Glorifying ignorance (and why the death of the MSM won’t be all bad)

80 comments on “Glorifying ignorance (and why the death of the MSM won’t be all bad) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Richardrawshark 1

   2 June 2016 at 9:14 am

   Never mind Hoskings, What about the Moron Henry he actually said John Keys so popular because he gives a straight honest answer but Andrew obsficated and won’t give an answer. Then he attacks Meteria. This was actually defamation, and I think this one Labour and the Greens could sue him on.
   • save nz 1.1

     2 June 2016 at 9:54 am

     They should sue for defamation, TV3 has so few coffers the US vultures will be seething. Might make them get rid of the rot in their news programming or even better dump Christie from the board. I mean Little and Meteria are barristers – should be a doddle apart from they are so risk adverse… Even Greenpeace has to go legal to get rid of the planetary parasites that are openly breaking the rules.. “scientific” whaling and what have you.
   • Johan 1.2

     2 June 2016 at 1:21 pm

     Both Hosking and Henry are John Key biggest and loudest cheerleaders. Hosking finished his academic education at the age of 16, and shows that he can only mimic and BS his way through prepared scripts. Why does MSM management give these two clowns so much licence to pontificate endlessly with their Tory slant on important issues?
     • M. Gray 1.2.1

       2 June 2016 at 2:09 pm

       isn’t he an Australian if so he can piss of back there we don’t need the d…head telling us what to do he thinks he knows everything
       • Andre 1.2.1.1

         2 June 2016 at 2:25 pm

         Nah, sadly apparently both were born in NZ. We tried sending Henry to the Aussies, but they barfed him back at us.
         • Sacha 1.2.1.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 8:07 pm

           Embarrassing that Australia has better taste.
     • WILD KATIPO 1.2.2

       2 June 2016 at 10:48 pm

       Its a bit like Key saying he wouldn’t shoot a gorilla… but hes ok with the poor being offered $5000 to leave Auckland then come back again to find work for $3000… its a little like this clip ….
2. marty mars 2

   2 June 2016 at 9:19 am

   michael is underrated – as an amoeba that is, as a human he is the caricature of the dim righty and as a broadcaster he is personification of all that is wrong with our media. “blow-hard stupidity” sums him up aptly.
   • Wensleydale 2.1

     2 June 2016 at 10:06 am

     Michael Hosking – The Early Years…

     https://youtu.be/9oQ_tbf6j2A
3. ianmac 3

   2 June 2016 at 9:32 am

   Saw that last night. My wife thought I was choking.
   Hoskings seems to be quite an old chap who is trying trying to be a hip young blood but one who cares not what the peasants think because he knows it all. A bit bizzare and pathetic at the same time.
4. Colonial Viper 4

   2 June 2016 at 9:52 am

   Hosking’s is right. There are a long list of common diseases in South America that you might expose yourself to while holidaying there and Zika isn’t a particular stand out on that list.
   • xanthe 4.1

     2 June 2016 at 10:10 am

     I have heard no reasonable answer to the claim that microcephaly is more closely linked to the use of the larvicide pyriproxyfen than zika. Lots of shill (sic) denials but no reasoned argument!

     http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987284/zika_microcephaly_and_pesticides_halftruths_hysteria_and_vested_interests.html
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       2 June 2016 at 10:32 am

       Indeed. So much for an intellectual, rational, investigatory, evidence based process.

       And looking at the CDC and NHS websites they list things like Hep A, Hep B, malaria, typhoid, rabies, dengue fever, schistosomiasis and yellow fever as issues to be aware of travelling to Brazil.

       I don’t understand why despite all these things, Zika should be the special reason to postpone (or basically cancel) the Olympics.

       It would be another damaging blow in the hybrid war against the people of a BRICS nation.
       • weka 4.1.1.1

         2 June 2016 at 10:58 am

         At a guess, I would say this,

         Hep A and B are already spread throughout the world. Someone bringing it back from Brazil doesn’t increase risk from a public health perspective.

         Malaria is contracted from mosquitos, I don’t think you can transmit it person to person.

         Typhoid tends to containable due to standards of living. The places that already have it routinely aren’t at risk from Brazil, and the places that don’t have it are likely to contain it easily.

         Ditto rabies.

         Not sure about the last 3, but I would guess it is similar.

         The difference with the zika virus is that it’s still contained in certain places at the moment, it’s transmissible human to human, and the countries that don’t have it aren’t considered in a position to contain it if it comes there. Because it is also transmitted by mosquitos I’m guessing there is a concern about bringing the virus to countries that have the right kind of mosquitos but don’t have the virus yet. Plus the specific risk to unborn children.

         tl;dr zika is currently contained. The Olympics will increase the spread around the world in ways that wouldn’t happen otherwise (or at least not as fast).
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2016 at 11:07 am

           tl;dr zika is currently contained. The Olympics will increase the spread around the world in ways that wouldn’t happen otherwise (or at least not as fast).

           Currently contained?

           There are approximately 18 major countries through central and south America, as well as about a dozen minor island nations, where Zika cases have been reported.

           None of these countries have had international flight bans enforced. Hundreds of thousands of international travellers go through this region every week.

           Nothing is “contained” and picking on Brazil to damage it using a nonsense rationale about pretend containment is nonsense.

           Again, Hosking has got this right.
           • weka 4.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2016 at 11:27 am

             Contained in the sense that there are countries that don’t have it yet, where the Olympics will increase the risk of those countries getting it. Pick another word if contained doesn’t work. Semi-contained.

             I would also guess that they are looking at this from a purely epidemiological and public health perspective and not an economic or cultural one. You appear to be arguing that it doesn’t matter if it spreads further, which from a public health perspective doesn’t make sense. You might be able to make the case that the economic harm to Brazil will cause more damage than the further, accelerated spread of the zika virus. Is that what Hoskings is arguing?

             as an aside, I’m happy to ban all international flights apart from emergency ones and ones that supply essentials, for peak oil, CC and biosecurity reasons. But in the world where medical scientists can suggest postponing the Olympics, it’s not real to suggest that countries with transmissible diseases ban all flights. I guess we will find out if there is a time when that would happen if we get a fast super virulent and deadly virus.
             • The New Student …

               2 June 2016 at 11:35 am

               Yes
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 June 2016 at 11:36 am

               My simple reply is that singling out Brazil and singling out the Olympics within Brazil is not even a vaguely serious proposal to stop Zika. Therefore Hoskings is right.

               If you say that “slowing down” the spread of Zika is justification enough to stop the Olympics, then let’s see the evidence of how much cancelling the Olympics would slow down that spread by. My bet is that it’s fuck all, because tens of millions of international travellers have already gone through the continent since the outbreak of Zika. And no one is proposing that an end be put to that travel.
               • weka …

                 2 June 2016 at 11:57 am

                 Right. So it’s an issue of economics (and potential harm) vs harm to individual humans (esp unborn ones) and probably some economic harm there too, and how public health authorities respond to that. Governments make all sorts of decisions all the time weighing up relative risk vs benefit. If you can make a case that there is more harm from cancelling the Olympics than from not, I’d probably agree. I’m guessing that’s not the argument that Hoskings is making though (and that he doesn’t want to miss out on the sport).

                 I’d guess that postponing the Olympics would slow down the spread, but if that’s just putting off the inevitable then that needs to be factored into risk assessments too. Maybe they want more time to study the virus and what it does and how it spreads. That’s not unreasonable from a medical pov.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   2 June 2016 at 12:05 pm

                   Nah, the scientist types who came up with this proposal to cancel the Brazilian Olympics are the ones who need to put forward the justification and evidence for why their proposal is going to be effective in doing what they say it will do.

                   Hoskings already noticed that this is pretty much missing so he’s made the right call.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 June 2016 at 1:07 pm

                     Lol
                     So now you’re agreeing with Hosking: your path to the dark side is almost complete…

                     Anyway, regardless of cause (not that I’m giving a huge amount of support to the pesticide suggestion, I just can’t be bothered looking into it today) zika (or its preventive measures in Brazil, which would likely be replicated elsewhere but even if they’re not, why risk it) seems to be associated with double-digit percentage abnormalities in ultrasound observations.

                     And if it is the zika virus that causes those abnormalities (and that seems to be a strong likelihood), you’re cool with taking hundreds of thousands of people from all corners of the globe, placing them at risk, and then plopping them right back to where they came from.

                     This is not a smart thing to do, at a public health level or a simple network theory level.

                     I’m assuming that you’d have cancelled the olympics if they were scheduled for Liberia just as the largest ebola outbreak started?
           • You_Fool 4.1.1.1.1.2

             3 June 2016 at 7:55 am

             “Again, Hosking has got this right.”

             You have to know you are in the wrong anytime you have to say this statement. It is like agreeing with Family First – anytime you think either of these things then you have to change your opinion immediately because you must be wrong…
         • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1.2

           2 June 2016 at 1:23 pm

           Banning flights for CC reasons is likely to increase global warming, not reduce it.
           • weka 4.1.1.1.2.1

             2 June 2016 at 2:00 pm

             how so?
             • Lanthanide …

               2 June 2016 at 2:29 pm

               Jet contrails increase the albedo of the atmosphere, reflecting more heat into space.

               In the 3 days after planes were grounded in the US following 9/11, they observed a 0.7C increase in temperature, that was statistically significant compared to the same 3 period for the past 30 years.

               Drastically reduced air traffic = less contrails = less heat reflected into space = more heating.

               This is why industrial pollution (including contrails) are having a cooling effect on the planet, and simply trying to “power-down” and use cleaner forms of energy may in fact make warming worse (in the near-term).

               Kind of a shitty catch-22 situation.
               • Bill …

                 2 June 2016 at 4:05 pm

                 Solution. Balance off with cuts to methane. Bye bye cows. Bye bye fracking
                 • Lanthanide …

                   2 June 2016 at 7:43 pm

                   Stopping methane production won’t have as big a short-term impact on reducing heating, as cutting stopping aerosol emissions will have on increasing heating.
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 8:07 pm

                     Well no. I realise that. But the sooner we get serious, the better.

                     It’s not going to be pleasant if the 0.7 degrees transpires to be anywhere near a global average, although given my notion of air travel in and out of NY, I’d punt that that 0.7 degrees is a fairly high and localised temperature difference. But still…
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:11 pm

                     Check out the doco Global Dimming on youtube featuring James Hansen. Basically, global dimming is hiding over 1 deg C of global warming, right now.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:19 pm

                     @Bill:
                     The 0.7C was averaged over the whole of continental US.
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:42 pm

                     @ CV. (and sorry for – I think – saying the same thing in three different ways….fatigue)

                     Setting CO2 aside for the moment, and taking the remainder of the basket of GHG, then the effects of the various positive and negative forcings associated with them, essentially cancel one another out (apparently). Isolate aerosols (remove them) and there will be a spike in temperatures. But remove all of the GHGs and…well, if they cancel one another out in their current existent ratio, then if there are none of them, they have no effect as opposed to a masking effect. Take one out, or take two out and there will be a noticeable effect. Question. Can they be removed in concert or in an advantageous order? I dunno. Just an open and somewhat theoretical question.

                     I’m tired and may be missing something, but it seems to me that whereas some forcings are ‘masking’ temperatures because of their cooling effects, others are acting in an equal and opposite direction and so there is no discernible overall effect from the non CO2 GHGs in the atmosphere.

                     Meaning that it’s not quite accurate to suggest that there is another 1 degree C of warming that we just aren’t feeling yet. There could be. But only if we removed those forcings that have a cooling effect while leaving the ones with a warming effect in place.

                     edit. okay, put CO2 back in the picture now and focus on getting rid of it.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:54 pm

                     Thing is that a month or two of stopping fossil fuel use will probably remove most of the “cooling forcing” of global dimming.

                     (Stopping commercial air flights in the US for just 3 days changed the ground temp range by 1 deg C or more).

                     But the warming forcing of CO2 and even of methane will continue for years.

                     So for that period all the warming forcings will be in place, but the global dimming cooling forcing will not.
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 11:16 pm

                     I have no idea how long various finer aerosols can persist. But sure, apart from water vapour, it’s probably fair to say that aerosols will be washed out of the atmosphere much quicker than CO2 or other gases. All the more reason for immediate and radical cuts then, yes?
                   • Lanthanide …

                     3 June 2016 at 9:39 am

                     @Bill:
                     The CO2 and methane being released into the air today has a pretty much imperceptible level of heating associated with it. This is because the gasses are transparent and so don’t actively hold heat in. The CO2 greenhouse effect has been built up over decades, after all.

                     The aerosol particulates released into the air today have a significant cooling effect for the next 6 months or so, because they actively reflect heat away from the planet.

                     If you stop CO2 production and aerosol production completely, the temperatures are going to rise as all of the particulates fall out of the sky over the next 12 months. The lack of new CO2 being added isn’t going to make any real difference to temperatures for about 25 years.

                     So really, what we want to do is stop CO2 production, but keep producing aerosols at a similar, or increased rate, for about the next 30-40 years. In other words, geoengineering.
                   • Bill …

                     3 June 2016 at 10:20 am

                     @ Lanth.

                     I guess it’ll come as no surprise to know I’m incredibly resistant to geo-engineering. We have no idea how the complex systems would react to various geo-engineerings. I’d suggest that path represents a desperate last gambit.

                     If aerosols need to be maintained or boosted, then I’d pick that the particulates from bio-fuels could make a noticeable impact. There will not be enough bio-fuel to ‘go around’ all the sectors that will be looking to it as a replacement for fossil, and so probably air transport and energy generation ought to be prioritised (get those particulates up there).

                     Then again, we might get a volcano or two blowing their top, or more realistically, find that the huge increase in bush fires provides a partial ‘get out’.

                     Regardless of any and all of the above, I’m left with the same conclusion that we must cut emissions immediately and radically.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     3 June 2016 at 10:38 am

                     @Bill
                     I find it interesting that you think geo-engineering is too risky because we don’t understand the system well enough, but on the other hand you are quite willing to cut GHG emissions and their associated particulates, even though we have a pretty good idea that doing so will cause immediate warming – and may also result in other unexpected consequences because we don’t understand the system well enough.

                     Another thing to consider is the tipping points such as methane in the permafrost – significant short-term temperature increases from reduced particulates could cause a run-away warming scenario that no amount of cutting CO2 will make up for. But if we continue business as usual and gradually power down while producing particulates, we could potentially delay that tipping-point from occurring for another 30 years.

                     Is it likely in the next 30 years we’ll create some amazing techno-fix that can sequester carbon? Probably not. But 30 years time to make such advances is surely better than deliberately powering down now, and potentially reaping the consequences in the very short term, when we definitely don’t have the amazing techno-fix ready.
               • weka …

                 2 June 2016 at 5:07 pm

                 Thanks Lanth. Then we’d have to compare that to the effect of the drop in GHG emissions from flying, including all the associated emissions eg trips to the airport.
                 • Bill …

                   2 June 2016 at 5:23 pm

                   I think what Lanth is getting at is that aerosol pollution is a ‘mask’ on the actual levels of warming. Remove the aerosols and effectively the ‘mask’ gets stripped away, revealing the true extent of warming. Don’t remove the source of the aerosols (fossil) and the underlying warming keeps going up.

                   Either way, things get warmer.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:14 pm

                     Basically, global dimming has fooled scientists models into underestimating how powerful GHGs are in warming the atmosphere.
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:24 pm

                     That’s a kind of silly statement CV.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 June 2016 at 10:49 pm

                     This is the way it works:

                     scientists look at how much CO2 has changed in the atmosphere over the last 50 years. Say from 350ppm to 400ppm.

                     Over this time, average global temperatures have gone up 1 deg C, with the rate of temperature change matching the rate of CO2 ppm change .

                     The scientists would then make a fair assumption – every 10ppm increase leads to 0.2 deg C of warming.

                     EXCEPT global dimming over this time is hiding an additional 1 deg C of warming.

                     So the model should be that every 10ppm CO2 leads to 0.4 deg C of warming, not 0.2 deg C of warming.

                     A simplified example, but one which illustrates the point.
                   • Bill …

                     2 June 2016 at 11:05 pm

                     ‘cept they didn’t do that as far as I can tell. They could approximate the effect of given amount of CO2 given an understanding of the basic physics. (I think there are some fairly accurate predictions from the back end of the 1800s) Then they had to take into account various other factors in a complex real world situation that would vary the results and their subsequent predictions. And feed it all into their models. Something like that anyway…something quite rigorous.

                     I’d be very surprised if they worked out the inputs for the models in the way you suggest.
                   • marty mars …

                     3 June 2016 at 9:45 am

                     good point Bill

                     cv if you can ‘work’ it out dontcha think the actual scientists can too – after all where do you get your data from?
       • Instauration 4.1.1.2

         2 June 2016 at 9:59 pm

         The Olympics should be cancelled because it is an overt forum for the endeavour of “people beating people” with thematic Nationalism at the core.

         People should be discouraged from beating other people.
         Nations should not value being “better” than other Nations.
         Citizens of a Nation should not embrace the delusional concept of reflected glory.

         Winning is for losers ! – I taught my kids this – and their consequent and objective measure is exceptionally effective – but irrelevant to the effect.

         The Olympics are evil and should be cancelled.
     • Psycho Milt 4.1.2

       2 June 2016 at 11:50 am

       I have heard no reasonable answer to the claim that microcephaly is more closely linked to the use of the larvicide pyriproxyfen than zika.

       The reasonable answer is that a claim like that needs to have more than speculation by anti-GMO activists with a Monsanto obsession behind it, if it’s to be taken seriously. Is there any actual evidence for it?
       • Xanthe 4.1.2.1

         2 June 2016 at 8:06 pm

         yes statistical evidence supports the claim that pyriproxyfen is causal , labeling those scientists that expose that correlation as “anti GMO” is not an argument! !!
   • Steve Limpus 4.2

     2 June 2016 at 10:45 am

     That’s great… if you and Hosking are right. I’m pretty sure Hosking isn’t a doctor. Regardless, the problem is Hosking’s unwarranted influence and lack of accountablity.

     “The Brazilian strain of Zika virus harms health in ways that science has not observed before.”

     http://www.rioolympicslater.org/
     • weka 4.2.1

       2 June 2016 at 12:03 pm

       And as an emerging disease there is need for extra caution.
   • Bill 4.3

     2 June 2016 at 4:16 pm

     In context.

     The Rio Carnival attracts just under 1 000 000 tourists. The London Olympics attracted about half of that number – 500 000 tourists. Were there any calls to cancel the Rio Carnival? Are there any calls to cancel the next one due in Feb?
     • McFlock 4.3.1

       2 June 2016 at 4:48 pm

       fair call.
     • Colonial Viper 4.3.2

       2 June 2016 at 10:16 pm

       This is a western hybrid war attack against Brazil.
       • gnomic 4.3.2.1

         3 June 2016 at 12:18 am

         Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? Has anyone ever seen the former leftish CV (as I recall) alongside the current climate change denialist and general contrarian without a clue in the same room? Just asking. Has CV been abducted and replaced by a stooge? I think we should be told.
         • Colonial Viper 4.3.2.1.1

           3 June 2016 at 12:37 am

           Fuck off dickhead; FYI I picked where I live in part due to climate change and fossil fuel depletion considerations.

           And to be clear, I am so over 20th century industrial roots social democratic left wingism.

           Time to look ahead.
5. KJT 5

   2 June 2016 at 10:01 am

   Only the truely ignorant can talk about subjects with such confidence combined with unthinking arrogance.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     2 June 2016 at 1:29 pm

     Yep, it’s the Dunning-Kruger effect and the RWNJs display it constantly as they spout their ignorance.
6. Paul Campbell 6

   2 June 2016 at 10:33 am

   I’ve been wondering, what’s with Hosking’s pants with all the zips? does he really need that much access to his junk?
   • save nz 6.1

     2 June 2016 at 10:50 am

     Hoskins like a bantam rooters – crowing and strutting.

     As for Henry – he is deeply unpopular – even a conservatives preferred former sex worker and transgender Beyer!

     from wiki

     “At the 1999 general election, Beyer was selected as the Labour Party’s candidate for the Wairarapa electorate. She surprised the political commentators to win the typically right-leaning electorate with a 3,033-vote majority over National’s Paul Henry and become the world’s first transsexual MP.”
   • Sacha 6.2

     2 June 2016 at 8:16 pm

     zips
     • WILD KATIPO 6.2.1

       2 June 2016 at 11:24 pm

       Lols!

       =]
   • Clare 6.3

     6 June 2016 at 10:54 am

     hahahahahahahahah +1
7. Philj 7

   2 June 2016 at 11:47 am

   Henry or Hosking? Is this the best we can do in NZ BROADCAST TV ? Apparently. This level of low quality content is not surprising. Dr Wiles has done us a service highlighting the current climate of anti intellectualism in NZ.
   • Mrs Brillo 7.1

     2 June 2016 at 2:23 pm

     The appointment and proliferation and promotion of some exceedingly dim bulbs on New Zealand TV is what turned the Brillos off it completely.

     We are proud to say we have never watched a single episode of Seven Sharp or Henry’s Horrorshow. Tried Story, once, but decided it was more compelling to trim the cat’s claws instead.

     Does this make us underinformed?
     Or does it just mean we get actual information from other sources?
   • save nz 7.2

     2 June 2016 at 4:10 pm

     @ Phij – yep agree a lot of Kiwis are anti intellectualism – but even the conservatives are not normally bigots. Hence the preference of Beyer over Henry in the election.

     The issue is, that there is no MSM choice now that Campbell has gone. And that choice was deliberately cut to make sure middle NZ did not have a TV platform to publicise all the terrible things going on in NZ or not going on aka ChCh.
8. Psycho Milt 8

   2 June 2016 at 11:55 am

   Hosking’s rant was a perfect example of the sports-obsessed culture we live in. The anti-intellectual bullshit he was spouting is nothing new to scientists; we’ve lived with that kind of crap since the day our interest in the world around us became obvious to our peers.

   Hell, not just to scientists. NZ has a long and regrettably-proud history of anti-intellectualism, and National’s MPs and supporters have been the foremost practitioners of it in my lifetime.
   • Johan 8.1

     2 June 2016 at 1:36 pm

     Tories fail to back findings documented by the scientific community because corporations want to maximise their profits and avoid global environmental responsibilities.
9. Bill 9

   2 June 2016 at 12:23 pm

   The zika virus is in something like 60 countries. (51 countries with either sporadic or increasing and widespread transmission) It’s not a new virus, having been discovered in the 50s or thereabouts. There have been reported instances in NZ.

   The WHO, as of the 31st of May, have come out against cancelling the Olympics. So it’s not a case of ‘the medical profession’ as a body saying the Olympics should be cancelled or moved.
10. Bill 10

    2 June 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of her argument, writing a piece and presuming to speak for all scientists just isn’t flash btw.

    Some scientists have called for the Olympics to be postponed or cancelled. And if that was what the ‘Spin Off’ piece said, then it’d be fair enough. But that’s not what Siouxsie Wiles implies in a piece that would have us believe that the scientific community as a whole is calling for postponement or cancellation.

    So do I agree with the post that the Spin Off has ‘the perfect piece by Siouxie Wiles’? Nah.
11. save nz 11

    2 June 2016 at 4:03 pm

    I’m just shocked so many people posting here actually watches the guy! Turn off!

    Watch Waatea 5th Estate – there is an alternative.
    • Halfcrown 11.1

      2 June 2016 at 4:43 pm

      +1
12. Repateet 12

    2 June 2016 at 6:15 pm

    That great sportsman of the ages, Mike Hosking, (America’s Cup in San Francisco, Rugby World Cup in London and last week claiming Steven Adams), wants to be in Rio for the Olympics. He says it’s not a dinner party, but nevertheless it’s a party he wants to be at.

    Granted the Zika virus is a threat in Rio but the Hosking virus is just as much a threat in New Zealand.
13. Incognito 13

    2 June 2016 at 7:38 pm

    I hope Dr Wiles wasn’t implying that being sport-obsessed and being anti-intellectual are connected in some causative way. Broad-brush statements and generalisations are usually the weapon of choice of intellectually-lazy politicians.

    Who or what is glorifying ignorance in NZ? That’s rather strong-worded, isn’t it?
    • McFlock 13.1

      2 June 2016 at 7:52 pm

      I dunno whether it’s overly strong – there’s been a couple of commenters on this very forum who seem to regard the the namby-pamby education received in “ivory towers” as polluting the virtuous ignorance of the bigoted and foolish, on everything from science to sociology (going the long way around the dictionary, obviously 🙂 ).
      • Incognito 13.1.1

        2 June 2016 at 9:48 pm

        Fair comment. I just grit my teeth and quickly scroll down, just like I do with RWNJs, trolls, and other ‘nuisances’ … I’m really trying to become a better person and not go for the jugular and so far I’ve managed very well on TS if I may say so; the ‘therapy’ is working. It is about mutual respect, even when you disagree, a MOU, if you like. That’s my code of practice or will be one day … [under construction]
    • Sacha 13.2

      2 June 2016 at 8:18 pm

      Hosking is a prime example of proud ignorance, so I guess that’s glorifying it, yes.
      • Incognito 13.2.1

        2 June 2016 at 9:08 pm

        I don’t know Hosking well but I don’t think he’s really ignorant as, for example, Manuel in Fawlty Towers of “I know nothing” fame.

        IMO Hosking’s is a double-act, a kind of an insider’s joke to pretend he’s ignorant while he is not, and clearly not to the ‘initiated’ listener or viewer. That’s why he’s smug, almost pseudo-intellectual, and he lets his audience in on it and they identify with him and his views by (partly) agreeing with him or by being suitably shocked and tuning in for more – you identify by the affirmative or the negative, superficially speaking, of course.

        Hosking wouldn’t get so much attention and a “national platform” if he were truly ignorant and had no other ‘redeeming talents’. Same for those other shock jocks.

        Nevertheless, this superficial infotainment and spouting of personal bias is not conducive to critical thinking. Hosking’s segment “Mike’s Minute” should be re-named (not re-branded) “Mike’s Morning Wank” as it is nothing more than intellectual masturbation and a narcissistic ego fetish party. For some reason people identify with this!?
        • Sacha 13.2.1.1

          3 June 2016 at 9:39 pm

          Journalists who have worked with him agree he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Defenders can believe whatever they wish.
14. Richardrawshark 14

    2 June 2016 at 7:59 pm

    All I can do is be brave and know that once the government changes, there grip of the media will loosen and decent news , current affairs and investigative journalism will return.

    Preferably doing an extensive, deeply anal, examination of every Government and ministers transaction that took place during the Key Years. Including a full audit of Hoskings Henry and one Michelle Boag.
15. stunned mullet 15

    2 June 2016 at 8:25 pm

    People actually watch this buffoon ?
16. tc 16

    2 June 2016 at 9:13 pm

    Absolutely spot on Anthony you’ve arrived at the point I did not long after national took office and the assault on dissenting voices began. TVNZ has done sterling work for this government.

    IMO the quickest fix is to legislate a split tvnz into a commercial and public channel de-griffin RNZ and put some big teeth into the broadcasting standards authority and flush out all the nat cronies across all the boards.
17. Dale 17

    2 June 2016 at 11:15 pm

    Well the Nats have Hosking and Henry but Labour have RNZ and all reporters and broadcasters,the NZ Herald,Katie Bradford,Andria Vance and most of the press gallery and of corse the one and only Nicky Hagar. So what’s your point again?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS