On that Trevett piece

23 comments on “On that Trevett piece ”

• Comments are now closed

1. edoze 1

   29 April 2009 at 12:54 pm

   Meow, cat fight . . .
2. vinsin 2

   29 April 2009 at 12:56 pm

   Well put Tane, that’s almost exactly what i thought after reading the article.
3. BLiP 3

   29 April 2009 at 12:58 pm

   I agree.Trevett was only doing her job.

   Alas, Tane, you seem to believe that there is even a little debris left from the annihilation of the principles of the Fourth Estate by the concentration of ownership into the hands of a small coterie of multinational profiteers. Fox News is ultimate manifestation of this.

   Journalists are no longer appointed for their ability to keep the state honest and report accordingly, rather the are trained and appointed as glorified advertorialists. There are notable exceptions – you’ll generally find them around the margins of the Opinion Pages, far away from the what used to be content and is now just soy filler to separate the advertisments.

   Can’t have the audience too emotionally involved in the news, can we? No. Far better that they are spoon fed pap so as to engender a sated and gentle state to faciliate the absorption of advertising.
4. Stephen 4

   29 April 2009 at 1:11 pm

   All this style of reporting does is disempower ordinary people by reinforcing the idea that politics is an elite spectator sport removed from the concerns of daily life. etc.

   Excellent, thoughtful stuff, i’ve never heard it put that way.
   • Daveski 4.1

     29 April 2009 at 3:20 pm

     Actually, it couldn’t be further from the truth. In NZ, the great majority have little time or interest in politics or politicians. The passionate minority is tiny and overtly political blogs like this are are significant part of the minority.

     I’m not being critical of anyone just stating my experiences in the “heartland”. The masses do not share our interest in politics or politicians. (1 demerit for presenting opinion as fact but no more or less than the quoted comment).
     • George Darroch 4.1.1

       29 April 2009 at 5:49 pm

       People care very much about things that affect their daily lives. Tell someone their car rego is going up, their tax is going down, they’re waiting longer for surgery… etc.

       It’s only those who think that politics is something for politicians who think that the ordinary person has no interest in politics.
5. Eddie 5

   29 April 2009 at 1:53 pm

   Yeah. She’s part of a culture and that culture is a dismal failure. I probably went a bit too hard on her personally. It was just such an awful piece of so-called journalism, it boiled my blood. If that was from a blog, noone would read it, just far to shilly.
   • edoze 5.1

     29 April 2009 at 1:59 pm

     What the, get the kiddy gloves off.

     Go in for the Annette king hit, just don’t let the floor hit you on the way down. . .
6. Brickley Paiste 6

   29 April 2009 at 3:55 pm

   You don’t really seem to disagree with Eddie at all. It rather more seems like you’re trying to protect the reputation of someone you respect or perhaps someone with whom you are friends.

   I agree with Eddie. Blame the journalist. I hate how individual journalists are seen to have no agency or moral ability at all. She could have written a better piece. She didn’t. You seem to say as much in your putative “disagreement”.

   And I don’t think he was being simplistic but rather simple. The problem is simple: political journalists are suckful. That isn’t simplistic. And if Trevett is the “best in the country” that’s damning with faint praise.

   And can we really reasonably or honestly call a newspaper who published the “Unauthorised Biography of John Key” — who’s authors now work for Mr Key — as taking part in a conspiracy? It rather seems to me to be an open policy of despising Labour and giving unthinking support to that grinning prick who now leads the government.

   In fact, I should probably erase this post because it was articles such as Trevett’s that inspired me to stop reading the Herald entirely. Since then I find that food tastes better and I have a renewed appreciation for the fact that I exist. I urge you all to try it.
7. Felix Marwick 7

   29 April 2009 at 3:57 pm

   Time for another disclaimer from me due to a few collegial questions.

   The Felix that posts here on a regular basis is not the one that works for Newstalk ZB in the Press Gallery.

   It’s rare to find someone that shares my name but that is the case here.

   As you were.
   • BLiP 7.1

     29 April 2009 at 11:07 pm

     If you are – really – a political “journalist”, then:

     GO AND DO YOU FUCKING JOB AND STOP SLACK ARSING AROUND!

     Useless prick!
     • Tane 7.1.1

       29 April 2009 at 11:12 pm

       Guys, you’re not going to improve whatever issues you have with the media by personally abusing journalists.
       • BLiP 7.1.1.1

         29 April 2009 at 11:25 pm

         The MSM is a lost cause and the less the blogosphere has to do with it and the people involved, the better.
         • r0b 7.1.1.1.1

           29 April 2009 at 11:43 pm

           Have to agree with Tane on this one (and in doing so I acknowledge that I’ve been guilty of being very tetchy with a certain journo recently). Blogs aren’t some self contained universe, they’re about influencing the real world. Call the MSM to account, try to reform it for the better, but it doesn’t help the cause to be personally abusing random journos.
   • BLiP 7.2

     30 April 2009 at 1:45 am

     I’m sorry.

     My intemperate comment was a call to all journalists, and political journalists in particular; a call for them to “get on with it”, to “do the job” and stop pumping out pap. It was not my intention that it be personal.

     Just before I typed in the comment, I had been reading about someone who actually wanted to be a journalist. I realise now it would be best if I was to consider more carefully the views of the person I was responding to, rather than making grand sweeping comments open to endless interpretation about something I read somewhere else.

     I don’t know Mr Marwick and I doubt that he knows me. However, if he should take personal offence at my comment then I apologise and seek his forgiveness.

     And, thank you to the locals who have pointed out the error of my ways in a civil maner.
     • r0b 7.2.1

       30 April 2009 at 7:34 am

       Well spoken!
8. felix 8

   29 April 2009 at 5:04 pm

   I can vouch for the other Felix above. I have never and would never have anything to do with that piece-of-shit organisation.
   • jerry 8.1

     29 April 2009 at 5:10 pm

     Is any organisation you disagree with a piece-of-shit or is ZB a special case for some reason ?
     • felix 8.1.1

       29 April 2009 at 5:43 pm

       It’s one of the many ways I might describe something I don’t like. It’s a very simple use of language. Do you really not understand the context? Are you a retard? What are you really trying to say, jerry?
       • jerry 8.1.1.1

         29 April 2009 at 6:59 pm

         just interested in why you dislike/consider them a piece of shit – is it particular hosts ?

         Do you ask anyone who questions you whether they are a retard ? Seems to me it would be more retarded to blindly agree with a webpersona such as yourself.
         • felix 8.1.1.1.1

           30 April 2009 at 5:12 am

           just interested in why you dislike/consider them a piece of shit – is it particular hosts ?
           If you have to ask, you’ll never know.

           Do you ask anyone who questions you whether they are a retard ?
           Only if I think they might be retarded.
         • jerry 8.1.1.1.2

           30 April 2009 at 8:15 am

           Ah so no real reason for disliking ZB and you accuse people of being retarded for fun …… are you about 15 and commenting here in between surfing porn ?
9. ripp0 9

   29 April 2009 at 8:06 pm

   As bloggers there are surely ways of reading the so-called msm.

   Allow me example a learning from the NY Times, where a common understanding among readers and journos was to take the final pars as ‘intent’ for the article.

   Using the same technique couldn’t you strategize the aforementioned NZH journo for her third par —Mr Key needs a diversionary tactic or four to blunt the Opposition’s attacks on the Auckland Super City.

   Work it, of course, like for why does he need diversion of one or more types..?

   Seems to me the essence of Opposition’ readership and their bloggers etc.. given that the remainder of that piece attempts trivialize matters where’s the problem with developing nuggets to your own gain..?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS