Q+A and The Nation
So what were the ratings last week? 223 280 viewers for Q+A and 117 010 viewers for The Nation - In the short time The Nation has been on air, they have built up over half the Q+A audience. When they have a boring suit on, their ratings slump. When they have good panelists on, they rate strongly so they should feel pretty happy with that! However Houston, we have a problem...
The Nation
I'm sorry for getting to this debate late, but Brian Edwards blogged last night on an allegation about an event that supposedly occurred 11 months ago. I say supposedly and allegation because the claim is so huge against Garner that it demands a certain amount of gravity and fairness because IF Duncan did in fact say what has been alleged, he simply can not remain on as the Political Editor of a TV network. And sadly, until the allegation is cleared, Duncan Garner can only be referred to as Duncan "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" Garner. The allegation of course is that 11 months ago, when boarding an Air NZ Flight, Garner said "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" directly to Chris Carters face AND that Dame Margaret Bazley witnessed the entire event. Now you don't get much more credibility than Bazley and if an investigation finds that she did in fact witness this, then Duncan "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" Garner simply can not remain as the Political Editor. I blogged on this last night (it's below this post), now there is a body of work by Garner...
Flamboyant Flaming Homosexual pinko flys to Europe on your taxpayer money (probably to spend it all on expensive cocktails and lube)
...where he has attacked Chris in the exact luxury gay boy manner that Carter has complained about, so shouldn't a Political Editor with a body of work against a Politician that borders on the homophobic and who is alleged to have said "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" be investigated? Because IF Duncan "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" Garner did infact say that, he simply can not remain on as the political editor of a TV network, he's their Political Editor, not a blogger slagging someone off online!
I know a lot of you read this blog, so don't pretend you don't know what the allegation against Duncan now is and you will have to address it publicly at some stage or this will start to grow online.
ANYWAY - to this weeks show, excellent Panel, Chris Trotter and Noelle McCarthy, they are both broadcasters who know how to make commentary interesting and because the show relys so heavily on the talent of the commentators, these are great picks. Note how well they rate when they have a good panel as opposed to the ratings they have with a weak panel.
FINALLY - using the scoop the way they started instead of that awful Jane Clifton from that awful Listener magazine. The Nation reported that Bill English hid his role in a cocktail evening speech about the role of Lobby groups in politics. Now that's a SCOOP! Well done!
So it's Tony Ryall on. What the Government is up to now is slashing and burning the Public sectors and learning how to spin the lines so that it's all couched in language NZers won't associate to privatization, and Tony Ryall is amazing at it. He spins as if the Public Sector is in fact being repaved with gold, it's a great strategy but can only limp on for the short term because at some point the numbers start showing the National Party lie and Stephen dropped the numbers while Tony back peddled and used lots of 'best service for the public productivity' words.
1480 public workers sacked
460 more public workers to be sacked
36 919 public workers left
Tony did admit that there were hundreds more above that 460. When National said the Public Service would be 'capped' he meant 'knee-capped'. The fact is NZers are facing the worst recession since the great depression and will need public services more now than ever, and yet this Government are slashing and burning them.
Chris gets stuck in and demands deeper philosophical answers from Tony, he is sweating being pushed by Chris to acknowledge that drowning a small Government is exactly what National Party's do every time they get into power.
Moment of current affairs gold - Tony Ryall to Chris Trotter, " We're not taking an ideological view to this Chris" - I laughed so hard I spilled my coffee.
Interesting they had an American Academic on pointing out that China ain't the freedom loving fun guys here to help and that they are very hard nosed and need a policy that is 'realistic'. Nice to see we are getting softened up to be the South Pacific Pinata between China and America.
The lighting and makeup makes Jane Clifton look like she is undead, it's so unflattering it's not fair of me to bring it up. I just think that we have a host of a show who used to be Gerry Brownlees Press Secretary so why have a commentator who is also Murray McCully's press secretary?
Oh and God isn't The Listener an awful wanky right wing lifestyle magazine for vacuous consumer housewives with a slight left wing aesthetic? I always forget to slag it off whenever I'm on the Panel with Joanna Black so I am glad in a way that I get to weekly flog it now.
Interesting bit on the South Island's richest man Alan Hubbard. Difficult to tell if he's a nice old bugger who's getting heavied by the G man or a scammer who has blown everyone's money.
I switched over to watch the lat ten minutes of 'Tomorrow's World' on Prime. It's a crazy evangelical 'news' show connecting current affairs with prophecy in the Book of Revelations. Apparently an army of 200 million is coming. I'm not sure how Haliburton will be able to pay everyone on time with that much data loading required for 200 million employees. It sounds like they could use Tony Ryall to slash some of those employees, does an Army REALLY need to be 200 million strong to cause an Armageddon? Couldn't some of that be contracted out to Black Water? I suggest a Public Private Partnership to slim down the size of the Army for Armageddon, we are after all having to belt tighten everywhere, and that includes the final battle between good and evil.
Q+A
Dr Jon Johansson is on the panel with former Green MP Sue Bradford and Business New Zealand CEO Phil O’Reilly, good to see Sue on the panel.
Rodney Hide is in the hot seat re his climate change lunacy (excellent) and they have Australian Labour Party insider Bruce Hawker on to explain the coup in Australia.
Paul's 'phone call' in the middle of his opening monologue is just genius! The opening monologue really is brilliant now, why can't Paul Holmes be like this all the time? (It was great seeing him and that Dennis Conner interview last night on Prime's brilliant 50 year history - isn't it an irony that Rupert Murdoch can do public broadcasting better than our own actual public broadcaster???).
So the Labour Party insider is on attempting to explain the speed of the corporate coup by the mining industry against Kevin Rudd. Hawker isn't explaining it well, no one likes having to explain a mining company coup.
The corporate media beholden to the corporate mining company opinion polls are heavily promoting that Gillard is now back in control to minimize the impact of the coup and are as obviously manipulated as the ones used to destabilize Rudd in the first place.
It's a bullshit interview because Hawker clearly had no idea what the bloody hell happened either, every one pussy foots around the power of the mining industry.
Next is Guyon taking on Rodney re climate change - this SHOULD be a bloodbath, Hide has said all sorts of crazy bullshit on climate change, he has claimed that a 2 degree rise in temperature would be ‘beneficial’ for NZ and that C02 is a ‘misunderstood nutrient’ and he changed his policy to climate denying after being given a donation from climate denier Alan Gibbs - roast him Guyon....
It waffles on for a bit, until Guyon finally gets to the real issue, which is that ACT are flat earth climate deniers. Rodney claims NIWA are liars and that work ACT has done has forced NIWA to admit climate change isn't happening. Guyon puts to Rodney that ACT are a bunch of conspiritorial nutters on climate change, Rodney babbles on proving Guyon right.
Rodney's argument that the tiny change NZ does won't do anything - really Mr Hide? Woman voting in NZ was a small thing, nuclear free was a small thing, a fair welfare state was a small thing - we have led on these issues in the past (the right wing argue we shouldn't lead now, those right wingers are called Australians).
Guyon should have goaded Hide on climate change, there is so much that could have been thrown at Hide, it's a shame he didn't get hammered like he should have. Well played Mr Hide, you escape real scrutiny once again. Personally I think this would be important...
Hide’s repositioning coincided with a major donation to ACT by Alan Gibbs, a wealthy NZ businessman best known here for his Aquada (a sportscar that thinks it’s a boat) and for his generous patronage of modern art. Gibbs, however, also plays a prominent role in climate crank organisations. He is on the “policy advisory board” of the International Climate Science Coalition (with such luminaries as Monckton, Bryan Leyland and Owen McShane), while his daughter Emma is listed as a director of the ICSC. In its election spending return to the Electoral Commission, ACT reveals that on April 9th 2008 Gibbs paid $100,000 into the party’s coffers. Within weeks, the party’s new climate denial line was being pushed to the press.
...apparently none of that is important enough to ask ACT questions about when discussing their climate denial policy.
posted by Bomber @ 7:41 am
6 comments
6 Comments:
Did Dame Margaret Bazley see me fuck this goat anon? If she did, fair call, onus on me, she's a pretty credible witness. Look, it's real simple IF Duncan said that, he has to stand down, it is a serious allegation, and there is a clear credible witness in the form of Dame Margaret Bazley, and she HAS to be asked if this allegation is true.
When John Campbell said in Public that he voted for the Greens he was reprimanded as his role as an interviewer was compromised by that revelation. If Duncan really said to Chris Carter's face in public with credible witnesses, "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you", he must resign from his position. If it is a lie Brian Edwards owes Duncan a massive apology.
Did Dame Margaret Bazley see me fuck this goat anon? If she did, fair call, onus on me, she's a pretty credible witness
If Dame Bazley wants to take this further, sure, but till then, Garner has to prove nothing.
When John Campbell said in Public that he voted for the Greens he was reprimanded as his role as an interviewer was compromised by that revelation.
Sure.
Campbell posted his political colours to the mast, not a good thing if you a trying to be an objective journalist.
However, Garner, if true, has expressed his contempt of an MP who has troughed on the public tit for years, and told him.
In the end, Garner was right, only he didn't fuck Carter's career, Carter, with his hubris and sense of entitlement, fucked it himself.
If Dame Bazley wants to take this further, sure, but till then, Garner has to prove nothing.
So you accept if it is true Garner must stand down?
However, Garner, if true, has expressed his contempt of an MP who has troughed on the public tit for years, and told him.
This is a false analogy with Campbell, the integrity that Campbell has to hold onto is the exact same as Garner must hold onto. He is the Political Editor for christs sakes, not a blogger.
Let's ask this question - would it be acceptable for Guyon to have said that? No way, and it is not acceptable for Garner either, not just because Guyon is on the public broadcaster (and I use that term as broadly as I can) but because the integrity of the profession DEMANDS a level of objectivity he has utterly breached with that statement.
In the end, Garner was right, only he didn't fuck Carter's career, Carter, with his hubris and sense of entitlement, fucked it himself.
No he wasn't, we are talking a couple of hundred dollars in flowers to his partner that were paid back and travel that was actually signed off.
Garner has a body of work that borders on the homophobic where he has played up the luxury gay boy routine and combined with this allegation that he said "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" demands an investigation and if Garner has said what he is alleged to have said, he has to be stood down.
You accept standards when it came to Campbell, but are prepared to bend those standards to defend Garner. You can't have it both ways, if Garner said what he said, he has to go. The professional integrity of being a Journalist demands that.
Once again, he's a Political Editor of a TV network, he's not a blogger!
So you accept if it is true Garner must stand down?
Nope.
In the grown up world of Politics you expect a verbal stoush between Press Gallery and MP's.
This is a false analogy with Campbell,
You made the analogy, I just ran with it.
the integrity that Campbell has to hold onto is the exact same as Garner must hold onto. He is the Political Editor for christs sakes, not a blogger.
Sure.
But he hasn't come out saying "I hate Labour and will destroy it"; or "I hate gays and will destroy them", instead he purportedly had a verbal stoush with one MP he believes was ripping off the taxpayer.
Which he was.
Let's ask this question - would it be acceptable for Guyon to have said that?
Sure, why not?
It's just up to the MP's whether they want to talk to these journalists or not.
They could always starve these journalists of oxygen, then they would be ineffective.
No need for the media to self-censor.
integrity of the profession DEMANDS a level of objectivity he has utterly breached with that statement.
Do you think the media should grovel at MP's feet?
Didn't Brian Edwards famously have a go at Muldoon?
No he wasn't, we are talking a couple of hundred dollars in flowers to his partner that were paid back and travel that was actually signed off.
Riiight, you keep believing that.
Not even Labour will back you with that statement.
Garner has a body of work that borders on the homophobic where he has played up the luxury gay boy routine
Garner's MO is distasteful, but Carter didn't help himself.
Oh and the "it's cos im gay" got pretty boring pretty fast.
You accept standards when it came to Campbell, but are prepared to bend those standards to defend Garner.
Not at all.
I don't care if Campbell votes Greens, and wears a Greens tshirt on his show.
He just can't pretend to be impartial when it comes to Politics.
With Garner, I am fairly comfortable with the fact that he won't be voting for Chris Carter.
You can't have it both ways, if Garner said what he said, he has to go.
Actually bomber you can't have it both ways.
If you think Garner should be stood down, then you think the same for Campbell then.
Right?
The professional integrity of being a Journalist demands that.
Actually I expect a bit of antagonism between MP's and media.
Keep the bastards honest, no?
Btw, if Carter hadn't given Garner so much ammunition, this 11 month old story wouldn't be newsworthy.
But old Labour stalwart Brian Edwards is bravely fighting a rearguard battle against the MSM for Labour's benefit.
In the grown up world of Politics you expect a verbal stoush between Press Gallery and MP's.
Let's see, the grown up world says "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you" does it? What 'gown up' world do you belong to anon? There is a difference between a clash of ideas and a threat, Garner breached that line by saying "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you"
You made the analogy, I just ran with it.
You have purposely taken an incorrect meaning of my words. I stated YOUR analogy was incorrect, not mine. YOU compared Campbell and Garner Campbell posted his political colours to the mast, not a good thing if you a trying to be an objective journalist.
However, Garner, if true, has expressed his contempt of an MP who has troughed on the public tit for years, and told him.
I'm saying your comparison is wrong. What's good for Campbell IS good for Garner.
Sure.
But he hasn't come out saying "I hate Labour and will destroy it"; or "I hate gays and will destroy them", instead he purportedly had a verbal stoush with one MP he believes was ripping off the taxpayer.
No anon, you keep downplaying what he said as 'a stoush' as if his homophobic work to date has nothing to do with him saying "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you", that clearly shows he has a bias and if he said it he should be sacked.
As for your claim that I want a media that grovels, that is a worthless troll comment.
Your certainty that Guyon should also get away with this behaviour shows how desperate you are to defend the behaviour, it doesn't actually defend the behaviour at all.
Riiight, you keep believing that.
Not even Labour will back you with that statement.
Please show which travel was not signed off Anon.
Garner's MO is distasteful, but Carter didn't help himself.
This is no way justifies the political editor of a tv station saying "I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you"
Oh and the "it's cos im gay" got pretty boring pretty fast.
Even though there was plenty of evidence that his sexuality had a role in the luxury gay boy criticism...
Chris Carter has every right to be pissed off by media homophobia
Not at all.
I don't care if Campbell votes Greens, and wears a Greens tshirt on his show.
I don't care what you care about anon, it is the expectations of the profession that must be met, not the expectations of an anonymous poster on a blog. Being the political editor does demand more as a profession than Garner has exhibited.
He just can't pretend to be impartial when it comes to Politics.
I find your thresholds hilariously underwhelming. You seem to claim as long as Duncan doesn't vote for Chris he hasn't breached any professional standard and that John Campbell could wear a green party T-shirt and that wouldn't bother you while broadcasting, well I think those thresholds are ridiculously weak.
Actually bomber you can't have it both ways.
If you think Garner should be stood down, then you think the same for Campbell then.
Right?
Again you misinterpret what I am saying. Campbell WAS reprimanded - Garner hasn't been. There IS a standard, that's why Campbell was reprimanded, you seem to be minimizing that standard as much as you can to strengthen your claim Garner has done nothing worth punishing him for.
The Nation and Q&A both seem to suffer from too much content making both panels rather useless. Its especially so on the Nation when we barely get to hear the opinions of the Panel. They ask two questions and then that's it. And I can't say I cared for the piece with the blogger (who from what I can see doesn't even blog).
Both could do with one less interview or item and more discussion with the panel. One or the other needs 30-40 minutes of content then leave the last 20 or 30 minutes of us hearing from the panel.
Post a Comment
<< Home