Latest handjob that passes as an interview on Breakfast
Jesus I hate Breakfast, is it just me or is the ex-National Party candidate and the ex-cheerleader worse since National were elected? Grey-ham Hunt, National Party Historian, is on Breakfast explaining to the ex-cheerleader why the Police need to spy on protest groups, why we need to know the sexual history of activists and why we need new powers to do that, it was just such a one sided donkey bray I was so glad, so happy to be able to switch over to Sunrise where there is some actual critical thinking happening. My personal laugh was when the ex-National Party candidate was talking to the Political Reporter for the National Party (I think his name is Guy Espiner) about how Labour would have nothing to talk about at question time – the worst misuse of urgency our generation has ever witnessed and the ex-National Party candidate glosses over it with a shine only the lobotomized could relate to.
posted by Bomber @ 7:17 am
15 comments
15 Comments:
Paul Henry does grate on me. But if you are claiming "cheerleader" status I don't think Driver will ever live down his backside licking of Helen Clark at the 2005 music awards. He set his colours to the mast and his interviewees will be conscious of that (as they will be for Driver). Having said that, Driver is a better interviewer but he still comes across as a bit of a weasel.
"... (as they will be for Henry). "
But if you are claiming "cheerleader" status I don't think Driver will ever live down his backside licking of Helen Clark at the 2005 music awards.
Mark - Pippa is a former cheerleader, you are listening to a former National Party candidate and a former cheerleader for your breakfast news. Driver has never been a cheerleader and his attack on Brash at the 2005 music awards was hilarious.
Oh I find this amusing. The left jump up and down at journalists who seem to hold a worldview other than their own. Take Leighton Smith for instance, the 'King of NZ talkback'. Rather than 'disagree' or even engage, the left seem to want to see him destroyed.
Driver is pro-Labour. Good for him. You never see the left slam the bias there - it is selective.......basically the problem is that the left don't want objective media, they don't want right wing media, they only want media that reinforces their world view...
Oh I find this amusing. The left jump up and down at journalists who seem to hold a worldview other than their own. Take Leighton Smith for instance, the 'King of NZ talkback'. Rather than 'disagree' or even engage, the left seem to want to see him destroyed.
Driver is pro-Labour. Good for him. You never see the left slam the bias there - it is selective.......basically the problem is that the left don't want objective media, they don't want right wing media, they only want media that reinforces their world view...
For someone who took an absolute beating over the right to sack powers you're walking around with a chip on your shoulder sdm. Leighton Smith is a bigoted old cunt, that's why people don't like him sdm and Driver is a rare voice of liberalism in the mainstream media, but don't let those facts stop you sdm, keep your hate attack against the left going while your misuse of urgency right wing mates are in power.
paul henry , like his chum paul holmes , is NOT a journalist. He's an entertainer - and a bad one at that.
I watched appalled as he headed off on one of those junkets NZ' "celebs" head off on regularly , some kind of travel-show trough swill - "Intrepid Journeys " - anyway paul henry showed himself up to be a total tosser , like the age old loud american tourist but 10 times worse. He was RUDE, arrogant ( "i hope you've washed your hands before handling my food" ) and embarrassing.
I felt mortified that he was any kind of representative for NZ out there in the world and hoped that maybe the locals had confused him with an Australian.
As for his "journalistic" qualifications -
1/Failed Tory Candidate
2/( Failed) Fling with Diane Foreman
3/Belongs to the "i'm a gnome whose initials are P.H Club " - ( Membership : 2 )
4/He's on the State TV Gravy Train and shows no sign of wanting to get off any time soon.
Never watch breakfast Tv and not likely too , especially while he's there
Paul Henry is the primary reason I don't watch Breakfast. He's an arrogant fool of the sort I definitely do NOT need to see until later in my day....if I have to suffer such people at all.
HAHA! God you are funny.
Expecting journalistic integrity from a breakfast show host.
Almost as bad as expecting it from a journalist?!
Journalists are generally pond scum and just as greedy and undermined as the scumbags they interview. With VERY FEW exceptions.
Breakfast show hosts are worse than this.
Both share the same aim - infotainment.
Since when did "infortainment" mean you openly support your tory mates and then openly bag and insult your opposition???
I expect all guests to be given a fair shot and not have to put up with constant snide remarks and ramming shitting fuckedup comments down peoples throats from 6.30am - 9am each day!
He wouldnt like it if Helen Clark started making comments about his marriage breakdown or his mental illnesses while being interviewed?
Sack the bastard and send him to work at the Herald....s
...totally deeeelicious to read leftie agitation re the media. Just to rub it in, isn't it good to see the Listener back as a main stream organ, rather than a whining lefty rant ?
Since when did "infortainment" mean you openly support your tory mates and then openly bag and insult your opposition???
You are speaking to journalistic integrity here, not the contents of infotainment.
Infotainment can be anything, as long as its entertaining and delivers "information". (no qualifications as to the quality of that infomation)
As such, infotainmentist Paul Henry is more within his mandate to use it as a personal right wing vehicle. A breakfast show host is effectively an opinionist after all and Paul's opinions are right wing.
Journalistic Integrity is what stops a right-leaning journo from framing an interview in a particular way. A journalist should always ask the hard questions and at least sometimes play devils advocate to discover the whole picture.
(note: this is different to blindly giving "50%" to "each side of the story" which is naive and ignorant as most issues have more than one side and are almost always not equally important)
Paul has no reason to be this. I would also argue that almost all journalists don't bother much with this either.
I have to qualify this statement that that what I mean is that they do this 10-40% of the time and only on "soft targets".
There is nothing wrong with cheerleaders, B - I see your point but engaging in such activities does not necessarily negate having a brain.
Ayrdale: My "mainstream" heeds evidence and complies with reality. This mainstream is too often a minority.
Your "mainstream" doesn't appear to pay much attention to evidence, verifiable facts or reality (judging by much of what I now read in the Listener).
Instead, they prefer beliefs that may have nothing whatever to do with reality.
Remember that Georg W Bush's economic policies were based on strongly held beliefs...and precipitated the largest financial and economic crisis since WW II.
But that reality won't mean a thing to your mainstream. Clearly, it doesn't mean a thing to National as they continue to advocate and pursue the same policies that lead to the present situation.
Dumb....but "mainstream".
Oh I find this amusing. The left jump up and down at journalists who seem to hold a worldview other than their own. Take Leighton Smith for instance, the 'King of NZ talkback'. Rather than 'disagree' or even engage, the left seem to want to see him destroyed.
Driver is pro-Labour. Good for him. You never see the left slam the bias there - it is selective.......basically the problem is that the left don't want objective media, they don't want right wing media, they only want media that reinforces their world view...
Yeah, um actually what I'd prefer is if people just admitted which 'wing' they belong to. Then I could watch any television and know what I'm getting instead of expecting a balanced interview but realising halfway through that I'm being robbed. We dog "biased American media" but at least you can turn on the telly and know what slant they're going to be taking. Over here they wank on about 'unbiased' media - Paul Henry might as well admit he'd happily live in JKs postbox. Wouldn't it be nice if presenters just wore some kind of badge to show their affiliation???
If you think Breakfast is bad check out the lipstick-fascist Deborah Hill Cone's attack on Pilger in the latest 'Internaut' column (Listener). I was grinning, even before I read the next offering, which outlined her 'journalist' training in the US. Who do these people think they are kidding? They manufacture consent and the dishonesty is in yo face.
Post a Comment
<< Home