Kathryn Ryan – Let the man talk!

64 comments on “Kathryn Ryan – Let the man talk! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   11 March 2015 at 12:25 pm

   Kim Hill is waaaaay better. Pity she’s Saturday only.
   • tracey 1.1

     11 March 2015 at 12:27 pm

     ^^^^^^^^ THIS
   • D'Esterre 1.2

     11 March 2015 at 2:46 pm

     @ Lanthanide: “Kim Hill is waaaaay better. ”

     Er…not always. Many’s the time when she was on Nine to Noon that I’d shout “shut UP, Kim!” at the radio. However, in general, she seems to be better-informed and to ask more intelligent questions than most other presenters. She’s got the knack of following up on points raised by an interviewee, which often makes her interviews sound more like a conversation over the coffee – or like the debates I and some of my fellow university students would have at the cafe between lectures – and less like she’s following a formulaic set of questions.

     Which latter point (formulaic set of questions) is my main beef with Kathryn Ryan, especially – though not exclusively – during the book reviews. I’m tired of Ryan and don’t pay a lot of attention to the Nine to Noon slot any more . I’ve long since given up expecting her to read out feedback from listeners, a feature of the programme that I used to enjoy when Kim Hill presented it. I note that Hill still does that, to my great pleasure. I also liked that aspect of the afternoon programme when Jim Mora hosted it. Now that’s another programme I’ve largely given up on since Simon Mercep took it over. Concert FM gets a lot of my attention nowadays!
     • Lanthanide 1.2.1

       11 March 2015 at 3:19 pm

       Kim has a much better grasp of science than the others do.
       • D'Esterre 1.2.1.1

         11 March 2015 at 8:07 pm

         @ Lanthanide: “Kim has a much better grasp of science than the others do.”

         Yup, I’ve noticed that as well. Though I don’t think it was always so: her lack of background in science used to show, years ago during her “Nine to Noon” days. It seems to me that she’s come a long way in that regard over the last 15 years or so.
         • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1

           11 March 2015 at 9:29 pm

           Simon Morton is actually pretty embarrassing, since This Way Up is generally all about technology, science and new inventions.

           There was one particular episode where he was talking about 3D printing, and was talking to some designer. He somehow managed to ask the question “so it won’t be long until an entire plane wing is being 3d printed?”, after the guy he was interviewing had been talking about small remote-controlled planes and had already mentioned that they printed *small parts* for the aerospace industry but it would be a long time until structural parts could be done that way.
     • M Scott 1.2.2

       11 March 2015 at 3:48 pm

       Gosh that’s what I do to the radio when I am driving. Kim and Kathryn are both guilty of interrupting really interesting people just as they are saying something like, “and the really interesting thing is…” because they want to take the interviewee on a completely different tangent.
       God it’s frustrating.
       Kim is much better informed, I agree.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.1

         11 March 2015 at 5:22 pm

         Speaking from experience, some interviewers go over the material beforehand, and while some of their segues can be awkward, airtime is a scarce resource.
   • gsays 1.3

     11 March 2015 at 5:34 pm

     generally i would agree with you however the trainwreck that was kim hill interviewing john pilger will stay with me forever.
     • D'Esterre 1.3.1

       11 March 2015 at 9:23 pm

       @gsays: “the trainwreck that was kim hill interviewing john pilger will stay with me forever.”

       I’d add a couple to that: Jeffrey Archer and Robert Winston (speaking of scientific knowledge…)

       I heard all of them: though wasn’t the Pilger one televised? That’s my recollection, in any case.

       My impression at the time was that all three interviewees were hostile right from the beginning, as if, either they’d heard negative things about her and were determined to dislike her (in fact, I recall Archer saying as much), or they took exception to being asked hard questions by a woman.

       As I recall, Pilger in particular seemed to take exception to her, as if he knew everything about his area and she shouldn’t presume to question or challenge him at all. He came across as abrasive and humourless. And a self-important oik.

       The same was true of Robert Winston. By the time she did that interview, she’d got a pretty good grasp of the sciences. Not that you’d have known it from Winston’s reaction to her questions. It seemed to me that he went out of his way to misinterpret or misunderstand her. All in all, a very prickly interviewee indeed, and for no reason that I as listener could discern. He went a long way down in my estimation that morning.
       • Murray Rawshark 1.3.1.1

         11 March 2015 at 11:16 pm

         Pilger was a shocking interviewee. He treated Kim Hill as if she were from Fox News. I like most of his work, but as a person he seems to be a bit of a FJK. Just a bit.
     • North 1.3.2

       11 March 2015 at 10:38 pm

       I remember that interview well and frankly as much as I respect and admire Pilger it was he who was the dog on that occasion.

       From the very outset (paraphrased)…….KH – “And now, John Pilger……John Pilger……how are you ?” JP – (witheringly) “How’s it relevant how I am ? What a ridiculous question !”

       And so it went on. Pilger was gratuitously offensive and came across as an up-himself prima donna on that occasion.
       • gsays 1.3.2.1

         12 March 2015 at 7:59 am

         hi d esterre and north, yes you both seem to have summed up the tone of the interview with pilger, he came across as being very prickly. kim hill being no shrinking violet didnt need much to give as well as she got.
       • D'Esterre 1.3.2.2

         12 March 2015 at 10:38 pm

         @ North: ” Pilger was gratuitously offensive and came across as an up-himself prima donna on that occasion.”

         Indeed. So far up himself, in fact, that it’s a wonder he could see where he was walking. It’s affected my perception of him long-term, unfortunately. It seems to me that he’s a man who’s come to believe his own publicity.
   • Saarbo 1.4

     11 March 2015 at 10:23 pm

     She used to be…haven’t been impressed with her lately, whether its her or her producer Im not sure, but the topics/interviewees just don’t impress anymore (IMHO)
2. Marksman33 2

   11 March 2015 at 12:34 pm

   Snap tracey, she did nothing but infuriate me today ( truth be known, she does most days) .I had fired of 2 strongly worded txt to her before it was even 9.30, one telling her she really should be in Parliament throwing up patsy questions to the government in question time, after her pathetic interview with that Rowarth women, honestly it was nauseating.
   Unfortunately Ryan seems to have an overinflated opinion of her intelligence, and a massive ego, to the extent that she never listens to Rnz in general or Kim Hill in particular when she is not at work. Can’t stand the competition. Word is around the traps, she is a tyrant to work for and has a high turnover of lackeys. I am hopefull that when we finally get a change of govt, she’ll be one of the first to get the arse. Here’s hoping.
   • tracey 2.1

     11 March 2015 at 12:43 pm

     She is originally from Dunedin.

     Hope that helps
   • fisiani 2.2

     11 March 2015 at 1:31 pm

     “when we finally get a change of government she’ll be one of the first to get the arse.”
     These are the bone chilling words of the state controllers of the Left. The Stasi. Government should never hire or fire employees because of their opinions, beliefs or faith or colour or whatever. That ugly intolerant side of the Left should be called out but the silence of endorsement is deafening.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1

       11 March 2015 at 1:36 pm

       I expect that explains why the National Party hired Griffin.
       • fisiani 2.2.1.1

         11 March 2015 at 1:51 pm

         Do you agree with Marksman33? Or are you just trying to fudge. It’s not clear.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.1

           11 March 2015 at 2:24 pm

           I’m sure you agree that poor performance often leads to unemployment. Bias in a public service broadcast interviewer is pretty much the definition of poor performance.

           That said, I’m not sure what Ryan has done to demonstrate bias.

           Now, about your hypocrisy…
     • te reo putake 2.2.2

       11 March 2015 at 1:47 pm

       So you would be opposed to sacking the Labour Government appointees to ACC the instant national got into power in 08?
       • fisiani 2.2.2.1

         11 March 2015 at 1:52 pm

         Do you agree with Marksman33? Or are you just trying to fudge. It’s not clear.
         • te reo putake 2.2.2.1.1

           11 March 2015 at 1:55 pm

           I’m asking you. Clear?
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.2.1.1.1

             11 March 2015 at 2:25 pm

             Surely you recall Fisi’s outrage when Bradbury got the boot. No?
             • te reo putake …

               11 March 2015 at 2:45 pm

               I have a vague feeling he must have said something about it, somewhere, sometime, because, as we all know, fisi’s not a hopeless hypocrite. No sirree.
         • tracey 2.2.2.1.2

           11 March 2015 at 3:04 pm

           you dont get to dictate who answers and what. you are diverting from the topic.
     • DoublePlusGood 2.2.3

       11 March 2015 at 2:02 pm

       It’s more that an incoming government has to sack all the incompetent people that National hired, which in this case would be the board of RNZ responsible for incompetent public broadcasting.
     • greywarshark 2.2.4

       11 March 2015 at 2:05 pm

       Coming on The Standard and taking an opposite view to everyone and arguing it through could be prescribed as therapy for those concerned about advancing dementia. Progress would be monitored and deterioration noted to the final pont of incoherence. An unexpected beneficence from this amazing forum! RWs are quick to take advantage of freely available community amenities as we note from so many regular ones here.
       Do you agree fishiani?
       edited
     • tracey 2.2.5

       11 March 2015 at 3:02 pm

       what did you think of the intervirew with peter boshier?
       • fisiani 2.2.5.1

         11 March 2015 at 5:48 pm

         So several hours later and not a single person expressing disgust at the totalitarian intolerant Marksman33. No wonder the Left is clearly not fit for office.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.5.1.1

           11 March 2015 at 6:02 pm

           Yes. No-one expressed disgust.

           Therefore your self-declared conditions have not been met.

           That means I’m an existential threat to you, eh. Choice, it’s your cage after all.
         • tracey 2.2.5.1.2

           12 March 2015 at 7:49 am

           several hours later and you haven’t said what you thought of the interview (the subject of the post)

           Take your distraction to Open Mike (copy the part of the offending post and take it to Open Mike) but stop distracting from the topic of this thread. It’s like you are the blog embodiment of national’s distract from the issue strategy. No wonder the Right is not fit for office.
     • Rodel 2.2.6

       11 March 2015 at 8:53 pm

       f – For once (just once) I have to agree with you on this point. I wonder if M33 is genuine or serious though.
       • tracey 2.2.6.1

         12 March 2015 at 7:55 am

         you agree that the left reflects the bone chilling words of the State controller, the Stasi? Cos that is what F is claiming. Good-o, you are entitled to your opinion.

         However marksman33 didnt write the post tot his thread and the deliberate distraction from that post from some is more than annoying and you have all played nicely into Fisi “Honest John” Ani hands.
         • Rodel 2.2.6.1.1

           12 March 2015 at 11:34 pm

           No and no we haven’t
     • North 2.2.7

       11 March 2015 at 9:25 pm

       That’s rich from a guy/guyess who’s into catatonic proselytising for ‘Honest John’, the simpering, effete, gauche fuck. Wherein any foulness and filth is inspired and earth-moving apparently. You gotta get past a 15 year old’s apppreciation of things and your appalling hypocrisy old FizzyAnus. Honest John thinks you’re a fuckwit anyway mate.
3. ghostwhowalksnz 3

   11 March 2015 at 12:47 pm

   Its clear that its a hobby horse for Ryan.

   he ended up being the ‘ moderator’ for her opinions
4. tc 4

   11 March 2015 at 1:22 pm

   Ryan is full of herself and belongs on TV with other egomaniacs like garner, gower, H men etc.

   Kim is not flash eithrr when she dislikes the subject or person and butts in constantly
5. saveNZ 5

   11 March 2015 at 1:33 pm

   She’s a shocker.
6. greywarshark 6

   11 March 2015 at 1:34 pm

   Kathryn Ryan isn’t all bad! She is interested in her subjects usually, informed usually, and might be getting like Chris Laidlaw in trying to plumb one particular point which is described in depth and length.
   • tracey 6.1

     11 March 2015 at 3:07 pm

     did you listen to it?
     • greywarshark 6.1.1

       11 March 2015 at 3:25 pm

       Yes a lot of it. But not all directly. I heard enough to understand that he made points and she did but if it was a contest I don’t know who won!

       There was some interesting talk going on about how to deal with rape, and what female victims would like to happen which I thought was good to air. And that he is on the Law Commission and in a position perhaps to bring about change that allowed a different way of justice that would be kinder to the victim and speak directly to the perp.
       • tracey 6.1.1.1

         11 March 2015 at 4:03 pm

         but she derailed him wanting to talk about how two diff streams could be run cos she cldnt see how it cld work she stopped him.
7. Old Mickey 7

   11 March 2015 at 1:38 pm

   Havign sat on a charity board with Judge Peter, I am sure hes donest have any of his own ideas worth sharing. He didnt say one useful thing in 2 years, although he really enjoyed the tea and biscuits
   • tracey 7.1

     11 March 2015 at 3:09 pm

     every time you comment you confirm that you are a fool

     this comment makes me want to know which board cos if you were one of the intelligent ones….
   • North 7.2

     11 March 2015 at 9:45 pm

     That Boshier shared nothing with you OldMickey probably defines you and uplifts him. Was around him for half a decade four and a half decades ago. And all I’ve personally seen from time to time since is pretty good stuff. Can only say that where he’s at right now is not undeserved. In contrast to the cheap styles of a smart arse right-wing twerp whose choice of pseudonym is a wilful mockery of values said twerp is dispositionally incapable of appreciating.

     Further, bet you licked his arse at every one of the board meetings. Let’s test it aye ? You tell me your name and the board and I’ll give you mine and the context in which I knew him.
     • North 7.2.1

       11 March 2015 at 10:02 pm

       Oh…..just this…..pious right-wing fucks on charity boards make me chunder.

       As though that atones for ringing snobbery/blackness of heart.

       Bush The Senior paid for several Ivy League buldings/alma mater/degree for the idiot chickenhawk son didn’t he ?
   • Murray Rawshark 7.3

     12 March 2015 at 12:01 am

     Is that the charity FJK gives all his pay to?
8. Marksman33 8

   11 March 2015 at 2:01 pm

   Fistula, grow up clown, we don’t need the stasi, we got GCSB. Oh thats right, they work for your side, there alright.
9. Old Mickey 9

   11 March 2015 at 2:26 pm

   You choose not to read my answers, that’s fine. Your choice. From my experience, council bureaucrats failed to follow rules, and when questioned council backed down. Watch the 180 position change coming with the Kauri.

   [Get on topic or remove yourself from this post before you’re removed from it. To make it easy for you – the post is about an interviewer not doing their job very well. The post is not about your opinion or experience with bureaucracy or with people on charity boards.] – Bill
10. Bill 10

    11 March 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Wasn’t giving it my undivided attention, but my impression was…

    Attempting to lecture when she should have been merely offering clarification.
    Grandstanding when she should have been listening.
    Promoting her own viewpoint when she should have been exploring his.

    She came across as an idiot (no surprise there) who succeeded in broadcasting a sliced and diced mess instead of a professional, flowing interview.
11. yabby 11

    11 March 2015 at 5:07 pm

    It’s not just Ryan in my books, she’s not bad, even though I did and do prefer Kim too. It’s so many of the Media across all disciplines. They’re the story, they’re the star, they’re a brand. They wonder why blogs have become so widely used across the political spectrum and they wonder why we’re turning off in droves while they have cosy tete a tetes with each other. Twitter is the place to see them all – enormous egos. I shudder
12. Pat 12

    11 March 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Really????!? A good discussion and informative….Is it perhaps KRs politics that offend you rather than her ability as an interviewer?
    • tc 12.1

      12 March 2015 at 5:53 am

      Lets not confuse her politics for her lack of objectivity and professionalism in getting an experts opinions on the airwaves rather than what she wanted or was directed to.

      It’s been so long most MSM consumers would see proper journalism as a VLWC due to the CT/NACT spin and themes dominating the discourse and leaving a taste for the dog whistle rather than where the chips may fall which is what objectivity produces.
    • tracey 12.2

      12 March 2015 at 9:02 am

      No Pat, cos this is the first time I have posted about it. I have a particular interest in the topic Boshier was trying to traverse and she just kept going on to tell me what she thinks when he is part of a group seeking to influence a new direction, new ideas and may be new legislation.

      The Left and Right ought to be equally intereste din what he was saying also, given the palava over what Little said in Campaign 2014 and what Labour policy actually was.

      https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-endingvoilence-policy.pdf

      What is her politics Pat, do tell?
13. Venezia 13

    11 March 2015 at 10:09 pm

    I am so pleased to see someone has posted on this issue. I heard Tuesday’s interview with the woman from the Teacher’s Union and was disgusted with Kathryn Ryan’s inability to allow her to explain the teachers’ point of view on the new Government plans for the Teachers Council. I have never heard such a hurried, quick fire questioning with many interruptions to the answers. It was nothing but dismissive of a valid critique of Government proposals. Then Hekia Parata was allowed to spout on without any challenge. What a waste of listening time!
    • tc 13.1

      12 March 2015 at 5:58 am

      Exactly, soapbox for the NACT dogma without some inconvenient facts from the so called independant public radio jock without same treatment to the woman from teachers council.

      Its designed to be a waste of anyones time who expects a fair hearing for both sides so you turn off or better still go to radio rant land for some real hillbilly rhetoric.

      RNZ has been superbly marshalled by Griffin as a DP ancillary messaging platform.
14. peterlepaysan 14

    11 March 2015 at 10:37 pm

    All of the radio (actually and TV) mouthpieces do it, to a greater or lesser degree.

    They are all seeking the attention grabbing headline (one must never let the facts get in the way of a good headline).

    Scribblers are just as bad.

    Plunket, when he was on Morning Report was one of the worst at looking for the imagined headline (mind you Espiner is getting up there).

    Plunket has since rather famously covered himself in himself.

    To be fair radio and tv have tight time constraints, I just wish Ryan and/or Freeman stop extending verbiage to reduce overseas correspondents to three minutes or less
    • Murray Rawshark 14.1

      12 March 2015 at 12:06 am

      Mihingarangi Forbes really stands out as competent and different. She elicits information in a very effective manner.
      • tc 14.1.1

        12 March 2015 at 6:07 am

        Because she cuts them off when they refuse to answer her question as any decent journalist should otherwise it’s just providing another plug for their theme…..wonder how long before maxwells silver hammer nails her.

        Her treatment of JLR in one of the pre election shows was an example of how it’s done, he had no answers just robotic slogans and you were left in no doubt as to what a buffoon he is to not even have the right message to trot out.

        Key/Joyce/Blinglish would’ve at least projected a form of credibility but JLR came across as the classic vacuous sockpuppet he is and that’s how it’s done kids.
15. philj 15

    12 March 2015 at 8:53 am

    Timely post Tracry. + 1. RNZ National is rapidly becoming a low grade apologist mouthpiece for tbe Government. Kathryn Ryan has been guilty of incorrect framing of questions and having a pro government bias. She is not alone in that respect. The Government thinks RNZ is a hotbed of radical lefties! Give Tory Exec Griffin a bonus, he has been effective in trashing the standard and quality of a once proud Public Broadcaster. And new CEO says the plumetting ratings are due to the public getting used to new presenters. Come back Geof and Chris, all is forgiven! Or , you left the sinking ship just in time?
    • D'Esterre 15.1

      12 March 2015 at 11:15 pm

      @philj: ” Give Tory Exec Griffin a bonus, he has been effective in trashing the standard and quality of a once proud Public Broadcaster.”

      I’m a very longterm (50+ years) listener to RNZ. In fairness all round, the quality of the presenters has been variable over all that time. I recall Sharon Crosbie as being the first really good interviewer RNZ had had; of all of them at the time, she was the only one who could elicit anything out of Muldoon when he was PM; he’d get hostile and combative with everyone else.

      But after her, there was a succession of very ho-hum presenters on Nine to Noon, one of which is now Minister of Conservation. Somebody forgettable before her; the name escapes me now; those years were a bit of a dark night of the soul, really.

      Then along came Kim Hill, and in my view, she’s one out of the box when it comes to interviewing. Not that I think every interview she does is good; but on balance she’s very sharp. God, she was good at nailing pollies to the wall on Morning Report when she did a stint there! She was known as the rottweiler, if I remember rightly. Remember the 9/11 attacks in New York? It was she who was brought in to present Morning Report along with Geoff that day when the news broke. Wotsisname the co-presenter got the morning off.

      I approve of the changes made to the Sunday morning programme; I’d tired of Chris Laidlaw, who really was a hopeless interviewer. I really like Wallace Chapman’s style, and the fresh approach he’s brought to the show.

      And today I heard a promo for Saturday morning, and Noelle McCarthy is sitting in for KH. Arrgghh!! I won’t be listening: a little bit of her goes an exceedingly long way with me.
16. philj 16

    12 March 2015 at 10:31 am

    KR interviewing expert on ‘Fairy Census’. Nuf said. Switching off now …

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS