Media Matters

9 comments on “Media Matters ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rex Widerstrom 1

   3 November 2010 at 4:16 pm

   surely our political reporters must speak Maori to be able to cover the House competently?

   Nice to think that they ought, but impractical and unfair when it’s not taught compulsorily in our schools.

   Having said that, I’m in favour of some basic Maori being compulsory – correct pronunciation, rudimentary spoken language, marae protocol etc. But to bring someone to full fluency in a language they were not born into take s a considerable amount of time. And – like most subjects – some people are better studies than others.

   I’ve tried to learn two languages now; Maori and my partner’s native language. I can (or could, I’m out of practice) get by on a marae because I could process enough to understand the broad thrust of a speaker’s oratory and could double-check my interpretation with someone else afterwards. And that’s after a couple of years studying it at secondary school and a crash course as part of RNZ announcer training, overlaid by hundreds of hours listening to my Maori former partner’s family speak it and sitting on their marae. My second attempt at a language – albeit a European one – was a failure.

   So I can’t really agree that fluency ought to be a prerequisite for employment as a Gallery journo. There are other things I’d place a higher premium on… a bit of cynicism and a desire to break news rather than repeat soundbites would be nice for a start.

   Further, from a political communications perspective, unless you only want to address Maori-speaking Maori (and if that’s the case, then go for it) then delivering your media comments in Maori might be qonderfully symbolic but is highly ineffective.

   Let’s say the journo could speak fluent te reo. What are we going to get on radio, the fade down of the original language and the passionless, flat translation in English over the top, as we do with some reportes of French, German and other speakers? Or a dry “Mr Hawawira said… and then he said…”?
2. ianmac 2

   3 November 2010 at 5:00 pm

   It puzzles and amazes me that the PM refuses to front up for an interview on National Radio. We care but does anyone else notice or care? That girl Suzie (?) who has been filling in for Morning Report showed promise but I guess she will be gone soon.

   Surely MSM should be able to highlight this lack of Ministers to front up. John Campbell was horrified at the evasions of the Samoan PM, who dodges interview over non-accounting of millions of dollars. The Samoan PM will only answer if at all, from written questions.

   Our PM on the other hand fronts up for interviews, NOT !, and answers questions freely, NOT!, and though not demanding written questions does the next best thing of just handing out or reading from prepared statements. Which we just accept!
   • Rex Widerstrom 2.1

     3 November 2010 at 7:55 pm

     Well when every other leader but the then PM agreed to a morning spot on my program I’d always announce at 7.10 on a Thursday (the day we set aside for him) something along the lines of “the next ten minutes were to be set aside for me to ask questions on your behalf of the Prime Minister. However unlike Jim Anderton, Mike Moore and Winston Peters [leaders of the other parties at that time in Parliament] he considers himself unaccountable to you, to me or to anyone else. So instead we have…”

     Week in, week out. It never did change Bolger’s mind (a term I consider to be an oxymoron) but it got the point across…
3. tc 3

   3 November 2010 at 6:04 pm

   No ianmac we don’t accept it however the lapdog MSM do accept it and even celebrate it as being tough and committed.

   Sideshow wouldn’t last 6 months against the OZ msm by way of comparisons….it’s classic crosby textor….control the media and you control a large and mostly uninformed section of the swinging voters.

   We don’t have a media in NZ just mediums i.e. methods of delivering their masters message.
4. Jared 4

   3 November 2010 at 9:13 pm

   Since when does anti unionism = not caring about workers? are NZ actors getting a rough deal? last I heard they were doing better than their international counterparts…
   • Bunji 4.1

     3 November 2010 at 11:16 pm

     If you’re in favour of workers rights etc, it makes sense to support the one thing that has actually achieved results over the last century. Unions’ very existence is to improve workers pay and conditions, so it’s pretty odd to be pro-worker and anti-union. Something along the lines of “I would like them to have better pay and conditions, but they should never organise themselves to actually achieve that goal,” or praying that the benevolent capitalist will somehow grant them better from the goodness of his own heart.

     NZ actors do significantly worse than international counterparts – we get to film a lot of commercials here precisely because wages and prices are so much lower. There’s a reason the US crews call us “Mexicans with cell-phones”,
     • pollywog 4.1.1

       4 November 2010 at 10:06 am

       There’s a reason the US crews call us “Mexicans with cell-phones”

       yeah ‘cos with one phonecall from anywhere, we could hook them up with the baddest weed and whatever else they fancied while not taxing the fuck out of it…
   • Colonial Viper 4.2

     3 November 2010 at 11:21 pm

     last I heard they were doing better than their international counterparts…

     Maybe the pet animals on set do better. 🙄

     However, our workers definitely do worse than the unionised workers in major film making countries like Australia, US, Canada, UK and Ireland.
5. randal 5

   4 November 2010 at 1:45 pm

   why doesnt someone tell hillary clinton that national is kwiwi equivalent of the tea party.
   and bunji dont tell \’em nothing.
   the slime will out you allover twide me opnions and any other forum they can.
   play it cool dude.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS