TVNZ’s white male syndrome

Written By: - Date published: 10:46 am, July 26th, 2014 - 86 comments
Categories: broadcasting, democracy under attack, election 2014, greens, labour, national, patriarchy, tv - Tags:

Much focus has been on the Labour Party objections to Mike Hosking being selected as moderator for the significant TVNZ Leaders election debates.  There has been a lot of attention to Hosking because of his known National-leaning, and anti-Labour bias.

John+Key+Guyon+Espiner+Party+Leaders+Participate

Less media attention has been given to Hosking’s track record of sexism and put-downs of some of the least powerful people in society, such as beneficiaries, and Maori.

Hosking really doesn’t stand out as the most qualified candidate for the job.  What about Rachel Smalley, or some of the journalists/hosts at Maori Television?  Lisa Owen would be a candidate, if she hadn’t already moved to TV3.

Looking back, I wonder why it is that this century, only white males have scored the job as moderators for TVNZ’s leaders debates.

TVNZ’s Leaders Debates

2011

Hosted by Guyon Espiner

2008

Hosted by Mark Sainsbury

sainsbury-debate2b

2005

Hosted by Mark Sainsbury

I couldn’t find a link for a debate in 2002.

I wasn’t that keen on Sainsbury as a political journalist back then, but in contrast with Hosking, he seems like a quality host, with some sense of respect and balance.

The widespread objections to Hosking as moderator by many voters, has been given less attention in the mainstream media, as Frank Macskasy spells out.

Meanwhile, ordinary New Zealanders are leaving comments here, highly critical of TVNZ’s appointment of Hosking as a “moderator”.

However, Fairfax closed off their comments section after this story, with the majority of posts scathing of TVNZ.

The majority  readers of the Fairfax article seem to be unimpressed with Mike Hosking in their (unscientific) poll;

[…]

If you, the reader, are as bemused by TVNZ’s bizarre decision to use Hosking as a faux “impartial” moderator, then sign the petition here;

Hosking’s, often fairly casual, sexism and the stereotypical put downs of women, have upset many in the past.

In 2012, Hosking made the headlines for calling a woman a “moron” after she backed her car into his.

Several people have objected to some of Hosking’s sexism as displayed on the TV programme, Seven Sharp.

Janine Fenwick tweeted, back in February,

That awesome moment Mike Hosking says “keep your legs together” & “pussy” in the first five mins of #sevensharp. @ToniStreet loses it

Earlier this week, Mike Kilpatrick’s review strongly criticised Seven Sharp’s spin job in support of Cameron Slater. In the review, Kilpatrick said,

From the start host Mike Hosking was in typical Hosking mood – including some barbs at female drivers which… well, would have been out of date and inappropriate in a 1970s sitcom.

And it’s not only people offended by sexism, who may not be so keen on Hosking as moderator of the Leaders’ Debate.   Tim Selwyn has been critical of Hosking’s perspective on Maori politics in the past.  In this Tumeke post, Selwyn takes Hosking to task over his comments about the Waitangi Tribunal.  He quotes Hosking saying the following and more,

The tribunal concept set up all those years ago was a generous concept and even if you supported it, you have to have wondered by now whether the whole thing hasn’t got wildly out of hand. 

Selwyn goes on to criticise Hosking for his ignorance about the way the legacy of past colonial wrongs continue to impact negatively on Maori today.  Hosking is pretty partisan on this issue, as on many others.

In much of his broadcasting work, the problem is not so much that he has biases, but the way that Hoskings most often expresses them.  When it comes to a Leaders Debate, Hosking’s style, known public persona, and well-documented biases are not suited to quality broadcasting in a democracy.  If nothing else, the views people associate with Hosking, will likely have an impact on many viewers’ perceptions of the development of the debate.

The Campaign for Better Broadcasting has also been critical of Hosking’s selection for the TVNZ Leaders Debate. Myles Thomas states:

“Choosing a debate moderator with public links to the ruling party would be expected in Russia or China. But this is New Zealand, a western democracy where journalists are expected to be impartial, and to hold the ruling party to account. Mike Hosking does not hold this government to account, and when he sometimes seems to, it comes across as being part of National’s communications strategy, invariably helping them dig themselves out of a hole.

[…]

As New Zealand’s most watched political debate for this election, it is vital to the integrity of our democracy that it is impartial. Mike Hosking is a great television presenter but he is not impartial as his many quotes show.

Just a glance at Hosking’s most recent ZB op eds, shows just where his allegiances lie.

But, above all, why has TVNZ been so keen to select yet another white male for the moderator job?

When are they going to select one of the many very competent women in political journalism?: some of whom are way less partisan, produce work of quality, and most are not into abrasive put-downs of the marginalised and relatively powerless members of society.

 It’s a pity a Green Co-Leader isn’t invited to the debate either? – being the 3rd largest, and a medium sized Parliamentary party.

86 comments on “TVNZ’s white male syndrome ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. whatever next? 1
    26 July 2014 at 10:54 am

    TVNZ not even trying to appear balanced, the arrogance is astounding, what does this tell us about the state of NZ media/government?

  2. Tamati 2
    26 July 2014 at 10:55 am

    Hosking saved Seven sharp and has been a ratings saviour to the state broadcaster. Unfortunatly, thats all that matters to them.

    This little punch up over Hosking may actually pay off for Labour. Hosking will be under pressure to proove he’s a credible journalist and may go harder on Key just to proove himself. Labour have made their point, time to move on.

    • Bearded Git 2.1
      26 July 2014 at 11:51 am

      +1 Tamati re punch up

    • seeker 2.2
      26 July 2014 at 2:38 pm

      “Hosking will be under pressure to proove he’s a credible journalist and may go harder on Key just to proove himself. Labour have made their point, time to move on.”

      But I don’t want to be distracted by Hosking by keeping an eye on him to see if he is being biased. I want to concentrate on the debate. I think TVNZ has an obligation to honour this requirement at election time.

      Further, I also have no respect for the man having watched him trying to justify his use of the word “moron’ to describe the leader of the opposition by saying that he “calls his children “morons” all the time” !
      So he disrespects/abuses children too! Utterly Disgraceful.
      (He said this last Thursday night at the end of Seven Sharp 24.7.2014 but there is no link now.)

      What a ‘man’ and John Armstrong calls him a “professional”.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11299270

      Personally I think he should be sacked or at least severely disciplined for trying to ‘normalise’ unacceptable psychological child abuse which I consider calling children “morons” to be.

      • karol 2.2.1
        26 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

        Yes, there does seem to have been an intensification of the normalising and privileging of abusive masculine behaviour under Key’s watch. He is well into it int he House – although it’s traditionally a bit like that there. Key just goes the extra yard.

        And some Nats women get into that traditionally masculine style, too (Collins, for instance).

        Meanwhile, Paul Henry, Hosking, CamSlat, etc, all get protection for their antics, while being publicly supported by, or supportive of, the Nats.

        These guys are much more flamboyantly abusive than the media guys under Clark’s watch – think Holmes – though, if he was still around he’d have probably been in the abusive team, too.

        • Populuxe1 2.2.1.1
          26 July 2014 at 3:11 pm

          “traditionally masculine style”
          I thought gender was a social construct, y’all

          • karol 2.2.1.1.1
            26 July 2014 at 3:16 pm

            Exactly. And that is why I said “traditionally masculine” – It’s a style of behaviour that goes way back, and can be adopted by women as well (or at least certain aspects of it) – see my reference to Collins, etc.

            There are diverse forms of masculinity these days. But there’s a certain style that the Nats seem to favour quite a bit.

            • Populuxe1 2.2.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2014 at 3:26 pm

              And in order to beat the men at their own game, the Nat women have to be even bigger bastards than the men in order to compete.

              • seeker …
                26 July 2014 at 3:47 pm

                Prime example (‘scuse the pun)- Thatcher.
                She also had her ‘men’ sycophantically eatimg out of her hand and would generously indulge in a bit of (ugh,dare I say it) flirtation with them. But only if they were “one of us”.

                Pavlov’s dogs much? Certainly arbitr.ary government

            • RedBaronCV 2.2.1.1.1.2
              26 July 2014 at 4:20 pm

              Known as “out bloking the blokes”

            • Mike 2.2.1.1.1.3
              27 July 2014 at 1:59 pm

              This is NOT traditionally masculine style.

              Todays ideals are a caricature of masculinity. The ideology of worthless traitors, it would shame the true men that our ancestors were. Those strong patriarchs of old who sheltered their family, and sacrificed all, some even dying in far flung wars, to protect the most important member of the household, the mother, and their children.

              Please do not denigrate the memory of our forefathers by comparing them to today’s mockery of masculinity – these insecure yet celebrated chauvenists who use moisturiser, have $100 haircuts and defile women whenever they can.

        • Populuxe1 2.2.1.2
          27 July 2014 at 12:07 am

          Though pretty sure calling someone who backed into you a “moron” is not ipso facto sexist and therefore is a silly inclusion. Neither shitty driving or being a moron is gender specific. I’m pretty sure Hosking has also called Cunliffe a “moron” and while Cunliffe may on occasion feel shame on behalf of the male gender, he isn’t a woman.

        • Chooky 2.2.1.3
          27 July 2014 at 9:10 am

          +100 Good Post karol

          Kim Hill is a far more intelligent, accomplished (and a brilliant international award journalist) than the fruit and vege reporter Mike Hoskings…She has never been given a fair go on television but I remember her television interviewing/moderating as riveting…(currently her Television profile is disabled or unavailable)

          …Mike Hoskings was actually very good reporting on what was available from the fruit and vege market.!..he should go back there

          TVNZ should do us all a favour…we are not dumb….New Zealanders deserve better than Mike Hoskings….appoint Kim Hill as moderator in all the political debates….she gets to the crux of the issues , she asks the hard questions and she will give us a far greater , in-depth understanding of the policies and issues from the mouths of Key and Cunliffe …and all the representatives of the political parties on offer

          If TVNZ can not do better than what it is doing….. heads should roll once the Left Coalition wins this election! …TVNZ is NOT good enough!…it is short changing New Zealanders…and it is short changing our democracy

          ( compared with the best of television interviewing /moderating debates available overseas on Sky….New Zealand is very, very poorly served by TVNZ)

          Awards for Kim Hill

          http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kim-hill-crowned-queen-worlds-broadcasters-rv-132049

          http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/kim-hill-international-radio-personality-of-the-year/

          In 2012 Hill was awarded “2012 International Radio Personality of the Year” by the Association for International Broadcasting, describing her as “an experienced and warm broadcaster exercising full control of her content whilst coaxing her guests to reveal more of themselves; really enjoyable live and sparky content that demonstrates what is great about radio and illustrates how important lightness of touch is in speech content.”[5][6]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Hill_(broadcaster)

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    26 July 2014 at 11:00 am

    The Greens won’t be invited, despite now challenging Labour’s position as largest left bloc party, because that would further legitimise and recognise MMP for viewers. TVNZ desperately wants to push the fantasy FPP scenario as per most of the media.

    Self loving tory toady Hosking has taken some deserved blows this week, will it be enough to get him to behave? Unlikely, so keep chipping.

  4. KJT 4
    26 July 2014 at 11:19 am

    “only white males have scored the job”

    Is Hoskings a man?
    Real men, like! women.

    Is he even alive?
    Didn’t I see strings and a remote?

  5. Clemgeopin 5
    26 July 2014 at 11:27 am

    I definitely do not agree with your plug for the Greens leader to be part of this major debate because this is a debate between the next potential Prime Minister of the country, Key or Cunliffe, as borne by the polls. Cunliffe is the leader of the opposition now, not Norman or Turei.

    • karol 5.1
      26 July 2014 at 11:33 am

      That just makes the whole election more like the US presidential race. We don’t elect the PM. We elect parties and electorate MPs.

      • Bearded Git 5.1.1
        26 July 2014 at 11:49 am

        agreed Karol-Greens should be there. This is MMP and they have polled well enough to deserve to be there.

      • tinfoilhat 5.1.2
        26 July 2014 at 11:56 am

        +100 Karol

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.3
        26 July 2014 at 11:57 am

        Then why not Winston Peters and Flavell and Dunne and Seymour and Craig and Horan and Hone etc? Why be partial just to your favourite mates?

        • Bearded Git 5.1.3.1
          26 July 2014 at 12:06 pm

          Polling Clem. Greens have consistently polled 10-15% for several years. If another party can do that they should be there too.

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.3.2
          26 July 2014 at 5:25 pm

          There should certainly be an all-leaders debate at some point, but I think it’s also reasonable to have a main leaders debate. (It’s really UNreasonable of course, to restrict media coverage to only the two largest parties) If a party holds 15% of the vote, it’s now representing slightly more than one in seven people in the country. I’m not sure at that point it’s really fair to call them a minor party. None of the leaders of other parties than National, Labour, and the Greens even arguably represent 1 in 10 New Zealanders, let alone 1 in 7, and they should rightly belong in an extended all-leaders debate.

          • felix 5.1.3.2.1
            26 July 2014 at 8:21 pm

            One in ten?

            Apart from the Greens and Winston, none of them represent more than one (maybe two) out of a hundred.

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.4
        26 July 2014 at 12:03 pm

        In practical terms, yes, the Prime Minister in a parliament system of any country does have a powerful position..

    • tinfoilhat 5.2
      26 July 2014 at 11:58 am

      If Cunliffe is “the leader of the opposition” why is it that The Greens have been doing all the work of the opposition while Labour has been concentrating on all the gaffes and distractions ?

      • alwyn 5.2.1
        26 July 2014 at 6:21 pm

        That, tinfoilhat, is something that you are going to have to address to the Labour Party.
        Nobody here is going to be both a Labour Party member AND be willing to say that their current leader is an incompetent idiot.
        The “Leader of the Opposition” is a statutory role and is laid down in the Rules of Parliament. It is the leader of the party that is not in Government and which got the largest party vote in the previous election.
        Like it or lump it Labour got two and a half times the party vote that the Green Party got. The New Zealand First party, in percentage terms, was closer to the Green Party that the Green Party were to Labour. Only Green Party enthusiasts can really claim, with an attempted straight face, that the Green Party is really in the same ball park as National and Labour rather than down squabbling with the remainder of the minor parties.

    • Tracey 5.3
      26 July 2014 at 3:41 pm

      It is not a leaders debate if all current leaders are not present. Polls are not elections. IMO debates/tv time can only be based on current representation not polls.

      • Clemgeopin 5.3.1
        26 July 2014 at 7:00 pm

        The CURRENT representation IS that the National party leader is the PM and the Labour party leader IS the leader of the opposition. Hence only those two qualify for the main leaders debate.

        How about 4 debates, one every 10 days (or fortnight) as follows:

        [1] The Main leaders, Key-Cunliffe, debate 1
        [2] The Rest of the leaders debate
        [3] ALL leaders debate
        [4] The Main leaders, Key-Cunliffe, debate 2

  6. disturbed 6
    26 July 2014 at 11:41 am

    TVNZ and Radio National has now been placed under control and direct scrutiny of a Government selected panel of content scrutinisers probably set up by our Minister of Propaganda.

    Like Joseph Goebbels did successfully do for Adolf Hitler, they are using the public broadcaster similarly to groom him for a long future leadership so beware what this look alike 1935 Germany style campaign is trying to emulate for our Fuhrer and his storm troopers.

    Minister Steven Joyce is using a group called “Enlightenment” to host the National Party 2014 election campaign.

    Read this story played out from 1933 by the then Minister of Public “Enlightenment” and propaganda in Germany for similarities and see the likeness.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbels.html

    • ianmac 6.1
      26 July 2014 at 11:53 am

      Or currently the Russian Government controlled media which is feeding lines like the Americans filled a plane with bodies then blew it up over Eastern Ukraine.

    • tinfoilhat 6.2
      26 July 2014 at 11:54 am

      rolls eyes

      • Ann Johns 6.2.1
        26 July 2014 at 2:28 pm

        Yep, tinfoilhat, they rolled their eyes in Germany too, and afterwards they denied all knowledge.

        • tinfoilhat 6.2.1.1
          26 July 2014 at 3:22 pm

          rolls eyes again

          • alwyn 6.2.1.1.1
            26 July 2014 at 6:25 pm

            That is a very appropriate non-de-plume isn’t it?
            Seriously disturbed would be even more suitable.
            Actually he, or she should go back and look at the radio news broadcast when the first Labour Government was in power in the 1930s. In about 1938 the news broadcasts in New Zealand were prepared in the Prime Minister, M J Savage’s, office.

    • Clemgeopin 6.3
      26 July 2014 at 8:12 pm

      Thanks. That was very interesting history. Nice history website!

      From the article:

      “As a Reichstag deputy from 1928, he no less cynically gave open voice to his contempt for the Republic, declaring: “We are entering the Reichstag, in order that we may arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy from its arsenal. We shall become Reichstag deputies in order that the Weimar ideology should itself help us to destroy it.”

      Goebbels’s deeply rooted contempt for humanity, his urge to sow confusion, hatred and intoxication, his lust for power and his mastery of the techniques of mass persuasion were given full vent in the election campaigns of 1932, when he played a crucial role in bringing Hitler to the centre of the political stage. He was rewarded on 13 March 1933 with the position of Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which gave him total control of the communications media – i.e. radio, press, publishing, cinema and the other arts.”

  7. Foreign Waka 7
    26 July 2014 at 11:56 am

    As always, the fear of loosing the grip on power is a large motivator for having NZ moving back in the future of the glorious 50’s. Except, state housing is off the agenda. This is in fact visible from all angles within society, workplace included.

  8. Kat 8
    26 July 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Hosking is such an obvious sycophant to John Key that he will immediately make David Cunliffe appear the underdog. David Cunliffe has far superior intelligence over John Key and David Cunliffe just needs to demonstrate that fierce intelligence along with some political nous to show New Zealanders who they should be voting for.

    But, this 2014 election is as much a test for voters as it is for the political parties. The results on September 20th will show just how mature the electorate really is, or isn’t.

    • David H 8.1
      26 July 2014 at 6:02 pm

      But as soon as Cunliffe starts to get the better of TricKey, then Hoskins opens his mouth and interrupts the flow with an inane question to TricKey. And the flow is lost and the circus moves on to the next act, all nice and peaceful.

  9. disturbed 9
    26 July 2014 at 12:27 pm

    This election will decide weather NZ has a future or simply be sold to his Corporate mates.

    Lets hope KDC has a trump card as he says he has in the long video clip taken at the ZBTalkback show on the 22nd July.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=144347

  10. Jack 10
    26 July 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Very disturbing what is going on in NZ Politics and MSM these days we are being treated like mindless morons having to digest the bile day after day, where is the balance.

  11. McGrath 11
    26 July 2014 at 1:19 pm

    And how does all this help Labour? Is this really one of the “big issues” out there that needs focusing on?

    • karol 11.1
      26 July 2014 at 1:28 pm

      I’m more interested in the broad Left in NZ. The state of our media should be an election issue.

      • McGrath 11.1.1
        26 July 2014 at 1:44 pm

        Ok, then how does this help the Left? There is precious little time to go before the election. Hosking is a side-show that is chewing up time the Left does not have.

        • karol 11.1.1.1
          26 July 2014 at 1:49 pm

          TVNZ is a major player in the election. It is them as much as Hosking that I am critiquing.

          The political parties need to focus on their policies and values, for sure. But the media still needs to be held to account for their role by those of us that comment on politics and the news.

          And, as I said, the media and broadcasting is an important election issue especially with respect to the role of our state-supported broadcaster, TVNZ.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.2
      26 July 2014 at 4:11 pm

      This issue of political commentators bias was FIRST raised by John Key.

      He was belching about Linda Clark – of all people.
      Apparently she had some contact with Cunliffe- just as it was raised about Hoskings work for the National Party

      But it was Key who raised it first. Seems to have been forgetton but was only a few weeks back

  12. RedBaronCV 12
    26 July 2014 at 1:30 pm

    I too think the Greens should be in this debate they are a substantial third party.

    However, I’m sure Mike lobbied very hard for this gig largely I suspect to try and repair his fragile ego and have some ratings for his salary negotiations.

    His current affairs show doesn’t do so well I believe, (not that I have ever watched it) and I’m not sure that his election night coverage gets the viewers either.

    I have vivid memeories of one election night, when he was interviewing Michelle Boag (dressed in a purple cat suit no less) on a sofa that should never have been allowed on a set ( I suspect a disgruntled backroomer did that) as it threw them into each others laps. To this day I have no idea what they were talking about as I watched in gobsmacked fascination before my brain rebooted and I went back to an animated discussion elsewhere.

    Other than that we get white males, jobs for the boys by the boys

  13. disturbed 13
    26 July 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Agreed Jack.

    I lived last as a born and bred Kiwi in Canada and US, to now have some overseas instincts how others think and vote.

    In N.Z. now we now see this constant media right wing prop up as a concerted planned approach to mind control a small country known to be “politically stable to keep voting for right wing Government’s as a litmus test for other countries to follow.
    NZ is well regarded by all we spoke to while away between 1988 and 1998.

    So our fear is they are using the German pre-war model known to have been the most effective way of capturing the minds and hearts of a entire population ahead of a large scale political change, and we are disturbed as to what that major secretive change this Government will spring on us post election if they get back in. Perhaps more major sales of our last assets and a break away from British empire with changing of the flag.

    We all should be very concerned at what this lot are plotting ahead so secretly. Come clean Key before the election as you challenge others to do.

    We favour a call to opposition parties all now to boycott this election process and stop the clock and have a thorough independent look into the bias here.

    • Ann Johns 13.1
      26 July 2014 at 2:41 pm

      Hate it, but I agree. JK and Keyparty have kept the set of hands above the table, in distraction mode, while the hands under the table, are doing what???? Plenty. He is a traitor. There is no way he can get off that train, his future actions have already been decided, not by him, and he is busy running to schedule. He hasn’t talked about the TPPA for a while, it has been sunk by the media. What was he really doing for the 10 days he claims he was in Hawaii. He is a lying, cheating, thieving scum bag and why he is still the PM, is beyond my understanding. What is happening here? We have Ministers of the Crown committing crimes and not having to face any consequences. We have corruption and deception and lies fed to us on a daily basis, and it is never questioned. There is no journalistic integrity left in MSM, they are working against us. I have wondered for a while why we invested in the most powerful computer in the southern hemisphere, just to “predict the weather”. No there is far too many happenings of a sinister nature happening, for it to be dismissed as yet another conspiracy theory. This is no normal state of affairs, it has been cleverly engineered. A lot of the world leaders in the first world have been using the same spin doctors, Crosby Textor, to sell themselves to the gullible public. Crosby Textor is an evil entity, I invite you all to research some of their antics. We are living in a critical time and we all need to stand up and be counted.

  14. SPC 14
    26 July 2014 at 1:53 pm

    There is a distinction between presenter, commentator and journalist.

    A presenter and or a journalist are suitable for debates, not commentators. To any extent Hosking is more than a presenter it is as a commentator.

    It is not so much bias, but being just someone with their own public opinion in the market that crowds the debate environment.

    His selection demonstrates the lack of respect for journalism at TVNZ, and the over importance of celebrity, rather than content. Not just in their focus on ratings – but in their perception of his standing relative to real journalists.

  15. Bill 15
    26 July 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Perhaps a bit of an aside. But why is there a debate between just Key and Cunliffe anyway? If that goes ahead, then who the fuck with any kind of voting base from the right takes part in any other debate from leaders of the other parties?

    I honestly believe that Cunliffe should pull out on the grounds that the electorate deserves fuller information on the different perspectives being posited this election. First past the post, it ain’t. So kick this anachronistic ‘head to head’ debating format into touch.

    • Tracey 15.1
      26 July 2014 at 3:46 pm

      He will start as under dog. Just as key did against clark. Even though key didnt win the first debate he did better than expected so a perception was he won… That could be in cunliffes favour

      • Bill 15.1.1
        26 July 2014 at 3:54 pm

        Do I take it from your comment that you believe a debate between the leaders of just two parties represents the full gamut of political choices that face voters?

      • Matthew Whitehead 15.1.2
        26 July 2014 at 5:27 pm

        Do remember that a lot of that “perception” was from a right-wing media that was advocating a change of government. I don’t think media will attempt to shape opinion that way this time.

    • Clemgeopin 15.2
      26 July 2014 at 7:33 pm

      “If that goes ahead, then who the fuck with any kind of voting base from the right takes part in any other debate from leaders of the other parties?”

      There will be ACT’s fillosopher Whyte, the UF’s Hairdo, the Cons chief Colin from Bays and of course, the Pro Nat Flavell !

      [P.S : May be also invite someone from the Exclusive Brethren and some hood wearing White Supremacist racist wit nit too? to balance the progressive Greens and Internet Mana]

      Don’t know where Winston will fit!

  16. Hagar 16
    26 July 2014 at 3:58 pm

    I reckon Shane Taurima should do the moderating.

  17. The Real Matthew 17
    26 July 2014 at 7:03 pm

    Any chance you could be a little less racist in future posts?

    • karol 17.1
      26 July 2014 at 7:09 pm

      Pointing out white male privilege is racist?

      • Mike 17.1.1
        27 July 2014 at 1:52 pm

        I do not agree with the concept of white male privilege. In fact, white males are legislated against. I believe is a code word for white male treason, as white males constantly vote for policies that are against the good of the nation.

        Thus, they deserve, in my view to be legislated against. A nation should not support traitors.

        • Rupert 17.1.1.1
          27 July 2014 at 2:27 pm

          You do write the oddest comments!

          • Mike 17.1.1.1.1
            27 July 2014 at 2:48 pm

            Anyone who votes for economic suicide, in my view, is a traitor. Free market is economic suicide. Marx knew this, and advocated it as the fastest way to revolution.

            I am not a utopian. I am not a Marxist. I do not want the government to wither away, in the expectation that we return to Eden. We will not, we will return to tribalism, savagery and might makes right.

            People who vote for self destruction, must be punished. For some reason that I do not understand, this punishment seems to be meted out to the collective.

            A great fan of the Bible, I give you this verse.

            —

            Leviticus

            19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, so thou shalt not bear sin on his account.

            —

            Anywise – “in any manner or way”

            Those that sit by while their brothers vote for suicidal destructive policies are like the Germans that quietly acquiesced in Nazi Germany. They will be collectively punished. The allies did not ask which houses contained Nazi sympathizers and which ones contained people who did not agree with the Regime. They let the bombs fall.

            For some unfathomable reason, this is the way of the world.

  18. philj 18
    26 July 2014 at 7:58 pm

    xox
    I wasn’t aware of there being any left wing journalists in the MSM in NZ. I see Campbell as a compassionate, concerned, fair minded centrist Kiwi. The RWNJ (‘journos’) frame him as a leftie. It’s not called National media for no good reason.

    • Clemgeopin 18.1
      26 July 2014 at 8:22 pm

      I agree! Remember the time just before an election how Campbell unfairly gazumped Helen Clark about GE with serious damage to Helen and the Labour vote?

  19. Stuart Munro 19
    26 July 2014 at 9:21 pm

    I wonder myself if the issue really is about white males – Hoskings is such a pathetic specimen of that group – like the after segment of a Justin Bieber anecdote.

    Imagine that the consummate professional Geoff Robinson was to compere the debate – no one would be objecting, and the gender issue – though real – would not be unduly problematic.

    The issue is professionalism – and Hosking is a disgrace to his profession.

    • Clemgeopin 19.1
      27 July 2014 at 12:15 am

      There is a distinct lowering of standards and bias in our news peddling journos, the political ‘commentators’ and the MSM.

      Take a look at this news item today and the put-down type or inaccurate type of head line about Cunliffe. I don’t see that about Key or National often, if at all.

      The news item is this:
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10314780/Labour-comeback-will-be-a-surprise-Cunliffe

      What Cunliffe actually said was this:
      Cunliffe said starting out as underdogs was a great place as “it’s all up from there, we have the power of surprise”.

      The headline of the article was:
      Labour comeback will be a ”surprise” – Cunliffe

      That has a different meaning. Not quite what Cunliffe said.

      Any one of these headlines would have been fairer:
      [1]Cunliffe : Multicultural team for a multicultural community
      [2] Labour would campaign hard on one issue per week.-Cunliffe
      [3] Labour could form Govt by pulling itself to mid-30s-Cunliffe
      [4] Cunliffe says starting out as underdogs is a great place to be in
      [5] “it’s all up from underdog position, we have the power of surprise”-Cunliffe
      [6]”We have the power of surprise”-Cunliffe
      [7] The focus of Labour’s election campaign was to stay positive-Cunliffe
      [8] Our comeback will have power of surprise-Cunliffe

      None of these nor the actual report equates to the stupid misleading headline:
      ‘Labour comeback will be a ”surprise” – Cunliffe’

      What do you think?

      • Clemgeopin 19.1.1
        27 July 2014 at 12:33 am

        The BEST from my point of view would have been the factual:

        Red-scarf wearing members cheer Cunliffe

      • Stuart Munro 19.1.2
        27 July 2014 at 12:47 am

        Yes – this caption not matching the contents is a frequent occurence in the Herald too.

        I expect this cascading decline in journalistic integrity can readily be identified in Fox news too, though from when I couldn’t state with certainty as yet.

        Frankly, this is enemy action, and I don’t mean mere Gnat partisanship. Democracy requires a scrupulous and objective media, so that organised subversion of it is an attack on the state. Bainimarama’s determination to renationalise his country’s media was not casual, nor was it in principle misplaced, though he may have (improperly) had some longstanding irritants in mind. A sound national media is essential, and what we have is a sick joke.

    • karol 19.2
      27 July 2014 at 9:15 am

      Indeed overall the issue is about democratic processes and quality journalism and broadcasting.

      But mixed in with that is a particularly nasty version of masculine dominance.The masculine dominance in politics is a long time dying.

      Team key have embraced it more virulently than most other NZ political parties. And under Key’s watch, the favoured journos seem to mirror his abusive (see Key in the House) style.

      It’s notable that the Leaders Debates on TVNZ have been hosted by white men – even when there are more competent women, or Maori/Pacific men, working in the organisation or industry.

      It’s interesting to note the different male hosts for the TVNZ debates under the last 2 governments. I’m not sure who was host in 2002, but I suspect it was Holmes.

      Under Clark’s watch, the nasty Nats were more in the background – on talkback radio (John Banks, etc, on blogs.) Sainsbury was the kindly uncle type.

      Then under Key’s watch we have got Espiner, and now Hosking. And the likes of Henry and Hosking have become more front and centre. And we have gradually had the owning by the Nats and the MSM of WO’s nasty, misogynistic gutter politics.

      And most recently we have had rugby news branding Key as one of the ABs’ team; the virulent ridiculing of Cunliffe for showing some care and empathy for domestic and sexual abuse survivors; the cavalier disregard for the survivor of an alleged attempted rape by a Malaysian diplomat; the under-funding of women’s refuges….. and on and on…

      A noticeable culture shift under Key’s watch. And it isn’t pretty.

      Once it was claimed that Key had won a strong majority of the women’s vote. The signs now are that support from women is on the decline. The Nasty Nats’ MO is likely to be getting noticed by more women.

      • Rupert 19.2.1
        27 July 2014 at 12:11 pm

        This poll allows you to see results by gender. I don’t see any evidence of National losing support among women. It shows the opposite if anything. http://origin-interactives.stuff.co.nz/polling/

        • karol 19.2.1.1
          27 July 2014 at 12:16 pm

          Really? select July Party vote by gender -female:

          Nat: – 3.7%
          Labour: + 1.5%
          Green: + 1.8%
          NZF: – 0.4%

          On the Graph – Blue line noticeably dropping.

          • Rupert 19.2.1.1.1
            27 July 2014 at 2:10 pm

            I think you’re reading a lot into the single July result. The overall trend since July 2012 is of increasing support for National among women. This contradicts your thesis that women are increasingly being turned off by a white male masculine culture epitomised by Key and the National party.
            Since July 2012 , female support for National has risen from about 39 to 49% while male support has risen from about 50 to 61%. Proportionately speaking therefore ( 49/39 versus 61/50 ) support for National has increased more among women than it has among men. And proportionately speaking , Labour’s support has dropped more among men than among women over the same period.

            • karol 19.2.1.1.1.1
              27 July 2014 at 2:21 pm

              Read my comment again. It’s about a recent drop in support from women as many start to realise what the Nats are about.

              • Rupert …
                27 July 2014 at 2:37 pm

                I read both your comments, the one here and one further down the thread to figure out exactly what your main point is. I accept that what you have just said now is one way of interpreting your comments.

  20. john 20
    27 July 2014 at 1:19 am

    Labours leader candidates and possibilities the last half decade more have been Goff, Shearer, Parker, Cunliffe, Robbertson, and maybe Little – that’s pretty white and make, considering the proposed man ban.

    And YOU are complaining about a domination of white males?

    After Cunliffe had previously agreed to debate Key even with Mike Hosking moderating, the campaign against Hosking just makes Labour look really weak and desperate.

    They’re starting to howl at everything, from magazine covers to tv moderators.

    • Stuart Munro 20.1
      27 July 2014 at 2:53 am

      Be grateful they’re howling not marching – a crooked election is the fastest known route to civil disorder.

      You SCUM need to clean your game the f**k up.

    • karol 20.2
      27 July 2014 at 9:01 am

      Traditionally politics carries the legacy of values, and processes of masculine dominance. It is still a presence in NZ politoics – some parties perpetuate it more strongly than others – ditto the media.

      I have been critical of the male dominance in the Labour caucus top team.

      I don’t vote for the Labour Party.

      Under Key’s watch, the Nats and their cheer teams have taken masculine dominance to a whole new, nasty, and abusive new level. TVNZ is showing some of the same values – eg with Hosking and Seven Sharp’s attempt to rebrand Slater as a nice guy.

      Mainstream TV political reporting is more masculine dominated than RNZ.

      It’s not surprising that the Nats are starting to lose the female vote. In the past they have been more successful at putting a nice, smiley man front on.

  21. Dialey 21
    27 July 2014 at 9:54 am

    Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent) wrote: “The public is not sovereign over the media; the owners and managers, seeking ads, decide what is to be offered, and the public must choose among these. People watch and read in good part on the basis of what is readily available and intensively promoted. Polls regularly show that the public would like more news, documentaries, and other information, and less sex, violence, and other entertainment, even as they do listen to and watch the latter. There is little reason to believe that they would not like to understand why they are working harder with stagnant or declining incomes, have inadequate medical care at high costs, and what is being done in their name all over the world. If they are not getting much information on these topics, the propaganda model can explain why: the sovereigns who control the media choose not to offer such material.”

    Choosing Hosking to moderate the debate shows that TVNZ is only interested in entertainment, not serious debate (they could have chosen retired Radio NZ’s Morning Report Geoff Robinson, if they believed in public service). So it’s ratings driven, therefore advertising directed, therefore appealing to the political leanings of the advertisers rather than the needs and interests of the viewers.

  22. Jenny 22
    27 July 2014 at 10:56 am

    ‘

    @karol + 1,000

    Mike Hosking is an open misogynist and disgrace to broadcasting in this country, his promotion to this high profile role bodes ill for the future of how women, Maori and the least well off will be portrayed in the media.

    Not only have Labour let themselves down by agreeing to this, they have let down Maori, Women, and the whole constituency that they claim as their own.

  23. Clemgeopin 23
    27 July 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Ultimately it is the prerogative of the studio to have any presenter they want. Not the politicians whose prerogative is to state their views and then decide to take part or not.

    If Cunliffe decides to boycott that would be a big mistake. TV1 can still decide to go ahead with Key and an empty chair to represent Cunliffe and ask Key to discuss National Vs Labour policies. (or get any low level Labour present or ex MP or activist to take Cunliffe’s place or get some other party leader in). You wouldn’t really want that, would you?

    • karol 23.1
      27 July 2014 at 1:38 pm

      I’m not advocating for Cunliffe or the Labour Party to decide on the presenter. I’m not a Labour Party member or voter. I do not speak for the Labour Party.

      It’s entirely appropriate for commentators and other members of the public/voters to criticise the choices of presenter.