It is a terrible thing for a man to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth

Maybe I'm being petty - no, no maybe, I am - but it's recently come to my attention that me and my team (okay, my bosses and their team) really need to boost our profile.

It's more a case of what tabs our esteemed bloggers look at, but last week I stumbled across a presentation by the Treasury secretary which I dutifully wrote up.

We splashed it across the wire and Stuff and the Herald picked it up - no probs there.

Imagine my consternation the following day when I see not only Danyl, but DPF (he who knows all) attributed it as a Herald report. Hmph. I couldn't handle three hours on the Herald, let alone be a part of their politics press team.

I'm still a baby after all.....

Anyways, the curious aspect is that it was up the previous day on both the Herald and Stuff business tabs - my favourite bloggers only picked up on it 'cos the Herald ran it in its political tab too - hence the attribution (I'm looking for any excuse to excuse 'em).

Still, it would've been nice if it was "BusinessWire reported".....

Oh woe is me - will I only ever be taken seriously by the blogging world if I make it into the politcal realm......?

PB.

(Anyone know why Whitehead's out in the trenches rallying the troops....? I for one would love to see an uprising by senior executives and board directors in the coming year..... the streets would run red with Central Otago pinot noir.... 'twould be beautiful....)

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.

Indeed there will be time to wonder, 'Do I dare? and, 'Do I dare?'

Sheesh - it's amazing what a good day can do to your attitude.

I'd been toying with the idea of making this a kinda thing that I dip back into when I have something eloquent to say for a while - six odd months to be precise. Unfortunately, it's rather embarrassing when you realise you don't actually have anything to add...

So, in a fit of rage yesterday, I considered turning this into the life and times of a baby reporter.

Am I still a baby? Unsure....

I've been doing this gig for six or so months full-time, which in the scheme of things could make me a veteran to some, but considering the old hacks I hang around with, I'm definitely a baby.

Anyhooo, that's not really what I wanted to say.

Oh yeah, hi, sorry it's been a while, if I could find the xkcd cartoon where it has the panel with the guy who blogs every six months to apologise for not blogging more often, I'd link to it, but I can't, so sorry on that front.

So what did I have to say today?

Just something I found curious about the Herald and Stuff in picking up me currency story and tyring to lose the crux of the story in the head they used.

Stuff did it a couple of days ago when they picked up a PA story on the appointment of David Mayhew as the new financial adviser commissioner.

Which poses the question as to why they don't add or edit the wire stories when they don't say what the web editor wants....

Sure they'll get the hits they want, but somehow that naive idealist in me just sees the reader getting swindled. And journalism ain't about.... is it....

PB.

Oh, as an aside, it was nice to see me currency piece forced PA to pick up on my theme - I'm not particularly one for the free market, but it is refreshing to see how competition can tangibly improve quality...

I have nothing to declare but my genius

I'm going to miss Michael Cullen.

As numerous commentators have already mentioned, his wit was brutal - something I enjoyed when listening to the wireless or traipsing down to Parliament to watch the fun in the Chamber.

So it's obvious that I strolled up to watch his valedictory on Wednesday eager to watch his final set-piece.

If you've bothered to read any of the columns about his speech, you may have noted that the public gallery was full - unfortunately, it wasn't with the public.

When I arrived at 3.50pm (learning from experience having tried to watch Helen Clark's valedictory), I was kindly informed by security that they'd be closing it off at 4pm so friends and family of the good doctor could watch the event.

That's a lot of family and friends.

I can't begrudge the clearing of the gallery so our outgoing MPs can ensure their nearest and dearest can attend their final moment of glory, but I do take umbrage at the prospect the public can't attend what could potentially be historic moments in our Parliament.

I like the fact that we have such unfettered access to our elected representatives; I like the fact that entry to Parliament is so easy; I don't like the fact that attendance, if not participation, isn't encouraged.

I think events like the valedictory speeches of some of our leading Parliamentarians, the Budget, maiden speeches, and opening addresses should be public occasions - people should gather together in Parliament, in front of big screens, or huddle around the wireless to see our politicians at their best, rather than accept the sound-bites of them at their worst.

Ahh, who am I kidding? I'm just bitter that I was thwarted from observing history twice in a month..... enjoy the Herald's cut....



PB.

(Big ups to the Herald for continuing to lead Stuff in the "using cool interweb gadgets" stakes)

You don't talk with that man - you listen to him

I'm not really a fan of these types of blog posts, but this column in the Herald was too good to ignore.

Read it - it'll give you a very good basic understanding of the situation in the Congo - and offer some kind of deeper analysis of the situation.

I know - it's a little surprising.

The only thing I think it lacks (or it may merely be my own curious nature) is how the problems in the Congo can be related back to New Zealand, and why it's important for people to care here (and not just in humanitarian terms - which, when you consider the situation, should really be enough).

Thank you granny - gold star for you.

PB.

(The cynic in me wants to link this to an attempt to help sell the Independent's stake in APN, but I just cannae do it - sorry)

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.

Nats likely to be furious over having to pay for Crosby Textor

The boys at The Standard will be well-chuffed with Yoda's column in the Herald on Saturday - after a sharp campaign of explaining away the evils of Crosby/Textor, John Armstrong became the first to indulge them when he wrote:

However, selling "Brand Key" as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise fetid political atmosphere was hardly credible if National was going to team up with Peters once the election was over.

July was definitely the cruellest month to Jonkey, with 15 posts tagged to the brandkey moniker (13 in the first fortnight). A good place to start for research's sake is here.

With a solid strike-rate like that, I'm certain C/T will be keeping an eye our liberal lads, and who knows where that could lead?

Is that DPF I hear, reminiscing over yesteryear?

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.

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.

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.

The Day in Review Sept 13

- Prime bucked the trend by leading with Damien O'Connor's humble return to Parliament where he offered his most sincere apologies for being rather dim. No-one else was too interested by DO'C anymore.
- Because the SIS decided Ahmed Zaoui wasn't that much of a risk anymore, and decided to leave him be. We got Zaoui's history, the background of the case, a few more tidbits that hadn't been released to the public, and an assertion that he had put any dodgy dealings behind him, swearing on the Qur'an. The PM wasn't saying too much, aside from the fact that she was confident in Warren Tucker's ability as the Director of the SIS. Winston was none too pleased, as he, unlike many other MPs, hadn't read the memo that circulated last night. As our wonderful networks tend to do, the story went into overkill, with Deborah Manning having much to say, but Amnesty was strangely silent (despite them issuing a press release and attending the hoopla).
- 3 threw in a couple of Asian P convictions and an earthquake in Indonesia into its opening segment before moving on to the RWC. One waited until it had lauded Leighton Smith (an effort in itself) for talking to a woman in the midst of a suicide attempt; reported on an inquiry into a parolee who committed a little violent crime (what's murder between friends); and ran a piece on a police pursuit, before getting into Portugal's chances against the All Blacks.
- The depositions hearing for the Edgeware Road hit and run got a little coverage, and 3 went on about Professor Keith Woodford's book on the evils A1 milk while One talked about the 1080 protesters threatening to unleash the dogs on poor unsuspecting kiwi, otherwise it was more on the McCanns.
-Apparently the Reserve Bank held the OCR as is, but you wouldn't really know.
- The wireless ran with Zaoui. Nat Radio for (sorry, RNZ). NewstalkZB against. David Farrar probably had the most sensible thing to say about it on his blog (I see the irony).
- Campbell and Close Up played milk and Zaoui tag, with John having a wonderul conversation with Ahmed and his fesity, yet lovely and attractive, lawyer Deb before talking hard and fast about the dangers of milk with Professor Woodford. Sainsbury did it in reverse.
- I'm sure I had an insipid moment, but really, the saddest thing I saw today was on the New Zealand Herald's web-site (usually a fine place to find news, despite the typos) where Simon Cowell's comment that Britney's career was over made today's top ten stories. Lamentations abound.
Good night.