Sunday, bloody Sunday

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 pm, April 12th, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: Media - Tags:

Usually I’m working, so I don’t get to see Sunday on TVOne. Lucky me.

I flicked over for the very end tonight, just in time to see whathisname with the moustache reading our viewers’ comments. There was a comment from Mary that went something like ‘the government should get tough on crime, seize offenders’ assets for reparations and if they’re too young, seize their parents’ assets’.

Mr Moustache responded: ‘Mary, we don’t have collective punishment that you’re advocating in civilised countries because it goes against every standard of justice – the guilty should be punished for their crimes, not their dependents or their parents. Plus what happens if one offender has more assets than another, do they get more seized for the same crime? Because in New Zealand we have a thing called equality before the law’

Of course, that second part didn’t happen.

The mainstream media would rather broadcast the most reactionary comments they can find and let them stand unchallenged than inject any intelligent thought into the debate.

13 comments on “Sunday, bloody Sunday ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. John Dalley 1
    12 April 2009 at 9:12 pm

    You’re asking TV One to be intelligent ??

  2. Ellen 2
    12 April 2009 at 9:30 pm

    in stalins russia there is was a crime to be a relative of an enemy of the people.

    mary probably things thats a great idea.

  3. aj 3
    12 April 2009 at 10:41 pm

    *gulp* heading towards Faux News.

  4. logie97 4
    12 April 2009 at 10:44 pm

    TV One had difficulties with accuracy all day. I watched (for my sins) QandA thismorning and Holmes’ interviewed Phil Goff. The question of Section 59 came up and Holmes asked for Goff’s opinions around the issue of smacking – indeed Holmes’ question seemed to be the words of McCroskey’s petition. Goff agreed that a “light” correction should not be the subject of someone being pursued to prosecution. Tonight’s news said that Goff was changing Labour’s direction on this issue… I don’t think so, anymore than the 100 plus MP’s who voted in 2007 on it.

  5. Ag 5
    13 April 2009 at 2:13 am

    I no longer watch television. It just makes me angry.

  6. jono 6
    13 April 2009 at 9:06 am

    Why were you watching Sunday when Top Gear was on? Its more intelligent and entertaining and its still hosted by a complete reactionary.

  7. Tigger 7
    13 April 2009 at 9:49 am

    Yes Mary, that’s such a great idea. So when your husband assaults me I’m taking your house, not to mention all your savings and your antique doll collection, the one you were hoping to will to your grandchildren. See honey, it’s no fun when it’s you.

  8. Sarge 8
    13 April 2009 at 12:11 pm

    See, this is the problem with the left. They still seem surprised when reactionary comments are popular. We just voted out a govt with a great track record, with numerous achievements and with years of exp (at a time when we need exp the most). For what? A money trader and a right wing loony.

    Why? Because they had better PR, and more importantly, they embraced the reactionary. Because although reactionary statements like those may be simple, small minded, and often plain idiotic, they get votes.

  9. Derek 9
    13 April 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Well actually the ‘standard of justice’ of ‘civilised countries’ that you are referring to is only one paradigm of what justice means. To the tangata whenua of this land collective responsibility was essential to the mana of each individual.

    Unfortunately The Standard would rather broadcast its white imperialist elitism than actually considering ideas that may differ somewhat from their own.

    • RedLogix 9.1
      13 April 2009 at 10:25 pm

      Derek,

      Well I’m personally not totally a stranger to the idea of whakama, and I can sense how that plays out in terms of collective responsibility to pick up the pieces after a crime, to perhaps make recompense in some healing manner, but I struggle a bit to see how that might play out in a legal forum.

      Do you have anything specific in mind?

  10. manta 10
    13 April 2009 at 10:37 pm

    no-one’s being white imperalist, they’re saying it’s not right to punish a person for the crimes of others like the reactionaries want.

    Do you think that people should be punished for the misdeeds of others?

    If a parent commits a crime and their assets are seized the kids are punished, sound good to you? sound fair?

  11. Scribe 11
    14 April 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Eddie,

    It’s not the job of the moustached individual to make that comment. Just as it wouldn’t have been his job to respond to viewer’s email if it advocated for a system that was more focused on restorative justice than punitive justice by saying “of course, that might mean these dangerous criminals are out and living next door to you rather than spending time behind bars”.

    Using your logic, every letter to the editor published in a newspaper should contain some sort of PS from the editor judging the merits of the letter’s contents. Maybe an A, B, C, D, F scale.

    Oh, sorry. An “achieved” or “not achieved”.

    That’s not how the media works.