Zealand's bond market on a Tuesday afternoon?

Some days ya just gotta wonder......

PB.

Question: Which blue chip company likes to put out press releases late in the day to avoid immediate comment for the wire services/talk talk and can completely talk around the issue at hand when it finally comes out......?

Unhelpful and overly cryptic hint:

There will be nothing here for the diary entry

There was going to be a slightly more interesting blog about nothing and the banality of daylight savings, but then blogger pulled an IE and destroyed all of my beautiful musings.

Just look at the labels and think what might have been.

In the meantime, enjoy this:




PB.

Some day you'll know. They're calling to you too.

It is with a heavy heart that I read Colin James' last column in the Herald today.

For the last ten years, Mr James has given Granny readers a taste of analysis over the usual empty rhetoric that passes for columns these days, and to my mind, it seems an absolute waste that the Herald's decided to give him the flick.

What's most concerning for this baby journalist, though, is if luminaries like Mr James have grown either too stale for the Granny's taste or too expensive, what's going to be left?

Are newswrooms shrinking to such a state that columnists will now be on staff?

Is long-term analysis that tends to shy away from any strong partisan position no longer in vogue? (I know I know... it never really was...)

Are quality hacks being cut down one by one, in order for them to be replaced by drones waiting for their $60k comms job?

I couldn't even turn to the blogosphere for answers, as his demise doesn't seem to have attracted much attention (he got a tribute from the Tailor on Panama St, and nods from DPF, IrishBill and Adam Smith).

I hope I'm being paranoid...

But I've got a sneaking sensation I'm not...

PB.

(PS - check out the Tailor's blog - methinks it'll be a goodie... and not of the Bill Odie kind)

The hope only Of empty men

Far be it for me to criticise laziness (my prolonged absence from the blogosphere can attest to that), but - there's always a but - I'm a little disappointed with John Roughan's profile of Steven Joyce in the Herald yesterday. It looks remarkably like Dwayne Alexander's blog post at the start of September.




I'm being unfair. Mr Roughan did actually address a couple of timely issues in his interview with Mr Joyce, such as the Labour Party's response to the economic crisis and the unveiling of the universal student allowance policy. And Mr Joyce, to his credit, addressed them - even if it was merely to bat them away.

However, after his auspicious start, a fairly lame profile piece followed - something that is happening in far too many papers at the moment. I don't think I'm alone in considering a straight profile of a political candidate to be boring and unambitious.

Sure, give us a general outline of who the candidates are and what they have done in their previous lives, but stick with a line of questioning where the reader might actually get some handle on what the candidate stands for, what their motivations for entering public office are, and what they plan to do, given the opportunity, when they take the reins of power.

Y'know, act like a representative of the Fourth Estate and all that jazz.

OR, if you must do a profile (and I'm feeling charitable here)...

Don't make it a promo listing all of the candidates' achievements... we know these people are talented - it's generally why they manage to get into the party hierarchy. What's more interesting is how they've acted in their previous incarnations, and how this may relate to how they'll represent us in the future.

Using Mr Joyce as an example, what Mr Roughan could have done was delve into the crossover of Mr Joyce's radio career and his position as campaign manager of the Nats. In the lead-up to, and fall-out from, the 2005 general election, he was the drive show host on RadioLive. I remember listening to Mr Joyce every afternoon (as was the wont of my employer at the time), completely oblivious to his position with the Nats (which was never disclosed). I merely thought he was another of those crazy talkback hosts that loved the phrase "nanny state" (he replaced Paul Henry who was forced to resign by TVNZ, and was up against Larry Williams on ZB, who models his show on Bill O'Reilly's). We should also note that, by this stage, Mr Joyce had sold his holding in RadioWorks to the Canadians (better known as CanWest) - not that Mr Joyce let his listeners' knew of his former association with the station.

Curiously, a quick google search finds few acknowledgements of Mr Joyce's tenure ever occurring: there's a post by DPF at the end of November 2005 and another, which no longer exists, but has an extract available on Lawswatch.

I find nothing untoward about commericial radio holding a conservative bias - it's a natural fit, much like the perceived liberal bias associated with public radio - it's just that, y'know, I would have liked to have been made aware of the fact that there was some active political campaigning going on in the lead-up to a tight election that some 30-odd thousand people were listening to every day.

I can see the argument that would likely be put up - my opinions are obvious to anyone who listens to me, and my audience, in the main, agrees with my point of view, but that's a little different form being active in a party political campaign while putting out your views as an independent voice (albeit, a conservative one).

I know all of this screams conspiracy, and I don't actually have a problem with figures in the media holding a political bias. I think it's good for views contrary to my own being pushed and discussed in an open forum. But an open forum requires a certain level of disclosure, and Mr Joyce's inability to let his listeners know that he was actively campaigning for the Nats in '05 leads me to conclude there's only one position he wants after November 8...

... and that's the role of Machiavelli's Prince, Murray McCully.

Thus ends my case study and wildly inaccurate conclusion.

I'm sure the nation's fearless army of journalists would be happy to dig a little deeper when approaching their candidates for a simple profile piece - it's certainly a lot more fun to do (and read). And maybe, just maybe, it might inform the public of whom, and what, they're actually voting for.

Dreaming of better journalism,

PB.

My rant over "self-inflicted death"

This morning saw me and my fellow baby journalists attend the SPINZ seminar on the media's role in suicide prevention. Tuckr has a fine post on suicide reporting (he should, it's the speech he gave at the Auckland conference), so I'm going to take it as a given that you know we can't really report suicides very well - no details, be sensitive, don't glamourise it, don't rationalise it, oh heck, my guidelines are on the other side of the bed, so I guess I'll have to wing it.

The forum was useful - some interesting research was raised and I made sure to grab a copy of what the Ministry of Health's trying to do to stop suicide. Unfortunately, in a free and frank forum about a subject that's taboo, everything was sanitised. Prime example: self-inflicted death. Not suicide. Not killing yourself. Not topping yourself. But self-inflicted death. No details. A violent death rather than slashed wrists. A body found in an area; not jumped to his/her death. I don't know how this encourages open discussion about a difficult topic, especially a topic that people are so scared to talk about, let alone report on.

The one word that kept coming to mind as I scribbled down my notes was propaganda. We were constantly told that the MoH didn't want to censor journos; merely ensure they reported correctly and safely. I actually agree with the concept that suicide is nobody else's business, and I'm not overly fussed about the restrictions on reporting, but I do object to the national strategy for suicide prevention having a specific goal dedicated to sanitising media coverage. I don't think it's good for strong reporting of the issues, and I don't think it will lead to anything other than wider censorship.

This wasn't helped by the fact that although the research dismissed a causal link between fictional suicide representations and actual suicide, it was implied that this was an element (I mean the whole basis of the research came from the impact a novel had in encouraging suicide). What's the next activity that requires guidelines?

The way people were speaking, it seemed as though every time suicide was metioned, there was a spate of copycat episodes. I don't mean to make light of the situation, but I couldn't get the final scene of Hedda Gabbler out of my head, and I envisioned an audience getting up after her death, walking out of the theatre and shooting themselves.

I did have a fair amount of time for Paul Thompson (Fairfax's Group Editor) when he wasn't plugging the typical media line "we do our job and we do it well". And he made a fine point in asking for more openness in reporting on suspected suicides. I can't fault his logic; if it's suspected, the hidden code "There were no suspicious circumstances" doesn't quite explain that (and while it pains me to admit my own naivety, I didn't pick up on the code until Jim pointed it out to us earlier this year -sheesh).

I think he was wrong when he claimed we can only write features on suicide every couple of months as there's no appetite for them. I think there's enormous public appetite for stories about suicide and I think people want to be able to speak about it openly. By leaving suicide stories under-reported or left as a token feature every few months, we continue to marginalise it, making it difficult to cover stories about suicide that may actually help reduce suicide rates (causes of suicide, general trends, ways to approach suicidal people). The more education people have about a topic, the greater their capacity for discussing and debating it intelligently. (I'm just trying to balance out my cycnicism with some idealism here.)

Having read back through this post, I can't find any real unifying theme, and I suppose that's because I just needed to vent after the seminar (which seems normal considering the content of the day). I guess I'm just disappointed: I expected some real discussion on what the media can do to make things better, not listen to what the media needs to do to minimise harm.

Whew. Now I've got that out of the system, the critical thought can begin...

Let us be diverse and without prejudice

There has been a bit of commentary about the Diversity Forum held by MSD last week. I've obviously heard a fair amount about it as one of the NewsWire babies who listened to Arlene Morgan speak about diversity in the newsroom, and I have to admit to being somewhat pleased by Deb Coddington's column in the HoS today. Her back-handed contrition, however (some objectors are better than others), continues to play into the same old divisive stereotypes that compel the need for forums like the diversity one and for offices like the Race Relations Conciliator.

Karl du Fresne admirably defends his distaste for meddling in the affairs of "free speech" - yet the crux of his argument is market driven and summed up nicely with:

The main thing about the controversy over the Clydesdale paper, however, was
that it demonstrated that a free and open society, if left to function properly,
tends to be self-correcting.

Self-correcting implies that every citizen, nay, every reader, is equal in intelligence and experience and able to disseminate a piece of information with the same veracity as the next one. That's the kind of idealistic twaddle you'd expect from a socialist like meself, not a curmudgeon like Mr du Fresne.

Which leads me on to prejudice (I know - this is a long one). The inimitable Jim Tucker plugged our push for diversity here, here, and here, but it was his latest post on his reading prejudices that ties in nicely with my fear for the fragmentation of voices in the media. One of the winners of the Excellence in Reporting Diversity Awards was Justin Latif, a chap who doesn't think his stories are diverse - they just are. This is all well and good, but as Jim points out:

We all, I suspect, choose our information sources according to deep-seated
biases created over lifetimes.

Which leads me to believe that as our media sources converge under the umbrellas of the major players, minority voices will be ignored in favour of the mainstream market (a continuation of a current theme), and our minorities will create their own media (much like we're already seeing in our local Asian communities).

While this isn't new, the growth of Asian media is a worrying trend - if we (read white, middle-class males) can't reach out and gather news like Justin, we're going to be holding the shortest straw when the interweb finally destroys flagship news outlets and the fragmentation of news sources is so diverse as to make it impossible to have any kind of "authoritative news".

This might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it does play to Jim's prejudices - we'll only read news and commentary that re-affirms our own experiences and ideologies. I don't see me being the token whitey in a newsroom as a bad thing, but I do see the creation of niche media that doesn't challenge its own assertions as one step closer to endgame. Here's hoping someone can allay my fears - as yet, no-one's managed the task.

Sanity has returned

EXCLUSIVE: I popped into my local New World last week and was relieved to see Investigate Magazine back at the back of the magazine stand and the NBR down to the midrange level. That was a close call (although Pulp is now on the front row next to Time, but, y'know, beggars can't be choosers).

UPDATE: I spoke too soon - after popping down to NW this evening, it appears as though the NBR has sold out and Ian's rag has moved up to mid-rack status. Oh how I wish I could find a conspiracy theory that fits.

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.

For services to the crown, I dub thee Sir Robert

I don't know much about honorifics, but they have been doing the rounds here, here and here, gathering some attention in the microcosm of our classroom.

In my brief time of 20-something years, I don't remember anyone ever calling Sir Bob Jones, "Sir Robert". In fact, I always recall him affectionately referred to as "Bob" or "Bob Jones" (I do have one friend who would baulk at me saying "affectionately", but that's because he bothered to read the New Zealand Party manifesto).

Take a look at the TVNZ website - they've got him down in their Good Morning roll call as Sir Bob (they don't even have the Sir in the bio's text), but their latest hard news story (take what you want out of that statement) has him as Sir Robert.

TVNZ isn't the only one - every news service is calling him Sir Robert, yet everyone quoted in these stories calls him Bob. The briefest respite came in Audrey Young's blog, but it was oh so brief.

And it's not that long ago (last month) that Stuff opened one of their articles like this:

Sir Bob Jones is trying to bankrupt a co-founder of failed property investment company Blue Chip by pursuing court action for office rent.

My point (and it is a fairly meek and mild one) is that everyone's calling him Sir Robert as though he's a law lord on the Privy Council breathing fire down the necks of our corrupt politicians and not the cheeky raconteur Sir Bob that the public (thinks it) knows and loves.

While I could rant and rave about how the media is using "Sir Robert" to add gravitas to their claims about the Rt Hon Mr Peters, I really can't be bothered.

And heck, if you go back up a wee ways, you'll see that Sir Bob ain't Sir Robert on wikipedia - and that's saying something.

REDUX: Gots to give some props to the Sunday Star-Times' Donna Chisholm - just noticed she didn't fall into the Sir Robert trap.

12000 miles and they're still quicker

Typical. 12,000 miles away and our colonial masters are still quicker than us.

I'm talking about this lil' piece from NZPA on the Herald's website. Has anyone noticed this in NZ? Maybe, but this link aside, no-one else in Utopia knows that the Daily Chronicle in Horowhenua-Kapiti will probably go from being published five days a week to two and be given away free.

And how did I get on to this - not through my wonderful google reader which has media/journalism stories fed from the Herald website. No, I tip my hat to greenslade and his headline, "New Zealand daily cuts publication", 12,000 miles away on the Guardian's website.

Understandably, the only reason this is making waves down/up there is because the Chronicle's an APN publication and part of the O'Reilly empire (an ongoing saga on greenslade), but with APN's CEO Martin Simons saying, "We have been publishing in the Horowhenua-Kapiti region for 115 years, and we will continue to do so, but the current economics mean we have to change strategies to meet the market," I'd rather see some homegrown comment from people in the know.

The way I see it, it's another sad day for the state of NZ's media. D-Day is August 4 - I will be waiting with baited breath.

Gratuitous plug numbers 2, 3 (and kind of 4)

Well, I guess I have to do this one (I tried yesterday, but my stoopid interweb decided not to work): if you have passing interest in the media and how it operates, subscribe to Tuckr. I know what you're thinking, he's his tutor so he's got to do this, but hell, everyone knows you've got to sign up to a site where the author actually knows what they're talking about (a rarity at the moment). Kind of forces us lesser mortals to lift our game as well (three posts on his first day - I think it took me three weeks to manage that effort).

Plug number two goes to Dave Lee dot backslash dot net dot ad infinitum - as most of my friends will tell you, I often lament about anyone who's younger than me (I figure I'm struggling enough so they can't stand a chance), but this guy's summat else. If you just wanna read this one post and nothing else, you'll be the better for it (and able to set up your own news website).


And just for laffs on governance issues, keep an eye on this one. Richard Westlake seems
to know what he's talking about, and I'm coming around to the point of view that what goes on in the boardroom (and occasionally plays out in the media) has as much melodrama as parliament.

The Day in Review Sept 11

- Leading our bulletins was the ongoing saga of the Auckland teen murder, with breaking news that a chap was arrested and charged. Bebo played an all-important role in tracking down the alleged culprit.
- 3 ran the disestablishment of the Serious Fraud office second, while One held it back a little. The Police Association welcomed the changes, and while 3 ran the Government's line, One went to Simon Power, who hoped its new incarnation worked better than its predecessor.
- Damien O'Connor's offer to resign received the appropriate coverage, with John Key taking every opportunity to accuse the PM of being opportunisitic in holding back until her reshuffle. 3 seemed to be more interested in the fact that D.O'C tried to quit via text message.
- Hackers in the system got a reasonable level of reporting, and while H1 knows who tried their luck, she's not saying anything.
- 3 covered REINZ's housing report on how we had finally become slothful. Nothing surprising.
- Rounding out our opening segments were reports on the US commander on Iraq and the police alert in Germany over a US airport on 3, and the deaths of the the Body Shop founder and actress Jane Wyman kept us on One.
- The wireless gave us a bit more info on the NZRU's decision to pump some more cash into community rugby, with Steve Tew talking to Willie Lose, and Murray Deaker pontificating with Larry Williams.
- Close Up opened with the evils of youth and how the world was coming to an end, while Campbell continued with the Opotiki exhumation before having a heated discussion between Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton and that wonderfully kooky Health Spokesman Nandor Tanczos on banning BZP.
- The worst story ever has to go to TV3 for its piece on whether Paris Hilton was going to find a nice Kiwi lad, as her friend is coming to NZ as a celebrity judge at the World Cocktail Champs. I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Good night.

The Day in Review Sept 10

- The top story of the day according to our favourite television executives was the investigation into the murder of an Auckland teen. Most interesting was the make of car implicated... a Mercedes.
- The accident in Christchurch that claimed the lives of three teens also received a lot of coverage, with all the usual suspects calling for an end to youth driving.
- The hit and run trial rounded out our trio of terror at the top of the hour.
- New Zealand's working holiday agreement with the US got a lot of coverage, although the broadcasters all had to institute that wonderful NZ xenophobia and include the protests to such a heinous agreement.
- The fate of Damien O'Connor didn't get quite the coverage expected, with it seeming likely that everyone will have to wait until the reshuffle to see the good Minister go.
- Pharmac's investigation into the the high number of children on antidepressants got a bit of a spread, with Dr. Peter Moodie doing all he can to ensure he and his are not to blame.
- Throw in the McCann investigation for a bit of an international mix, and that's the major bulletins rounded out (excluding 3's RWC package which was missing from One's opening segment (sigh of relief)).
- Close Up ran with an expert on the dangers of cruise liner living, while Campbell had Geeks on Wheels talking about how they had benefited so much in the wake of Telecom's Bubble being burst, proving that he won't bow to sponsors by pointing out that Telecom refused to be interviewed tonight, and sending his great journalistic off-sider, the lovely Carol, out on to the streets of Mangere to see how a small budgeting service that helped those less privileged people in the greater Auckland area struggled to get anywhere with the heartless beast that is Telecom NZ.
-And 60 Minutes had a piece on NZ's drinking culture (but that's still in the future so I don't know exactly how we stack up).
Good night.

Who watches and the watchers, and so on and so forth.

Well who would have thought? I've actually gone and jumped on board the band-wagon (how many years behind am I?), joining the blogging world of Googality.
Do I have anything profound to say? Not really.
Do I have anything interesting to relate? Only on occasion.
What do I have in mind? A few things.
Basically, I sit in an office listening to the media all day long. It's fairly soul-destroying stuff, so I figured why not use the magic of the interweb to fill in my evenings and employ it in a cathartic role. I assume you can see where this is leading...
I'm going to fill you in on the wonderful world of the New Zealand media.
Admittedly I don't actually get to listen to, see, or read every medium we have available in Aotearoa, that would be foolish and would put me into the realm of a day-time talkback host, but I do suffer through a lot, so (here we start to see a bit of a manifesto building) why not let me interpret what the watchers are telling you, me, and everyone we know? Who knows, you may have a giggle, you may think I'm crazy, you may even accuse me of being a right pretentious twat. All of which would be correct responses.
I assume I'll sprinkle random bits here and there. A bit of social commentary (like every other lame-o weekend socialist (that's me too)), the odd book review and rant on literary matters (pretentious twat part coming out), but I will try to avoid writing for it's own sake. Even though this kind of why I'm doing this.
Enough.
It's been a pleasure to introduce myself, and I hope you enjoy my take on things around these parts.
Y'all come back now.

(I would have had something to say today, particularly about Mercury Energy cutting the power to the woman on an oxygen ventilator in Mangere, resulting in her death, but, alas I've been crook for the last couple of days, and not chained to the monitoring desk. Maybe tomorrow night.)