Turning attention inward: looking at the media

Written By: - Date published: 12:30 pm, December 14th, 2007 - 8 comments
Categories: Media - Tags:

Some interesting observations from Steven Price on DomPost editor Tim Pankhurst’s keynote address at the Jeanz conference called “The Power of Print”.

His speech included this interpretation on the NZ Herald’s Electoral Finance Bill campaign: “He was a bit bemused. “Good on them,” was his attitude. But he thought it would be boring the Herald’s readers to tears.”

Btw I’d missed the NZ Herald editorial criticising National on their handling of the EFB including this of Mr Key’s handling: “His attempts have been too low-brow, too detailed and too open to argument.”

8 comments on “Turning attention inward: looking at the media ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. PhilBest 1
    14 December 2007 at 5:25 pm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7134918.stm

    INTERESTING…….. about as many people support the idea of the regulation of the media in the interests of “social stability” as probably support Our Dear Leader’s EFB.

    Sooooooo, Mr Pankhurst, don’t think YOU can support the great socialist creeping takeover of NZ by stealth without it coming back to bite YOU in the arse. If Our Dear Leader gets away with the EFB, YOU’RE NEXT. “They” came for the Exclusive Brethren….. with YOUR approval……

  2. Robinsod 2
    14 December 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Phil. Take your pills. Seriously.

  3. outofbed 3
    14 December 2007 at 5:38 pm

    could anybody translate for me what Mr best was saying ?

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    14 December 2007 at 5:49 pm

    PhilBest,

    I think you’ll find that the biggest threats to Freedom of the Press are coming from the right these days.

    You may have noticed that religious lunatics from a variety of faith traditions have gotten into their heads that they have a ‘right not to be offended’.

    Even here in NZ these folk are saying that the freedom of the press needs to be ballanced against a responsibility not to offend. By which they usually mean that their own religious superstitions or dogmas should not be held up to ridicule.

    At they same time however they feel that they are under some terrible oppression if they themselves are even criticised, let alone sanctioned, when they say truly terrible and not even funny things about people outside of their faith.

    You might also have noticed that in the US there has been a lot of talk over the last few years about what journalists should and shouldn’t say with regard to things like the war. Whether or not a paper should publish classified evidence that shows the gov’t is breaking the law. Torture. That sort of thing. Strangely the people making the argument that the press should shut the fuck up or face charges of treason (which carries the death penalty, as I’m sure you’re aware)… well, let’s just say that they’re not socialists.

    Which is bad news for your hypothesis.

  5. Kimble 5
    14 December 2007 at 6:29 pm

    What makes you think that all religious people are of the right? Pretty sure they have more in common with soft headed leftists.

    “Whether or not a paper should publish classified evidence that shows the gov’t is breaking the law.”

    And what soft headed leftists dont understand is that justice isnt dispensed through the news media. The paper published classified INFORMATION on what it THOUGHT was illegal activity. It didnt need to publish the information hold the perpetrators accountable, it PUBLISHED the information because it wanted to sell newspapers.

    They werent trying to do a public service (which is obviously what they tried to say), they could have served a public service even without publishing the details.

  6. Pascal's bookie 6
    14 December 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Kimble, you’re an idiot.

    Firstly I never said all religious people are from the right. Read closer.

    I never said that justice is dispensed through the media. Again I would ask you to read closer. Even if I had said that, and I assure you it is not something that I think is either universally true or neccessarily desirable, your point would still be nonsense.

    The New York Times for example held back on publishing some stories for months, trying to get a response from the administration about their concerns. The admin gave them nothing but denials and pleas for secrecy. In those instances what do you think that the role of the press is in a democracy Kimble?

    The fact that the info was classified means nothing. Zilch. Nada. Except for courtesy, there is nothing that prevents a paper from publishing classified info in the states. They do not have a states secrets act, so info that is classified is kept secret by limiting access to people who have sworn to keep it secret. If one of those people leaks the info, the reciever of the leak is under no obligation whatsoever, legally speaking.

    You seem to be able to read the minds of the publishers so riddle me this wiseguy, if the only reason they wanted to release the info was to sell papers, why did they wait so long? Why not publish it before the election in one case?

    You seem to have difficulty processing the fact that conservatives are doing very bad things, so you are shifting the guilt onto the people that are informing you about it. That’s stupid.

  7. PhilBest 7
    17 December 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Pascal’s bookie, your posting above is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

    Christianity is the one form that IS completely “fair game” to journalists everywhere. It is exotic cultures and indigenous cultures that have powerful “rights not to be offended”.

    As for the RIGHT wing being more of a threat to media freedom, spare us the Ministry of Truth stuff, would ya? Look at what the LEFTISTS do to freedom of opinion everywhere THEY become the “establishment” – on the Uni campus, for example, or at Teachers training college, or the school of Journalism, or at the Health worker training courses. Or in the editorial offices of the “mainstream” media.

    Who’s trying to regulate talk radio in the US, Democrats or Republicans? And why are the democrats worried about talk radio but not about the New York Times or CNN? (see my comments about the schools of journalism above).

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    17 December 2007 at 5:24 pm

    There seems to be more Ministry of truth paranoia in your comment than mine PhilBest.

    At universities for example there is a contest of ideas. Liberals seem to win in some areas but not others. There is more Hayek taught than Marx in business schools for example. As it should be.

    If your point is that some disciplines show tendancies that you disagree with then you should prove them wrong. Running around like that ridiculous David Horowitz fellow claiming that your viewpoint should have a quota or some such because it cannot compete is childish petulance. I’m sure you don’t go there.

    Surely you can see the contradiction in your claim that LEFTISTS control the media and journalism schools while acknowledging that talk radio and Fox are huge.

    Are you aware that poeple who mainly get their info from these right wing sources have a much higher belief of things that are not true? eg, Saddam was involved in 9/11, We found the WMD etc. Perhaps you are a relativist who believes that these are just different truths and shouldn’t be judged against some abstract thing called reality, if so, we’re done talking.

    As for Christianity being fair game, what isn’t? It seems to me that every paper in the country has a column at least once a week by some Christian apologist, usually a priest of some description. I have never seen this space turned over to an atheist or even an agnostic. On most Editorial pages there is a scripture with some commentary, it’s nice I suppose and it doesn’t bother me but it cuts against your thesis. As does the fact that all sorts of people get sticks poked at them in the press.