Daily review 06/05/2015

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 6th, 2015 - 37 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

John Key Judith Collins baby

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.

37 comments on “Daily review 06/05/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clemgeopin 1
    6 May 2015 at 6:19 pm

    …..’And she will need to grow a pony tail so that I can have some fun and horsing around!’

  2. Paul 2
    6 May 2015 at 6:58 pm

    Paul Henry got a 0.3 % viewing rating of his target audience last Thursday.
    0.3% !!!!!!

    This despite massive promotion.

    If it’s ratings that decide who they axe, then surely TV3 should be spending their money promoting Campbell Live and axing the extreme right wing Henry.
    But I’m not holding my breath.

    From the Herald…..

    ”MediaWorks appears to be getting poor returns for its big investment in Paul Henry.
    The show has been hovering at less than one per cent share of its target demographic.
    According to AC Neilsen ratings for the target audience of people aged 25-54 on April 29, Henry drew 0.9 per cent.
    On Thursday, April 30 it went to a rating of 0.5 per cent of the target audience and on Friday, May 1 it reached 0.6 and fell to 0.3 ratings points this past Monday.

    MediaWorks has made a big multi-million investment promoting Paul Henry since the start of the year.
    It stopped promoting other programmes such as Campbell Live, which is now under review for low ratings.’

    • Maui 2.1
      6 May 2015 at 7:37 pm

      Excellent. If you televised this blog with someone slowly scrolling through each post I reckon you could compete with Henry! Heh

      • Paul 2.1.1
        6 May 2015 at 7:39 pm

        My faith in NZ has been restored in part.

      • Tracey 2.1.2
        6 May 2015 at 7:45 pm

        LOL

        • Dan1 2.1.2.1
          6 May 2015 at 8:28 pm

          Hallelujah! I have boycotted TV3 since Henry was parachuted in amongst all the expensive palaver. I have relied on Radio NZ for my morning dose of news, and have quite enjoyed news without the pictures.
          I enjoyed the TV3 team that got dumped. I have not heard where their careers went after Henry arrived. I trust there is some redemption after Henry is dropped.

          • Maui 2.1.2.1.1
            7 May 2015 at 9:38 am

            Rebecca Wright is now at TV1 and so is Rachel Parkin (not sure if she is related to Michael Parkin).

        • Rodel 2.1.2.2
          6 May 2015 at 8:35 pm

          Most people I know never watch Henry. Some dislike him and some wouldn’t waste their time.
          One person I know thinks he’s entertaining..really..just one.
          I panic and lunge for the remote each time he appears on a promo.

          Don’t want to be spiteful but I look forward to the day he gets the equivalent of the Aussie elbow.( Actually re the spiteful bit-what goes around comes around).

          And incidentally what happened at Radio Live? Why the big change and what did I miss?

          • Tracey 2.1.2.2.1
            7 May 2015 at 7:25 am

            Imagine how much they paid him, which he will get whether it succeeds or not

    • McFlock 2.2
      6 May 2015 at 9:23 pm

      Oh dear, how sad, no doubt they’ll invent another pointless vehicle for the irritating doofus who can’t hold down a job.

      I strongly suspect that mediaworks gave Henry a John Hawkesby/TVNZ-style contract where they have to pay him whether he’s on air or not. So at least if he’s on air there’s a chance he says something that can get him fired legitimately.

      According to Throng, PH averaged 44k viewers last week as opposed to 135k for TV1 breakfast (they must be crowing). And he seems to be slowly trending down over the month, on the face of the graph.

      I’m not normally into schadenfreude, but to be fair it seems that no matter how many shows he fails to keep running, they’ll keep giving him work.

    • Sable 2.3
      7 May 2015 at 7:36 am

      Oh dear. Didn’t make much of an impact in Australia either. Poor old Paul.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 2.4
      7 May 2015 at 8:20 am

      They could try intelligent investigative journalism, but of course that horse bolted long ago.

  4. mickysavage 4
    6 May 2015 at 7:23 pm

    Social media is alive with claims that Cameron Slater is censoring out anything to do with Ben Rachinger. I wonder why?

  6. adam 6
    6 May 2015 at 8:10 pm

    This out of the USA.

    This is quite sickening – putting a journalist and her families home address on line, because they disagree with her stance on the movie – sniper.

    https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin?fref=nf

  7. Pasupial 7
    6 May 2015 at 8:18 pm

    This is pretty repulsive, so; trigger warning.

    …found guilty of six assault and indecent assault charges. A jury found Philip Lyle Hansen not guilty of four other charges including rape and assault…

    The jury of nine men and three women deliberated for five hours before returning with the verdicts.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/341333/tooth-puller-found-guilty

    How is it that this case had a jury which was three quarters male?

    This is the part you should skip reading (also the linked article – the ODT one is less graphic):

    He was found not guilty of wounding one woman by taking out six of her teeth, wounding her by attempting to remove more teeth with a screwdriver, rape and injuring a woman by cutting her toes.

    The jury heard that he met most of the women through the dating site FindSomeone. They were often lonely and were initially happy to meet him.

    He changed over time becoming controlling and dominating, often talking about the women’s teeth, saying he could remove them and that he had had some training.

    One of the women told of being held down in the back seat of his car and her teeth being removed, then being thrown out of the car window.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/hutt-valley/68334221/philip-hansen-found-guilty-of-pulling-womens-teeth-with-pliers

    WTF does it take to get convicted of rape within a relationship in this country? Feel sick.

    • weka 7.1
      6 May 2015 at 8:26 pm

      I don’t think there is any way to know from that article why he was found not guilty in those charges but guilty on the others.

      I really don’t think Stuff should be publishing that degree of detail of the assaults.

      • sabine 7.1.1
        6 May 2015 at 9:28 pm

        why not? This is no more disgusting than what we can view any time on tv?

        In fact, I am at a point in my life now, where all details should be puplished in detail, regardless of the age or gender of the victim.
        Leave out the details of the victim if possible, and puplish the actual criminal acts. Maybe, just maybe less people will say they she/he asked for it, by meeting someone online, drinking some alcohol etc etc etc.

        • weka 7.1.1.1
          6 May 2015 at 9:49 pm

          Personally, I think the amount of torture shown on tv is far beyond healthy, and is a sign of the seriousness of the situation our civilisation is in. But that’s drama. What Stuff is describing is the real life experiences of real people. I think they should have control over how their story is told outside of the court. But I also think that if people want to know what happens to victims of rape and violent crime, or if they want to be shocked, they need to go spend some time in their neighbourhood/community finding out instead of reading about it in the paper. In the paper it gives people a sense of horror and distance and I doubt that anything will really change from such detail apart from increased tolerance.

      • AsleepWhileWalking 7.1.2
        7 May 2015 at 8:24 am

        I don’t think Stuff should be publishing names of the women involved (think this was on Saturday), particularly when in a previous article they described the women as being raped.

        Why was it necessary for Stuff to publically humiliate to the victims?

    • Clemgeopin 7.2
      6 May 2015 at 8:29 pm

      What an evil sicko! Unbelievable fetish! A very dangerous psychopath.

    • Tracey 7.3
      7 May 2015 at 5:20 am

      tHE MEDIA (tv) CHOSE TO REPLAY HIS SMILE alot, but a lot of people smile/laugh/giggle when nervous, so there could be a less evil explanation for the repeated smile instance the media showed of him/

  8. adam 8
    6 May 2015 at 10:18 pm

    I’m not sure if anyone else has put this up – John Pilger – On Australia and the evictions.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/by-evicting-the-homelands-australia-has-again-declared-war-on-indigenous-people

  9. Sans Cle 9
    6 May 2015 at 10:19 pm

    Wow! Powerful maiden speech from Ria Bond.
    Kia Ora Ria, and may your voice be heard in the coming years.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lsG_riEyQhA

  10. Philip Ferguson 10
    6 May 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Now for something completely different. . .

    “Marx’s ideas about art began to take shape in his 1844 Economic and philosophic manuscripts. But they also recur and are developed further in his later writings, including Capital. We live in an age when artistic decadence has reached its nadir, whereby art as a commodity is the only thing that matters; be that the art of the old masters or today’s anti-art. In other words, it is time Marx’s ideas were re-examined.
    Artistic labour is creative and free work: the subject (artist/creator, consumer of art) establishes a. . .

    full at: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/marx-and-art/

    • Charles 10.1
      7 May 2015 at 8:22 am

      Hmmm, interesting. Full of a contradiction though:
      “… Marx writes: “If you wish to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person.”…”

      He seems to frown on capitalist “mass produced art” and at the same time says that “true art” cannot exist outside of a poltical (communist) reality. Then earlier he tries to define beauty/ugliness as an “prescene/abscence of form”. It just doesn’t hold true, first because his contained world of communism will/does suffer from the same limitations as the contained world of captial oriented “mass produced art”, and that in 1840-whenever, when he was first thinking about these things, he must have only been dealing with the realities of a localised European era, and did not consider the wider history and parameters of art, globally – which would have undermined his definitions.
      I get what he’s saying, and possibly what you’re implying by writing the article*, but his bias is particularly strong here. Perhaps he’s grappling with who to throw into the “lumpen proletariat” category after meeting some artists he’d rather not see shot after the revolution.

      *if you’re an artist, and you’ve come up against that whole “Shit, am I anti-culture, counter-culture, pop-culture… and what does it mean for me, like, materially, physically?” thing, my advice would be, don’t think about it. Your “cultural orientation” will happen whether you fret over it or not. It’s art, not politics, you don’t need to, and probably won’t get to cut any deals.

  11. Tracey 11
    7 May 2015 at 5:18 am

    Influence son how people vote, from the UK. This one iterested me… and may explain the media focus on death roll calls on the 6pm news? Fear has always been a guaranteed way to control the masses, hasn’t it? Hence the misleading Law and Order fear tactics during campaigns, suggesting how unsafe people are, when they are not.

    “Strong fear

    A study into the impact of ‘fear sensitivity’ on political ideology suggests similar conclusions. A group of 46 people from Nebraska were asked about their views on a range of political issues, from the Iraq war to capital punishment. Those with strong opinions were invited to continue to part two.

    Next the volunteers were subjected to a series of threatening images, such as a frightened man with a spider on his face, and were startled with loud noises while they were assessed for physiological responses to fear, such as how conductive their skin was. The researchers found that the more easily startled people in the group tended to have more right-wing views, a result which fits with an emerging pattern of conservatives as more sensitive to negative aspects of the environment.

    So perhaps political rhetoric that provokes fear – emphasising the risks of terrorism, economic instability and so on – can have a subtle but powerful effect on some groups of people when it is used to try and sway votes”

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150506-the-dark-psychology-of-voting