Media have big buts

I am not sure why our fearless media have to qualify any statement, the least bit provocative, with a prefix such as “Nobody condones violence against women…” or “Few would argue that porn is a menace to the community…”.

When a story starts that way, it is usually followed by a but—a big but. It is like the writer finds the need to recuse himself from the story before he writes it. Or, even more common, the interviewer who distances himself from the question he is about to ask by starting with “What do you say to people who say…” I say, just ask the damn question!

That said, I am going to plead guilty to doing the same with the following…

Nobody condones violence against animals, BUT isn’t the call by animal rights groups (NZ Herald today) to have CCTV in milking sheds over the top?

Yes, there is one person charged with maltreating cows while milking and, yes, the evidence is supplied by CCTV footage of his actions. But, do we really need CCTV in every cowshed because of the actions of this one man?

Federated Farmers dairy chairman Chris Lewis said in the same Herald story that a lot of work with animals happened outside the milking shed and it would be impossible to have cameras over the whole farm to keep an eye on staff. CCTV would be snooping on staff and would create paranoia he said.

Ministry for Primary Industries acting director of compliance services Gary Orr said MPI had no legal authority to put cameras on farms for breaches of the Animal Welfare Act.

Associate Agriculture Minister Meka Whaitiri said yesterday more animal welfare inspectors was a priority. Then went on to say: “"Any ill-treatment of animals, regardless of whether they are companion animals, farm animals or animals for entertainment, is not acceptable." There we have her making the qualifying statement—the “out”—after the primary statement. And all she succeeds in doing is state the obvious.

The point is, though, this call by animal rights groups is, in my view, just plain silly at best and a cheap, opportunist attempt to get some free publicity—some fake news—at worst.

Of course, I am not saying that animal rights groups don’t have a role, but…

-->

The Media vesus Donald Trump

There are some astonishing stories coming out of America these days, aren’t there? Most involve their President and many are contradictory. So much so that a new phrase, alternative facts, has been coined.

But what—and who—are we in New Zealand to believe? And do we care? Well, to answer the second question first: yes, we care or should do. Whatever is going on in America at the moment will have global ramifications—at the very least economically and quite possibly and disastrously militarily. American “issues” have always impacted on the rest of the world. What is different now is that those issues seem to be out of control and so, seemingly, is the President. That is deeply disturbing and dangerous. Yes, we should care.

And who are we in New Zealand to believe? Sean Spicer? Fox News? Mike Pence? None of those, anyway. I honestly don’t think they believe in what they are saying—certainly Mike Pence doesn’t, and he has been openly contradicted by his President/boss. Some of the proclamations (are they anything else?) emanating from Fox News under the guise of “news” are at best opinions and at worst propaganda. Don’t even start me on Spicer—the antithesis of C.J. Craig (you had to be there). So, that is basically the Trump camp with little credibility.

But, what of the other side? The media. Can we believe them? They certainly seem determined to find, extract and exploit every weakness, lie, damage, insanity, misstep (choose your own word) from the Trump presidency. Maybe there is some truth in Trump’s statement yesterday that he is the victim of a witch hunt and that no previous politician has ever faced such a level of scrutiny.

However, that doesn’t mean what the media are saying—are reporting—is untrue. And that is the key, I believe. That is the difference. On the Trump side, we are offered more often than not denials, contradictions and hyperbole—and often offered them, if body language is any indication, with unctuous reluctance. On the media side, we are given facts, provable facts, often based on the utterances of Trump officials and mostly attributable. Yes, the media may be a little intense –even shrill—at times, but this shouldn’t obviate the innate truth of what they are saying.

That said, I don’t believe the media will drive Trump out of office, as they did to Nixon. They are up against too formidable and staunch an opponent, Trump’s ego, to do that. Nor do I think there is a smoking gun—an impeachable offence—of sufficient magnitude to do that. What I think will drive him from office, or at least restrain him from seeking reelection, is boredom. His own. I don’t think he wanted the presidency in the first place. I think he saw his campaign as something of a reality show driven in part by ego. In my opinion, I don’t think he was  prepared to go the distance; I think it was his intent to pull out of the race after fueling his ego on the big stage. But then momentum took over and he stayed the distance. He won, and now he’s saddled with a job that will tie him down for four years.

If I am right in that contention, President Donald Trump, forced into the job that he is, would likely not run full-term. I think he would like to get out of the job before that. And he and his advisors could easily come up with an excuse to do so.

But, here is the dichotomy: the media won’t let him.  I think Donald Trump is sitting there in the Oval Office (or, more often, Mar-a-Lago) backed into a corner (not that there are any in the Oval Office) because his ego won’t allow him to be hounded from office by the “criminal” media. In many ways, it is that media, and his ego, that are feeding an ill-advised determination to stay.

It could be said, and I never thought I would say it,  it might be best for Donald Trump, for the world and for us, if we just left him alone for a while.

Let’s pick on Wogistan instead.

Leaning to the right

It may have been used before but I first heard the term “New Journalism” in relation to American writers of the 60s Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson and others. As I understand it New Journalists didn’t just report on the story, they became part of the story and, in the case of Hunter S., became the story. Today’s journalists could and should have learnt from that. To do that. We then wouldn’t have had so many recent cases of shoddy reporting. Take the Jesse Ryder affair. When that story broke we were told that Jesse was in a critical condition with a fractured skull, broken ribs and a collapsed lung after having sustained a brutal and prolonged attack where he was beaten mercilessly at the hands and feet of up to four or five men. His subsequent recovery was deemed to nothing short of miraculous. And so it would have been if the first reports had an ounce of accuracy. Instead we learn now that—allegedly—there were just two men, one (king) punch and Jesse’s injuries amounted only to severe concussion. * How could the media have got that wrong? Inexperience? Interviewing their iPads? Haste to get the story out first? Probably the latter. But even so could not “Cricketer Jesse Ryder is in hospital following what is believed to be an assault.” Suffice? With more later when the facts are procured? Another example came last night when radio news bulletins told me that 70 people had died in the Texas fertiliser explosion. This morning I read it was 15. A journalist colleague and I were both canvassed recently about the introduction of a new industry body called The Foundation for New Journalism in New Zealand. The communication was so convoluted that we were and are still unsure of what they are and what they intend. That’s not an auspicious start. That apart, it seems that one of their objectives is to arm young journalists with the skills and the ability to service the new Internet-based media. All very laudable, if late. From my point of view those new journalists, we the public and a certain cricketer from Wellington would be better served if the Foundation concentrated on teaching those new journalists the basics—the basics being get it, and get it right. * This is in no way a criticism of Mr Ryder, who has been as ill served by the media as much—if not more—than the rest of us.

Wellywood Willy

I am not going to enter into the Wellywood debate. Well I would, but I am so over it. Shakespeare may well have had it in mind when he penned Much Ado About Nothing. But then he knew nothing of Wellywood, Hollywood or, I imagine, any other wood other than that growing on trees. He was therefore as he says elsewhere “thrice blessed.”
But in observing the debate I cannot but reflect upon the smugness exhibited by the media, most of which is located outside of Wellington. It is almost as if they see here a heaven-sent opportunity to cast aspirations in Wellington’s direction. To imply that Wellington is ripping itself apart over this issue is surely an overstatement, yet this is exactly what the, mainly Auckland based, media would have us believe.
Why? To venture an opinion, many Aucklanders consider Wellington a yoke and Wellingtonians consider Auckland a joke. In a word or five: they don’t like each other.
Admittedly, Wellington possesses a holier than thou attitude to most things, which gets up the nose of Aucklanders who would rather just go about sailing, and funding the rest of New Zealand. So to see Wellington turn on itself is apparently worthy of extravagant coverage.
Not that we in Auckland are strangers to vigorous debate—but our debates are about deeply-seated, emotion-laden issues such as whether the Warriors should play at Mt Smart or Eden Park. The sheer silliness that is the Wellywood debate is breathtakingly trite by comparison. So much so that I am lead to opine that it is nothing more than a media beat-up worthy of the worst of Mark Sainsbury.
Wellingtons don’t hate each other over this issue—they hate Aucklanders, yes, for everything—but they are fiercely and rightly proud of their city. If a few want to protect that city from the triteness that is the Wellywood sign—good on them. But it is hardly open warfare on the street.
So, let’s hear no more of the silly Wellywood debate. Willy would not have had a bar of it.

----------------
Now playing: Mirella Freni , Herbert Von Karajan: Vienna Philahrmonic Orchestra - Puccini: Madama Butterfly - Un Bel Di Vedremo
via FoxyTunes