Daily post 14/04/2015

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, April 14th, 2015 - 32 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

091014NZHMMLITTLE6.JPG JPEG 0540398350

This is an experimental post to see how a second open mike type post would work.

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standarnistas the opportunity to review events of the day.  The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other.

32 comments on “Daily post 14/04/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ropata 1
    14 April 2015 at 6:29 pm

    Nice photo of Andrew L.

    Over at The Political Scientist, Puddleglum has an interesting take on the Campbell Live fiasco. Basically, he reckons Seven Sharp has an inbuilt advantage because the 6 PM news programmes tend to carry viewers over to whatever follows next, and Campbell live is way better at viewer retention.

    Audience figures:
    One News 652,280
    Seven Sharp 474,570
    Retention rate = 72.76%

    TV3 News 256,100
    Campbell Live 214,870
    Retention Rate = 83.9%

    • swordfish 1.1
      14 April 2015 at 11:14 pm

      I’ve always assumed Puddleglum was a she, not a he.

      • Incognito 1.1.1
        15 April 2015 at 1:07 am

        Puddleglum’s sex is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Puddleglum is not afraid to use one of human’s greatest assets; the brain.

        I would venture that knowing or even assuming to know something about the person may detract from the message. On the one hand, I’d like to know about the people that I interact with, e.g. here on TS, but OTOH, I like to be blissfully unaware of their personalities and background. This is also one of the reasons why I use my nom de plume.

        Just look how people react to comments by Wayne and Matthew Hooton; the bias is obvious and inevitable because people know who they are. I could go on about others who get accosted because of (political) leanings, sex, conviction, etc. The recent spats about Moderators and moderation here on TS are just a case in point.

        In other words, if you don’t know the messenger you can only focus on the message. And on a blog site such as TS the main focus ought to be on the message/opinion IMHO.

        • swordfish 1.1.1.1
          15 April 2015 at 8:15 am

          Yeah, I broadly agree. And Puddleglum certainly is very impressive, no question. But then, by the same token, I didn’t necessarily expect my brief throw-away comment above to provoke something resembling The Spanish Inquisition.

  2. feijoa 2
    14 April 2015 at 6:43 pm

    What’s with Andrew’s angelic halo?????????????

  3. ropata 3
    14 April 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Based on *proportional* ratings of current affairs shows, Campbell Live is the best thing on TV3:

    More on TV news /current affairs ratings. http://t.co/6pHl0uAcQg pic.twitter.com/VAmChCAgE8— Rob Salmond (@rsalmond) April 14, 2015

    (admin/lprent could you please embed the linked picture? thanks)

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      14 April 2015 at 7:50 pm

      Proportional ratings doesn’t sell ad-space, actual viewership does.

      And sure, this is an argument to keep Campbell Live, but could equally be the argument that a *different* show might reap more viewers at 7pm on weeknights. That other show could also be cheaper than CL.

      I’ve commented elsewhere, I reckon TV3’ll probably offer John (Campbell) some other timeslot / format, but whether he takes it is another matter.

  4. b waghorn 4
    14 April 2015 at 7:06 pm

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67750357/Labour-accuses-Simon-Bridges-of-gross-breach-of-Cabinet-Manual
    For us non political types is this serious or is it just keeping the fire to there toes?

  5. Peter Watt 5
    14 April 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Important that Andrew Little indicates how Labour would do it better rather than “harp on” about the Government not doing it properly- there is a difference! For over 6 years electors have turned off the all negative strategy, and absented in their droves, 975 000 of them. I am aware of difficulties in being the main Opposition party, but there has to be somebody to vote for, rather than by default, the Government lose!

    • miravox 5.1
      14 April 2015 at 8:31 pm

      “Important that Andrew Little indicates how Labour would do it better rather than “harp on” about the Government not doing it properly- there is a difference!”

      That will be why he said

      There is no question that Simon Bridges has acted improperly as a minister. He’s acted below the standards required of the Cabinet Manual… that if he [Little] were prime minister and a minister acted in that way, he would have their warrants stripped.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      14 April 2015 at 8:46 pm

      Important that Andrew Little indicates how Labour would do it better rather than “harp on” about the Government not doing it properly- there is a difference!

      Incorrect. Labour and the Left in general have to point out how National have fucked up and they have to do it loudly and consistently. They also have to say how they’re going to fix National’s fuckups.

      For over 6 years electors have turned off the all negative strategy, and absented in their droves, 975 000 of them.

      That is also BS. People haven’t turned off Labour’s negativity, they’ve turned off Labour’s instability. Also note National’s routine attacks and negativity to anything that isn’t them.

    • whateva next? 5.3
      14 April 2015 at 9:29 pm

      National are masters of dividing and ruling, and saying any voice of opposition to their behaviour is “negative” or “gotcha” politics is pure manipulation. Don’t fall for it mate.

  6. millsy 6
    14 April 2015 at 8:27 pm

    So John Key plans to build a whole lot of schools using the asset sale money.

    Whats the bet they will be paywalled — ie demand large amounts of money in ‘donations’ and ‘activity fees’, and have BYOD policies?

  7. Saarbo 7
    14 April 2015 at 8:45 pm

    There is a very interesting show on Maori TV, FYI

    Hot Air – The Politics of climate change in NZ from 1988 to 2009.

  8. weka 8
    14 April 2015 at 8:45 pm

    From the does he believe the shit that comes out of his mouth file. Key on Campbell Live.

    John Key told NewstalkZB the show plays no role in holding the government to account.

    “Well, its role in life is not to hold the government to account. It’s to entertain its viewers and basically follow news stories, but a great many of those don’t involve the government. Some do.”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/entertainment/john-key-dismisses-campbell-live/

    • Clemgeopin 8.1
      14 April 2015 at 11:03 pm

      But yet, in that same interview Key says this :

      “Look I don’t know anything about the show other than what I read in the paper, but if you look at what you read in the paper, it’s rating badly and it’s been rating poorly over the last while.” Asked whether the programme’s work in Christchurch was worthwhile, Key said “I don’t know, I don’t see enough of it to be honest.”

      I think Key is bull shitting again!

      Today, Campbell Live topics included, Zero Hour Contracts and Auckland housing problems. Michael Woodhouse and John Key were invited.

      BOTH of them declined to attend!

      Yet Key is supposed to have graced Paul Henry’s show twice in one week already!

  9. Incognito 9
    15 April 2015 at 12:16 am

    When John Key was trying hard to dismiss Campbell Live today he said something that gave a clear insight into his thought process and belief system:

    ” Look in the end we live in a world where it’s largely about commercial returns of what is a private station. It’s not funded by the government, it’s not subject to anything. It’s got a bunch of shareholders it needs to make a return to.”

    It is common sense that generating value for shareholders and generating value for customers go hand-in-hand, isn’t it? However, common sense doesn’t mean it is correct.

    A business that only looks to make a return of investment for its shareholders will generally make short-sighted decisions for quick profit and neglect continuous innovation, e.g. through Research & Development. As a consequence they will lose customers and cease to be profitable in a relatively short space of time and we all know that being profitable is the raison d’être of businesses.

    Most people find it surprisingly difficult to define “innovation”; often it is associated with fresh and refreshing ideas.

    Now, getting back to Key, he’s obviously keen (Key-keen or keen-Key?) to make a return to ‘his shareholders’. But who are Key’s shareholders?

    The first and most obvious answer is: all New Zealanders. After a brief reconsideration the answer may change slightly to: all – or as many as possible – New Zealand voters.

    But this answer does not stand up to scrutiny. The correct answer is, of course: New Zealand Inc. Whoever they are and whomever they represent; they are not representative of ordinary New Zealanders.

    Ordinary New Zealanders like you and I must therefore be John Key’s ‘customers’. And we are getting a bad deal from John Key, the CEO and Bill English, the CFO.

    Because National Ltd. doesn’t have a clue about innovation – it has no ideas whatsoever let alone fresh ones – and because it is only focussed on its shareholders and neglects its customers, National Ltd. will go bust sooner or later.

    Unless National Ltd. starts to innovate, to pay close attention to its customers, and to think of long-term survival, it is doomed to go under and it will take its customer base with it. National’s advertising agency C & T will not be able to stop this nor will its formidable marketing department DP.

    Happy customers are the key, Mr Key, and don’t you forget that! Shareholders come second; always!

    • Charles 9.1
      15 April 2015 at 9:07 am

      I deal with unpleasent people in real life so my manner is pretty rough, but some of the summarised statements above need investigating. It should have no effect on the validity of your overall opinion.

      The paragraph that begins,

      “A business that only looks to make a return of investment for its shareholders will…

      Franchises currently exist (very profitable ones) in the vacuum that would exist, if the above paragraph were true. Now, franchises for Television…

      Also, it is not always true that a business exists to make profit. Business doesn’t happen in a vacuum, they are closely allied with culture and politics; and although it may often be controlled by some famous nitwits, it has a tendency to exceed their inadvertent or purposeful limitations. You indicate this idea yourself, when you start asking who are John Key’s “shareholders and customers”.

      People do find it (unsurprisingly) difficult to define innovation, but “fresh or (the) refreshing (of) ideas” is not specific enough.

      Innovation takes consideration of the trends of the market and places a new product or service in the path of the predicted trajectory of the trend. I guess the closest description I can think of would be that it is the art of supplying a need that is about to arrive, that is not a result of the shortcomings of an existing product. Extending what already exists is simply an improvement. Innovation jumps several stages of otherwise organic development and inspires new thinking (about the product or service) in ways not previously imagined. It’s one of those things that you know it when it (rarely) happens, but setting out to achieve it is pretty difficult.

      Considering the above, my opinion on the matter is that “We” are neither John Key’s shareholders or customers. He speaks like the kind of corporate manager who treats everything that the company has on it’s books as a unit of production. When Key talks about Campbell Live, for example, he is not talking about John Campbell. He takes the perspective that implies the man John Campbell ceases to be a man, and merely a cog in the machine that is Campbell Live. He could be replaced by Jane Doe, and still the show could legitimately be called Campbell Live, because it is a brand, not a person. The senior management/chairmen of the TV channel, and their business associates, are both the customers and shareholders of the business, whose profit is most importantly, “cultural currency”.

      This is just the long way round to saying what people already know: the media are bought and sold and neither listening to or a service to “common people”, or at all unbiased. From the feminists calling out mysogyny in newspaper columns, to the indigenous activists protesting racism, to investigative journalists questioning the government, it all happens inside the context of a culture that must not be adjusted in any important (or innovative, if you like) way. You may know it as The Status Quo; and the Status Quo now also takes form, assisted sometimes inadvertently, in “alternative culture”. Opposing and “winning change” from the Status Quo simply reinforces its claim to overall power.

      I agree with you that “We” are getting a “bad deal” from John Key. The thing is, though, that John Key is a brand, not a man. Even if “We” remembered that at election time, it might still only shift the position of the Status Quo to an “alternative” position in relation to the lives of “common people”.

      • Incognito 9.1.1
        15 April 2015 at 11:36 pm

        Thank you Charles for these great comments. I just replied to Swordfish (comment 1.1) saying “always expect the unexpected” but I confess that I was not expecting anything like your post.

        In your preamble you mentioned your manner being pretty rough, which put me slightly on edge. However, I detected none of that.

        I am fairly sure that you realised that I used analogies to make my points; these were not meant to be taken (too) literally.

        The main points were that National and John Key are most definitely not working for all New Zealanders. That National is totally bereft of ideas on how to do anything for this country. That National is myopically blind. That National is adhering to old-school dogmas. Etcetera.

        Yes, John Key is a brand but he also is a man. The brand Key is tarnished; the man Key is hidden from public view. (NB Key did not and never will apologise for being a man) For these reasons I feel quite a liberty at having a go at the brand Key but I always feel a little guilty at playing the man Key; it is hard to keep the distinction.

        It is tempting to take the earlier analogies a little further and deeper and expand on these but enough is enough, for now.

        Lastly, I believe that there is no such thing as Status Quo; it is an illusion. Change is constant and everywhere. We, as in ‘we humans’, are true masters in clinging to illusions, with all the consequences. Indeed, sooner or later John Key will disappear from the political firmament and National will not be in Government and we will opt and settle for a different illusion or Status Quo. And the process will repeat itself, over and over again.