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

Written By: - Date published: 9:02 am, June 2nd, 2016 - 80 comments
Categories: health, interweb, tv, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

Most days I’m concerned about the state of the media in NZ and its important but changing role in the democratic process. But some days, occasionally, I think we should just let it all burn down, and toast marshmallows. Yesterday was such a day. I was going to write about why, but The Spinoff already has the perfect piece by Siouxsie Wiles:

Who needs scientists when Mike Hosking is here to teach us how things are?

“Thank God the scientists aren’t running things!” So concluded Seven Sharp host Mike Hosking’s assessment on Monday night of calls by more than 120 doctors and scientists to postpone or move the 2016 Olympic games because of the Zika virus.

This group of “cloistered” experts in population health, paediatric medicine, bioethics and other disciplines are concerned that the influx of people travelling to Rio is going to accelerate the worldwide spread of the virus, which is linked to birth defects and serious post-viral complications like paralysis and death. But, no, that view is “devoid of any level of reality”, seethed Hosking. “You don’t just move the Olympics, it’s not a dinner party”.

So medical experts advise that the Olympics may accelerate a health risk that results in birth defects and death, and the profoundly ignorant Mike Hosking ignores the risk (that he has no way of assessing) and rubbishes the suggestion.

Mile Hosking is entitled to his ignorance (though I guess its fair to ask – hey Mike Hosking – how many dead and deformed babies is the precious Olympic schedule worth to you?). It’s a free country and all that. But such blow-hard stupidity does become a problem when it is paraded uncontested on National TV.

Back to to Siouxsie Wiles:

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. That Hosking is given a national platform to be smug about his ignorance is a disgrace.

The world may or may not choose to heed the medical warnings on Rio. But we are entitled to an informed debate and decision. And we in NZ are entitled to a better media. Mike Hosking is just one example of the rot.


It did spawn a meme though…

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

  1. Richardrawshark 1

    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

      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

      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

        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

      • WILD KATIPO 1.2.2

        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. 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.

  3. ianmac 3

    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

    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

      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

        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

          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

            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

              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

                Yes

              • Colonial Viper

                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

                  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

                    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

                      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

              “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

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

            • weka 4.1.1.1.2.1

              how so?

              • Lanthanide

                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

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

                  • Lanthanide

                    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

                      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

                      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

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

                    • Bill

                      @ 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

                      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

                      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

                      @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

                      @ 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

                      @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

                  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

                    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

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

                    • Bill

                      That’s a kind of silly statement CV.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      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

                      ‘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.

                    • 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

          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

        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

          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

      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/

    • Bill 4.3

      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

        fair call.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.2

        This is a western hybrid war attack against Brazil.

        • gnomic 4.3.2.1

          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

            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

    Only the truely ignorant can talk about subjects with such confidence combined with unthinking arrogance.

  6. Paul Campbell 6

    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

      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.”

    • Clare 6.3

      hahahahahahahahah +1

  7. Philj 7

    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

      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

      @ 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. 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

      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

    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

    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

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

    Watch Waatea 5th Estate – there is an alternative.

  12. Repateet 12

    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

    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

      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

        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

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

      • Incognito 13.2.1

        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

          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

    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

    People actually watch this buffoon ?

  16. tc 16

    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

    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?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Compliance strengthened for property speculation
    Inland Revenue is to gain greater oversight of land transfer information to ensure those buying and selling properties are complying with tax rules on property speculation. Cabinet has agreed to implement recommendation 99 of the Tax Working Group’s (TWG) final ...
    2 days ago
  • Plan to expand protection for Maui and Hector’s dolphins
    The Government is taking action to expand and strengthen the protection for Māui and Hector’s dolphins with an updated plan to deal with threats to these native marine mammals. Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage and Minister of Fisheries Stuart Nash ...
    2 days ago
  • Cameras on vessels to ensure sustainable fisheries
    Commercial fishing vessels at greatest risk of encountering the rare Māui dolphin will be required to operate with on-board cameras from 1 November, as the next step to strengthen our fisheries management system. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Fisheries Minister ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Greatest number of new Police in a single year
    A new record for the number of Police officers deployed to the regions in a single year has been created with the graduation today of Recruit Wing 326. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax
    New Zealand is pushing on with efforts to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, with the release of proposed options for a digital services tax (DST). In February Cabinet agreed to consult the public on the problem ...
    2 weeks ago