- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, October 17, 2005

Gov-Gen directed to appoint new government

-------UPDATE--------
Prime news politically illiterate

Prime TV news is saying UF & NZF are getting "Cabinet posts" - someone tell those children at Prime "news" and Suzy Aitken that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. This is the sort of mistake that a young, female journalist would make - that's what it looks like: "Oh that's the same thing isn't it? - same diff?" No, luv, you're wrong. You're lying to the people now and you have no credibility and neither has your "news".
------------------------

5:31pm
Helen Clark has informed Gov-Gen she has a government.

National Radio. Nothing on TV. Listening to it now: Winston and Dunne as Ministers outside Cabinet - with collective responsibility only for their areas!? That's not very collective is it? Re-writing the cabinet Manual. What credibility will that have? Winston as Foreign Minister, Dunne as Revenue Minister - shit he was in that position in Bolger's day in the clothes of the United party. So they can pretend to be in opposition to everythiung except their portfolio...? Well that's novel. Or it's not novel it is just that Anderton never uses it.

This sounds ridiculous. The Greens have just rolled over. Maori party frozen out. I am a bit startled I must confess. Winston on a three year overseas night-life tour? Will he be in the country long enough to be heard? He can hardly bag the government from overseas can he? Something embarassing coming out - send Winston off to Islamastan.

Winston hates foreigners doesn't he? Or only if they are over here? No Tauranga oldies to suck up to. I'm happy being the member for the World. Oh great - a race-baiting anti-foreigner as Foreign Minister. So logical. No wonder the party President resigned.

Greens and Maori Party didn't get together to work something out. Why? Labour didn't want the Greens to? Let Dunne and Winston in. Rod Donald was trying to save face on a radio interview just beforehand - he must be bitter. Labour moves to right. As Donald has admitted "we didn't threaten them" - but that's the only way to get a deal, Rod. That's how it works. The Greens' whole understanding of playing nice and by the rules simply gets them minimal policy movement - bought out for another $10m pa. Pathetic. They are pathetic as Jeanette's perpetual hand wringing.

Winston will be pleased with himself - but at what cost to the party? "We'll sit on the cross-benches"... bullshit - all lies. Dunne will finally stop whining and can get about being the grey technocrat he always was. National, Act and Maori - and even the Greens - will probably have a lot of ammunition as the drift to the right begins to strain at Labour's underlying workers roots. Peter Fraser I tell you - it is the Clark story foretold.

8 Comments:

At 18/10/05 3:35 pm, Blogger span said...

you can fuck right off with the sexism in your update - i didn't bother reading the rest, it's put me right off.

 
At 18/10/05 4:29 pm, Anonymous RR said...

I find your aggressive language as appalling as you found the comment. The irony of that reminds me of the idiot i saw on Sunday protesting outside McDonald's (there were many of them) "Meat is murder", "McDonald's exploits cattle" i think was one sign. Our friend walks into the kebab shop opposite, asks for gluten/dairy/meat/taste-free menu choice, has it confirmed at least three times that there are no milk products in the samosa. I wondered how he felt about the cow that died to make the fuck-off leather Doc Martens he was wearing. The message gets lost for some people because of their distraction with the form it takes, rather than the substance of it. It's what people like Helen rely on to fool us.

 
At 18/10/05 5:06 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

I talked to a nice young lady at Prime news just now about the bulletin and she said she could only offer to apologise if something like that had happened... which is nice. Mistakes do happen. They have many people there apparently and it could have been any one of them - but, from my experience the one likely to drop the ball because they don't have an understanding of the "technical" issues is most likely to be "a young, female journalist."

The one example burnt into my mind by that class of person was when a YFJ expressed no concern at all when she had published that a majority with a large bloc dissenting was "unanimous". She had used the word without understanding what it meant - dah! It totally distorted the reader's understanding of a key event. That is of the same order of mistake as the one above.

I think it was the "luv" reference that was gratuitous. So here's some more:

Women, esp. young ones, are often very pedantic because that is the only measure of control they can exert competently in a situation needing an overview and information/experience that they do not have. But on issues beyond their competency they ought to be called to account for a lack of pedanticism. In the Prime case it is merely my speculation of what had occured.

I have no data or studies on gender deficiencies in media reporting, just my experience.

Although, if you witness me making assumptions about certain professions or mistakes being because they are male and then speaking about "munters" etc. I will expect an interdiction chastising my sexism on those counts too.

 
At 18/10/05 6:12 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

do yous think it time fo Green to sack red rhetoric rod?

 
At 18/10/05 6:14 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

poor old spanner in her works, she must be a thespian i think

 
At 19/10/05 10:12 am, Anonymous RR said...

here, here, Tim. Why the cliche of depicting blokes as simple/untidy/stubborn/non-direction asking morons is acceptable, when any reference whatsoever made to feminine imperfection is "sexist" annoys the fuck out of me. Is this why TV shows like Desperate Housewives are so popular? These women live in a GirlPower utopia where all the men are not only saps but essentially dispensable.

 
At 20/10/05 6:23 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

Here's another classic example from today about the hurricane Wilma bearing down on Mexico. The female reporter said it was the lowest pressure ever recorded but failed to say what it was! Absolutely typical. And why? - because it means nothing to her she has assumed it means nothing to everyone else and is just... you know... technical, boys information... Like if someone was identified as the tallest person or wealthiest, or animal was the fastest etc. she wouldn't bother to quantify it too no doubt. Just hopeless. I'd fire the dumb bitch if it was up to me.

Also, while we're at it, how often do we hear a woman's news report about an event but no expanation or hint or thought as to why the event has occured? They'll jabber on about what happened, and people's reactions to it as if that is all that is important - but we want to know why. How did it happen? But that would be too much thinking wouldn't it - too much research, too much history and context for someone straight out of polytech. Any idiot can record people's reactions - how about some answers.

The main problem is the different gender approaches to "the story":

for females it's a egoistic, personalised story with the author insisting on inserting herself into it and trying to control the story and centre it on themselves by a self-indulgent rant that forces the reader down a patronising path and only reaches something useful by a circuitous route lacking supporting data because that would give the reader control over interpretion and thus strip the female author of their power; but

for males it is hard data and context dished straight up with no padding and deviod of their own personality and feelings aimed at giving comprehensive information to back up any opinion. That's the difference.

If you doubt it just:
1. Add up how many personal pronouns are used by the author.
2. Note how soon the author addresses the heart of the story and
3. How much data, tables etc. are offered to the reader to help them draw their own conclusions.

Also, (nothing to do with gender) why are there all these foreigners, esp. Australians and British news reporters here in our media? What on Earth would they know about this country? What context could they possibly view news events in having been here for only a couple of years? With all these graduates in media related subjects pouring out we insist on hiring foreigners to tell us stories about ourselves. Really pathetic. Imagine all the NZ graduates who missed out on a job at TVNZ, RNZ, TV3 etc. having to sit there and have a foreigner tell them the news. Not all of those graduates are surely that bad? I note too that there are a large amount of NZers at the BBC - can't they find enough Brits? It is the British Broadcasting Corporation isn't it?

I'll have to make a separate post about gender issues later.

 
At 21/10/05 9:24 am, Anonymous RR said...

note too, how the BBC usually has an Irishman on the ground at the various thrid-world hell-holes around the globe. Are these race based assignments, or are the Paddy's the only staff reporters mad enough to be 'imbedded'?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home