TVNZ upholds Paul Henry complaint

29 comments on “TVNZ upholds Paul Henry complaint ”

• Comments are now closed

1. John Dalley 1

   5 May 2009 at 5:10 pm

   I have received the letter from TVNZ but i note that an on air apology is not part of the deal.
   I am thinking of writing again to TVNZ demanding an on air apology.
   • Tane 1.1

     5 May 2009 at 5:16 pm

     Thanks, I’ll add that to the post.
     • Tigger 1.1.1

       6 May 2009 at 9:13 am

       JD – If TVNZ aren’t offering an apology at this stage then no amount of requesting them to do it will convince them. The only way to force an on-air apology is to refer the complaint to the BSA in the hope they will order one.
2. nic 2

   5 May 2009 at 6:43 pm

   About thirty people…yeah right.

   The true number of complaints would have been much higher when one adds the email response TVNZ would have received.

   I and some I know emailed our feelings to Rick Ellis and TVNZ.

   We have had no response. Next time the BSA.

   We turn him off now when he shows up on the box.

   Bugs as we now call him has had one good effect…. we now question our own prat-like humour a little more.

   You don’t have to be a PC Kiwi to see the value in finding better quality humour that doesn’t demean.

   Shame we can’t get a presenter that is on-to-it and funny.

   On air rudeness…..On air apology
3. Ari 3

   5 May 2009 at 7:48 pm

   Every small setback that Paul Henry suffers is as delicious honey on my tongue. There is no excuse for that lack of basic manners and consideration as a host on national TV.
4. Snook 4

   5 May 2009 at 8:24 pm

   Tane

   At last some good taste and genuine fairness has prevailed.

   According to Bugs if you’re not:

   •ridiculously overpaid to be an offensive plonker
   •outrageously proud to befoul the environment with petrol hungry dick-compensating cars
   •model beautiful, and I believe he thinks himself in this category
   •obviously not wanting for anything materially
   •ready to be down on everyone who doesn’t hold with his warped view of the world

   then you don’t count.

   Hopefully this jumped up little toad has a motorbike and will go for a ride this weekend without a helmet.
   • Tane 4.1

     5 May 2009 at 8:28 pm

     I hear Paul Henry believes motor cycle helmets are an example of the nanny state.
     • jarbury 4.1.1

       6 May 2009 at 3:20 pm

       Would it be crass to request that he doesn’t wear his?
5. Julie 5

   5 May 2009 at 8:26 pm

   We’ve been discussing this at The Hand Mirror too:
   http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2009/05/tvnzs-response-to-complaints-about-paul.html

   In particular if people want to do something further. The general consensus at this stage seems to be that TVNZ has done probably a bit more than most people expected (although no doubt less than they should have).
   • Tane 5.1

     5 May 2009 at 8:29 pm

     Thanks Julie, have updated the post.
6. Brett Dale 6

   5 May 2009 at 8:39 pm

   I found it ironic that the standard is taking a stand against childish name calling in the media, by having in the section called “fuckwits in the media”

   [lprent: It is a description of someone who lets their hormones override their intelligence. Quite an accurate description.
   Besides you’re trying to apply a standard set for one media controlled (ineffectually) by the BSA to another which isn’t controlled. If it was, then most of the right wing blogs like whale and no minister would have to actually write some content rather than their usual fare of name calling.]
   • felix 6.1

     5 May 2009 at 9:05 pm

     It’s two separate categories – fuckwits and media.

     Fair point though. Although I don’t think anyone at the Standard is calling him a fuckwit because of his physical appearance but rather because he is, you know, a bit of a fuckwit. It’d be a bit rich if they filed it under “tubby fuckwits”. Still…
7. SPC 7

   5 May 2009 at 8:47 pm

   Actually, like some others on the right (outside of parliament) he has mellowed since the 2008 election – tighter editorial control would silence the supercilious immaturity in his on air personality (and leave him just another person doing current affairs journalism/presenting).
8. forgetaboutthelastone 8

   5 May 2009 at 8:58 pm

   I dunno if anyone saw an episode of Rove recently that showed that clip with Paul Henry. One of the comedians was presenting it and they were all having a good laugh at how insensitive Paul Henry was being.
9. Pat 9

   5 May 2009 at 10:36 pm

   Deep breath…

   Paul Henry is hands down the best TV presenter in NZ. TVNZ know it so his job is safe.

   He probably took the Mills comments too far. Nothing wrong with scoring the initial joke (which frankly was funny), but he carried it on a bit. He will learn from that (or perhaps not).

   And Greenpeace will learn to front up with someone else on TV if they want to get their message across. It is stupid and naive to expect that people won’t see the elephant in the room.

   Bottom line is that there are two breakfast shows on TV. If you don’t like Henry, watch the paint dry on Sunrise.
   • TBA 9.1

     6 May 2009 at 8:33 am

     That’s a little unfair Pat, watching paint dry is far more interesting than Sunrise.

     Paul Henry on the other hand is just brilliant.
10. BLiP 10

    6 May 2009 at 12:17 am

    Most important in this little squabble, I would suggest, is what Stephanie was actually saying.

    Also, congratulations to the greek chorus for providing an abundance of free advertising for twat features, and shame on TVNZ for minimising the negative reaction to a public belittlement of a guest.
11. DeepRed 11

    6 May 2009 at 1:00 am

    “I dunno if anyone saw an episode of Rove recently that showed that clip with Paul Henry. One of the comedians was presenting it and they were all having a good laugh at how insensitive Paul Henry was being.”

    Grand Jackpot!

    Episode #9 BTW.
12. Ms X 12

    6 May 2009 at 7:25 am

    If Paul Henry is the best on TV, isn’t it time they looked for some more talent? I find it hard to believe that TVNZ has to continually regurgitate old and familiar faces (even after major slip-ups) when there is a rich supply of talented people in this country.
13. Nick 13

    6 May 2009 at 7:46 am

    Face it, watching Paul Henry on TV or being on his show makes us all jerks. We know what he is, treat him fairly (and the funders, the advertisers) by turning off and tuning out. No money, no Henry. Lets all make a conscious effort to put him back into the dustbin.
    • jagilby 13.1

      6 May 2009 at 10:25 am

      You seem to have the misguided impression that readers of the Standard, and those that hold similar views, form the majority in this country.

      Advertising is all about target markets… so what if you switch off – it’s a game of percentages, you’ll never appeal to the fringes but as long as you appeal to the majority then your advertising dollar is well spent.

      Simple fact of the matter is that the majority of the populace finds Paul Henry entertaining. Even if they don’t 100% agree with everything he says he still has the right to say it…. so we should censor him for having a viewpoint? How very liberal of you.
      • lprent 13.1.1

        6 May 2009 at 2:45 pm

        Wrong. The majority of the ever decreasing percentage of the country that watch TV AND who watch the morning shows. Pretty damn small in terms of the whole population would be my guess. The percentage who like me just suck up coffee and attempt to wake up would be far higher.
        • jagilby 13.1.1.1

          6 May 2009 at 3:06 pm

          I don’t make a habit of studying TV ratings but I would presume that demographic who still watch breakfast TV must be somewhat substantial or it wouldn’t enjoy the profile it does.
          It must have some sort of influence or the PM and leader of the opposition wouldn’t bother having weekly timeslots arranged and YOU wouldn’t bother to write posts about a presenter.

          Sure, I accept that compared to the population at large it wouldn’t be big but I’d say the sample size would mean that it would still be somewhat representative… unless you’re saying the great unwashed left are the only ones with the time and inclination to watch breakfast television…. in which case I agree – the boycott initiated here could actually be effective. For some reason (I dunno, like the fact that Paul Henry has survived this long speaking his mind without tiptoeing around everyone’s feelings) I doubt that is the case.
      • Pascal's bookie 13.1.2

        6 May 2009 at 3:09 pm

        “Even if they don’t 100% agree with everything he says he still has the right to say it . so we should censor him for having a viewpoint? How very liberal of you.”

        It isn’t a freedom of speech issue you fncking moron. Or do you think employees can say whatever they like on their employers dime and broadcast it to the nation with their employers tv studio?
        • jagilby 13.1.2.1

          6 May 2009 at 4:23 pm

          Yep I do.

          I’m sure if what he was saying was actually agreeable with you and TVNZ threatened to sack him you’d have every union in the land picketing TVNZ. Problem is you don’t agree with his views.

          Just sit back and relax mate, he’s gonna be on the TV for a while yet so you might as well enjoy it.
          • Pascal's bookie 13.1.2.1.1

            6 May 2009 at 5:10 pm

            So you are a moron then. So whatever you are “sure about” is, ipso facto, of little interest.
14. randal 14

    6 May 2009 at 11:05 am

    poor Paul
    he never took his ritalin when he was little
15. jagilby 15

    6 May 2009 at 11:49 pm

    I thought that those on the left were above name calling, but you feel free to reduce the discussion to that low… obviously, like everything else the left preaches, you think it unacceptable for others stoop to the lows you go to on a daily basis.

    It’s been fun winding you up anyway. Back to being a productive member of society for me.
16. gnomic 16

    9 May 2009 at 2:39 pm

    Paul Henry is a ninny. Estimated mental age 13, reminiscent of the kids who used to snigger at toilet humour jokes. Anybody who takes him seriously needs help. End of story.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS