Morgan Fahey....ChCh Mayoralty....20/20
Colin Francis
>Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
>
>Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
>
>Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
>they to fear?
>
>Toadstool.
Don't be so stupid.. These woman have made accusations to the police
and as the police say, at this stage, no further action will be taken
so it may mean investigations are not over .. One has taken her
complaint to the medical Council .. Be interesting. At least it might
clear the air, Been rumours around here for ages ..
So naturally they have the choice to disclose who they are or not ..
Col..
Would prozac have stopped the great depression ??
Toadstool
Julian S Visch
The lawyers ;)
Jim
Perhaps Morgan Fahey can stop hiding behind a cloud of medical
confidentiality
Perhaps The ladies concerned can come on out in the open
Perhaps ChCh can do without this in a marolty race
Perhaps ..... ????
Jim
North of the strait
Toadstool wrote in message ...
>Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
>
>Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
>
>Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
>they to fear?
>
>Toadstool.
Ashley Campbell
Toadstool wrote in message ...
>Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
>
>Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
>
>Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
>they to fear?
>
>Toadstool.
Toadstool,
I had heard these rumours five years ago
I suspect you will find MANY people in Chch have heard these rumours.
What have they to fear? Quite simply, a very powerful, clever man.
Which is worse, to believe every accusation of abuse, or to believe none?
Look at the statistics, mate
Tom Vavasour
>
>Look at the statistics, mate
Both are equally bad. To have a false accusation of abuse levelled at
you, and believed, can have a devastating effect on someones personal
and public life. Pre-empting the claim that to be on the receiving end
of sexual abuse is worse, I'm not seeking to say that one is worse
than the other. Both events are devastating to the individual
concerned.
I've had experience of both sides of the fence. Each has their own
pains and problems, both are extremely traumatic.
The difficulty is balancing the 2. I am opposed to the screening of
the 20/20 program last night. To expose someone who has been convicted
by a court or properly convened panel (eg Medical council) is one
thing. To subject an individual to trial by media based on the
unproven accusations of anonymous individuals is reprehensible.
You, or I, have no knowledge of whether Morgan Fahey did indeed commit
the acts he is accused of. What happens if it goes to trial? 2
problems. Firstly, even if he is cleared, he will always be associated
with these accusations, secondly how many of the prospective jury
would have seen the programme and already formed an opinion.
As a side issue. How did 20/20 get transcripts of Police interviews. I
think this is disgusting. It is one thing for statements to be
revealed in open court, quite another for a private statement given to
the police to be aired to the public. Is anyone reading this aware of
specific regulations covering the use of police statements prior to a
trial?
My opinion of TV3 in general and 20/20 in particular has fallen
dramatically. I will personally now boycott this program and any
advertisers that I am aware of supporting it. This was gutter
journalism at its worst.
...Tom
They can't break you if you don't have a spine
-Wally from Dilbert
Hugh Grierson
>Which is worse, to believe every accusation of abuse, or to believe none?
I accuse you of abusing me.
Now which do _you_ think is worse?
Simon Thompson
wrote:
> Don't be so stupid.. These woman have made accusations to the police
> and as the police say, at this stage, no further action will be taken
> so it may mean investigations are not over .. One has taken her
> complaint to the medical Council .. Be interesting. At least it might
> clear the air, Been rumours around here for ages ..
> So naturally they have the choice to disclose who they are or not ..
According to The Press, there are no ongoing investigations.
-----------------------------------------
Simon Thompson
Christchurch
New Zealand
flyer
Hugh Grierson wrote in message <6vc7ll$9e9$1...@ukko.trimble.co.nz>...
Colin Francis
>On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 23:01:45, cfra...@ihug.co.nz (Colin Francis)
>wrote:
>
>> Don't be so stupid.. These woman have made accusations to the police
>> and as the police say, at this stage, no further action will be taken
>> so it may mean investigations are not over .. One has taken her
>> complaint to the medical Council .. Be interesting. At least it might
>> clear the air, Been rumours around here for ages ..
>> So naturally they have the choice to disclose who they are or not ..
>
>According to The Press, there are no ongoing investigations.
and the police said ( also reported by the Press) No further action
will be taken AT THIS STAGE ..
M Johnson
>
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:34:58 +1300 in nz.general Jim wrote: in
> <6vboc3$eld$1...@news.wave.co.nz>:
>
> >Witchhunt is the word all right
> >Perhaps Morgan Fahey can stop hiding behind a cloud of medical
> >confidentiality
>
> the allegations are true or not, if he reveals patient details without
> their consent, then he will be struck off as a medical practitioner
> almost immediately.
That's right, women can make any kind of allegation about a male,
especially a white male doctor like Fahey, and do so from a position of
complete anonimity. Five days before an election. That is their right.
Ron Wilson
Ron Wilson
Colin Francis wrote in message <36194ec6...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool) wrote:
>
>>Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
>>
>>Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
>>
>>Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
>>they to fear?
>>
>>Toadstool.
>Don't be so stupid.. These woman have made accusations to the police
>and as the police say, at this stage, no further action will be taken
>so it may mean investigations are not over .. One has taken her
>complaint to the medical Council .. Be interesting. At least it might
>clear the air, Been rumours around here for ages ..
>So naturally they have the choice to disclose who they are or not ..
>
>
Kerry
<joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz> wrote:
>
>That's right, women can make any kind of allegation about a male,
>especially a white male doctor like Fahey, and do so from a position of
>complete anonimity. Five days before an election. That is their right.
Men could make the same accusation about a female mayoral candidate 5
days before an election also. That is their right.
M Johnson
But they don't. And the news media would not publish it.
Get real Kerry on this one.
Kerry
<joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz> wrote:
What sort of 'real' should I get?
The ability to lay complaints regarding sexual harassment is open to
both genders. In this case women have made accusations against a man,
that is their right.
What was your original point?
That women should not have the right to make complaints to the police
if they believe they have been sexually assaulted?
M Johnson
The point here is, not that women have the right to make complaints to
the police. They do and lay complaints often. The police with virtually
no exception accept those complaints and prosecute whether the evidence
supports the allegation or not. In many cases the complaint is true. In
many cases the complaint is false.
Mostly these days the police and everyone else believes the woman is
telling the truth, even when she is not.
Given the prevailing police view that the woman is always telling the
truth and the man is always guilty, the fact that the PC Christchurch
Police believe Fahey over his female opposers speaks volumes for me.
Kerry
<joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz> wrote:
>Kerry wrote:
They did?
All the news items I saw and read said they were not going to pursue
the matter further
K
Dave Maguire
>
>Which is worse, to believe every accusation of abuse, or to believe none?
>
people want to make accusations on national TV then they must be
prepared to show their face. If they want annonity then make the
accusations through the proper channels ie the police.
D
John Holley
wrote:
>On , Wed, 07 Oct 1998 08:48:59 +1200, M Johnson
><joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz>, , <361A82...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz>,
>wrote:
>
>>DPF wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:34:58 +1300 in nz.general Jim wrote: in
>>> <6vboc3$eld$1...@news.wave.co.nz>:
>>>
>>> >Witchhunt is the word all right
>>> >Perhaps Morgan Fahey can stop hiding behind a cloud of medical
>>> >confidentiality
>>>
>>> To be fair to Mr Fahey, he can do little else. Regardless of whether
>>> the allegations are true or not, if he reveals patient details without
>>> their consent, then he will be struck off as a medical practitioner
>>> almost immediately.
>>
>>That's right, women can make any kind of allegation about a male,
>>especially a white male doctor like Fahey, and do so from a position of
>>complete anonimity. Five days before an election. That is their right.
>
>No they made the allegations months ago.
>
It all comes down to whether we want to have trial by media in this
country or whether we should trust the Justice system.
I agree with the comment that if people are told by the police that they
have no case, or they decide not to deal with the police then they should
have no anonimity.
In the end, what right do any of us have to hide behind blanked out faces
and make claims of wrong doing by someone when there is no substantive
evidence to support us?
We know people make false allegations within the judicial system and how
damaging those allegations can be. Do we really want the media to become
our justice system where ratings are way more important than ethical
considerations?
John
--
John Holley Y2K Project Manager, ITSS, University of Auckland
(email) j.ho...@auckland.ac.nz
(phone) +64 9 373 7599 ext 2000 or +64 21 952 625
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Dr. M. L. King, Jr.
Tigger
> On , Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:04:40 +1300, fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool),
>
> >Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
> >Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
> >Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
> >they to fear?
>
> mother/wife/sister/partner/daughter?
> Would you want their names bandied about?
As someone said, the police appear to think there isn't enough evidence
for a case. If that's the case, then what are they doing on the media?
Going for justice? They think the cops will take note of what 20/20
(aren't they often accused of lying?) says? What these women want is to
anonymously publicly bash this guy. Whether he did it or not.
On the issue of evidence:
I caught half of the 20/20 thing on Monday night. Why wasn't their
mention of what might have been in the women's medical records? Fahey
couldn't provide them, but the women have access to their own records
and could have provided a copy. I'm not saying Fahey might have written
"12 March - sexually abused patient", but there might be interesting
things therein.
Why are they coming forward now? These accusations stem from over 10
years ago. Why now?
Did the woman on the addictive drug have any evidence at all that Fahey
put her on it? It's entirely possible it's either fabricated, or she got
them somewhere else.
He supposedly handed her the drugs. What drugs are kept at a doctor's
surgery? As far back as I can remember, we had to go to the pharmacy for
the drug, after getting the prescription.
BUT: Why did Fahey say his "bible" (book on drugs) didn't mention
addiction, when the reporter found that it said "dependence on this drug
is common and the patient should be informed"? Was the reporter actually
reading from the same book, same edition? If so, why didn't she read it
in front of Fahey, instead of in what appeared to be a darkened corridor
after the interview?
What does the fact of Fahey suing TV3 say about it? If you were guilty,
wouldn't you be afraid of such action in case evidence came to light to
show your guilt?
I'm not saying he did or didn't. But the 20/20 show raised more
questions in Fahey's favour than against him.
--
Reverend Tigger =^..^=
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Park/8426/atheism/
NEW! What Evidence Is There For God?
The nz.soc.religion 'About us' list:
http://www.freethought.org.nz/usenet/nz.soc.religion/regulars
"And Lucifer looked down upon the world and beheld the
destruction God had wrought, and he wept."
Remove .its.a.car to reply
Keith Warren
add...@body.of.message wrote:
> On , Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:04:40 +1300, fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool),
> , <MPG.1084096fc...@news.clear.net.nz>, wrote:
>
> >Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
> >
> >Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
> >
> >Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
> >they to fear?
>
> Would you say the same if the victims were your
> mother/wife/sister/partner/daughter?
> Would you want their names bandied about?
>
> Reverend James Hardley.
(commercial deleted)
You say "victims", omitting the word "alleged". Explain please.
So far, who are the people who have been doing the "bandying" and who's
the victim of their behaviour, Reverend?
Bob
M Johnson
A heap of facts and pertinent questions.
Shame on you Tigger for doing so. A good witch hunt and some malicious
anonymous allegations against a white male doctor are far more enjoyable
than asking hard questions, especially two days before an election where
he is standing for mayor.
>
> add...@body.of.message wrote:
> > On , Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:04:40 +1300, fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool),
> >
> > >Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
> > >Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
> > >Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
> > >they to fear?
> >
> > Would you say the same if the victims were your
> > mother/wife/sister/partner/daughter?
> > Would you want their names bandied about?
>
Tigger
>
> >According to The Press, there are no ongoing investigations.
> will be taken AT THIS STAGE ..
Well of course they're going to add that. That's only so that if, for
example, new evidence was found, they could reopen it. Doesn't mean
anything else is necessarily going to be done if nothing else comes to
light.
Patrick Dunford
+1300 in nz.politics:<361B0B98...@es.co.nz> didst write unto us...
Or through tacky tabloid TV3 Twenty/Twenty programme :(
--
Patrick Dunford, Christ Church, NZ
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3405/
-----------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford
17:11:36 +1200 in nz.politics:<361C49...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz> didst
write unto us...
20/20 is a tacky tabloid journalism programme.
I have lost respect for them because of their one-sided unbalanced
reporting on the Dunedin Cathedral issues a few months back.
Note, that they pulled off whatever they already had on to put on a
SPECIAL programme at very short notice. (I didn't see it but a
transcript can be found at
http://www.tv3.co.nz/2020/transcripts/index.asp)
As Fahey said, how did they know to film him entering the police station
at a certain time, etc. How is it that TV3 was able to obtain and publish
police interview excerpts?
In both of these programmes they used anonymous witnesses to make
allegations against people. In both cases those smeared by the anonymous
witnesses say they are suing TV3 for defamation. Dr Fahey's mayoral
candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
It is all a ratings war and nothing else. But it also has some connection
to a stupid legal decision in a case between David Lange and North &
South, I think.
Patrick Dunford
+1300 in nz.politics:<361C28...@mr2.its.a.car.org.nz> didst write
unto us...
>What does the fact of Fahey suing TV3 say about it? If you were guilty,
>wouldn't you be afraid of such action in case evidence came to light to
>show your guilt?
>
>I'm not saying he did or didn't. But the 20/20 show raised more
>questions in Fahey's favour than against him.
How did 20/20 get hold of police interview transcripts, or what they
purport to be transcripts? (The Privacy Act probably would not apply, but
it still raises a valid question...)
Kerry
Holley) wrote:
>
>It all comes down to whether we want to have trial by media in this
>country or whether we should trust the Justice system.
The trial by media is totally unacceptable IMO. He has not been
charged, and apparently police are not topursue the case.
What Tom said...
K
Kerry
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>Note, that they pulled off whatever they already had on to put on a
>SPECIAL programme at very short notice. (I didn't see it but a
>transcript can be found at
>http://www.tv3.co.nz/2020/transcripts/index.asp)
>
>As Fahey said, how did they know to film him entering the police station
>at a certain time, etc. How is it that TV3 was able to obtain and publish
>police interview excerpts?
Very good question. It seems totally inappropriate to me, I hope he
presses charges.
The police obviously went along with the trial by media as well
Bad form
Becky
wrote:
>
>He supposedly handed her the drugs. What drugs are kept at a doctor's
>surgery? As far back as I can remember, we had to go to the pharmacy for
>the drug, after getting the prescription.
Big Snip -
Just about the issue of drugs on the premises. Quite often doctors DO
have them in their surgery for emergencies and the like, and they also
have "trial" type versions (not sure what they call them exactly) that
the pharmacutical companies give them to promote. Not many people
know this for obvious reasons of break ins etc. But if you're hard up
enough and you need the medication, a sympathetic doctor will give you
stuff.
The Spook
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>Yea verily M Johnson (joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz) on Thu, 08 )
>
>As Fahey said, how did they know to film him entering the police station
>at a certain time, etc. How is it that TV3 was able to obtain and publish
>police interview excerpts?
>
>allegations against people. In both cases those smeared by the anonymous
>witnesses say they are suing TV3 for defamation. Dr Fahey's mayoral
>candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
>several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
>
rumoured to have used smear tactics against an oponent at the last local
body election. Using North American broadcasters with run Kenneth Starr
style public campaigns is another sympton of our media dependant society.
The answer is simple look at the main issues and turn off the TV. If someone
has the guts to stand up in public and make these statements personally then
I would believe them. Maybe Morgan did it and maybe he did not (we know
Peter Ellis did not-at least on his own) so he deserves the benefit of the
doubt. The timing of the program certainly smacks of a smear campaign
Hugh Grierson
>Dr Fahey's mayoral
>candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
>several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
The notable exception was Ms Murray. I would have lost any respect for her
(if I ever had any) when she said that Fahey should stand down from council
because they can't have that kind of allegation hanging over the city. Bitch.
-H
David Small
>
> I have lost respect for them because of their one-sided unbalanced
> reporting on the Dunedin Cathedral issues a few months back.
> As Fahey said, how did they know to film him entering the police station
> at a certain time, etc. How is it that TV3 was able to obtain and publish
> police interview excerpts?
>
> In both of these programmes they used anonymous witnesses to make
> allegations against people. In both cases those smeared by the anonymous
> witnesses say they are suing TV3 for defamation. Dr Fahey's mayoral
> candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
> several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Hard to believe. But I actually agree with Patrick, that is with his
assessment of 20/20. They have a disturbing tendency to set themselves up
as judge and jury on legal matters.
I don't know the details of the Dunedin Cathedral issue, but I wouldn't
trust 20/20's line on it. On the two cases I do know about, I believe they
got one right and one wrong.
20/20 bears a large part of the blame for most people believing Peter Ellis
is innocent. The way they covered that case (in fact TV3 was guilty of
this even before it went to court) was designed to put the case for Ellis
in the best possible light and the case against him in the worst possible
light.
They did the same with Gaye Oakes, except they got it right with her.
My broader concern is not whether they got it right or wrong. It is that we
are sliding into the American trial-by-media system. While I wouldn't
defend every aspect of the current legal system, it is essential to have
some rules about what counts as evidence and what constitutes guilt or
innocence. Unless you have agreed procedures about this, you are in danger
of just following fashions - the current one being not to believe claims of
sexual abuse. Thus you get people who will say "Ellis is innocent even
though he was found guilty" and also say that people who are found
not-guilty of sexual abuse have been the innocent victims of a witch-hunt.
In other words, when it comes to sexual abuse it is possible for an
innocent person to be found guilty but not for a guilty person to be found
innocent.
So, what about Fahey? Well who knows? But I wouldn't give any credence to
the side taken by 20/20.
David Small
--
Dr David Small Ph (643) 364-2268
Lecturer in Education Fax (643) 364-2418
University of Canterbury d.s...@educ.canterbury.ac.nz
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
Aotearoa/New Zealand
M Johnson
>
> 20/20 bears a large part of the blame for most people believing Peter Ellis
> is innocent. The way they covered that case (in fact TV3 was guilty of
> this even before it went to court) was designed to put the case for Ellis
> in the best possible light and the case against him in the worst possible
> light.
>
> They did the same with Gaye Oakes, except they got it right with her.
No, what you are saying, Mr Politically Correct, is that the Ellis
coverage didn't conform to your doctrinaire PC standards, but the Oakes
coverage did.
Ashley Campbell
flyer wrote in message <90766546...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>I accuse you of abusing me.
>>
>>Now which do _you_ think is worse?
>
I believe that to automatically assume everyone who makes an accusation is
lying is worse
But neither do I believe that everyone who makes an accusation is
necessarily telling the truth
There is such a thing as evidence, and such a thing as probability
And there are also such things as repercussions from making an accusation
Rather than a knee-jerk "bloody feminists" reaction, which reveals nothing
other than a closed and rather sad mind, how about considering all the
above?
Peter
Hugh Grierson wrote in message <6vj8pj$sl1$1...@ukko.trimble.co.nz>...
>In article <MPG.10871640e...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
patrick...@hotmail.com (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>Dr Fahey's mayoral
>>candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
>>several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
>
>(if I ever had any) when she said that Fahey should stand down from council
>because they can't have that kind of allegation hanging over the city.
Bitch.
That isn't very nice calling someone a bitch. Did you hear her say that by
the way? No? So you believe everything published by the media? Anyway, what
made you think she was a bitch, convinced me to vote for her - different
stokes huh?
Peter
David Small
<joh...@NOSPAMthepub.co.nz> wrote:
Wrong. I went to the trials and I know people involved in and incidents
relating to both cases, some of which came out in court and some of which
didn't. So I had other information on which to base my judgement.
The point of my post, which your editing (deliberately?) obscures is this:
In all but the most open-and-shut cases, you can easily mount a plausible
and usually even a quite convincing case either for or against an accused
person. That's what lawyers are paid to do every day - present someone in
either the best or worst possible light. If people only hear the
prosecution case, or alternatively only the defence case, and they are
convinced that they have heard the entire case, the vast majority will come
to the desired conclusion.
That's what 20/20 does all the time - present one side of the case as
though it is a balanced view. Unless this is made explicit, which it never
is, the public becomes convinced of the 20/20 point of view.
Juries, by contrast, hear the best argument each side can muster before
reaching a verdict.
David Small
Patrick Dunford
1998 18:55:32 +1300 in nz.reg.christchurch.general:<d.small-
ya02408000R09...@news.canterbury.ac.nz> didst write unto us...
>That's what 20/20 does all the time - present one side of the case as
>though it is a balanced view. Unless this is made explicit, which it never
>is, the public becomes convinced of the 20/20 point of view.
>
>Juries, by contrast, hear the best argument each side can muster before
>reaching a verdict.
But it was not just 20/20 that reached this conclusion. A lot of other
sensible people have independently reached the same conclusion.
Colin Francis
Given her past performances with the Waimairi Council and the CRC i
think Bitch is a pretty good description.
Col ..
"640K ought to be enough for everybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981.
Keith Warren
add...@body.of.message wrote:
> On , Thu, 08 Oct 1998 16:44:53 +1300, Keith Warren
> <gim...@ihug.co.nz>, , <361C3533...@ihug.co.nz>, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >add...@body.of.message wrote:
> >
> >> On , Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:04:40 +1300, fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool),
> >> , <MPG.1084096fc...@news.clear.net.nz>, wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
> >> >
> >> >Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
> >> >
> >> >Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
> >> >they to fear?
> >>
> >> Would you say the same if the victims were your
> >> mother/wife/sister/partner/daughter?
> >> Would you want their names bandied about?
> >>
> >> Reverend James Hardley.
> >
> >(commercial deleted)
> >
> >You say "victims", omitting the word "alleged". Explain please.
>
> I am sorry, I should have said "alleged". My apologies.
>
> >So far, who are the people who have been doing the "bandying"
>
> I used the term advisedly, often when a person "alleges" a sexual
> assault occured and their name is published, they recieve unwanted
> attention from some of the more sick minded members of society.
A poorly finessed side-step if ever I saw one. I said "...who have been doing
the bandying", didn't I? Do you or do you not agree that it has been the
"ladies" and TV3 who have been bandying Fahey's name about? .
> >and who's the victim of their behaviour, Reverend?
>
> I was refering to the people who claimed to have been sexually
> assaulted by Dr. Morgan Fahey.
You're clearly well practised in the art of "misinterpretation" aren't you?
Until indisputably proved otherwise the only assuredly victimised person in
this sorry affair has been Fahey himself, and you know it full well.
KW
Patrick Dunford
Oct 1998 20:34:14 GMT in
nz.politics:<362667a3...@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>On , Thu, 08 Oct 1998 15:48:57 +1300, Tigger
><d...@mr2.its.a.car.org.nz>, , <361C28...@mr2.its.a.car.org.nz>,
>wrote:
>
>>add...@body.of.message wrote:
>>> On , Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:04:40 +1300, fun...@clear.net.nz (Toadstool),
>>>
>>> >Oh dear, looks like fun and games in the NZ Witchhunt capital.
>>> >Shades of Peter Ellis and Civic Creche.
>>> >Pity the delightful accusing ladies can't show their faces. What have
>>> >they to fear?
>>>
>>> Would you say the same if the victims were your
>>> mother/wife/sister/partner/daughter?
>>> Would you want their names bandied about?
>>
>>As someone said, the police appear to think there isn't enough evidence
>>for a case. If that's the case, then what are they doing on the media?
>
>I suppose they were no satisfied with the police decision.
>I think people still have the right to continue to pursue a case in
>such an outcome, I guess they thought their only option to get
>"justice" was by taking it to the media.
Trial by media - hardly fair at all and prejudicial to the right of
innocence until proven guilty. If it did come to court then it would be
very difficult to get an impartial jury. I read somewhere the other day
that TV3 is in trouble for broadcasting a program about Dean Wickliffe
when he was on trial recently.
>>Going for justice? They think the cops will take note of what 20/20
>>(aren't they often accused of lying?) says? What these women want is to
>>anonymously publicly bash this guy. Whether he did it or not.
>
>I think they still have the right to remain anonymous, I think they
>must have had to identify themselves to TV3 reporters and present them
>with enough evidence, evidence that would convince the producers, the
>money men at TV3 and of course the lawyers that inevitably get
>consulted with before such a programme would go to air.
Money men wouldn't need much convincing. They pulled their normal
scheduling to put this programme on, that smacks of tabloidism and very
little else, a programme designed to push their ratings up...and thereby
increase their advertising revenue opportunity.
Lawyers, bull, these media organisations see their role as constantly
pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - we haven't yet in this
country achieved the frenzy of the Royal Family media circus in Britain
or its various US equivalents, but... wasn't it TV3's camera crews which
were hassling Tau Henare and Tuku Morgan on their front lawns?
Here's another thought - TV 1 is still NZ State owned, TV3 is wholly
owned by CanWest, a private Canadian company - it seems to me that TV3's
actions are wholly consistent with its North American ownership and the
sort of circuses they have over there...
>>What does the fact of Fahey suing TV3 say about it? If you were guilty,
>>wouldn't you be afraid of such action in case evidence came to light to
>>show your guilt?
>
>Not a lot really, he could be merely trying to deflect attention by
>playing a double bluff, but that is merely speculation and you have me
>playing your hand now :-)
The voters of Christchurch apparently don't think so as they have
returned Fahey as deputy mayor.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics:<36276cc6...@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>On , Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:51:29 +1300, patrick...@hotmail.com
>(Patrick Dunford), , <MPG.10871640e...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>wrote:
>
>
>>20/20 is a tacky tabloid journalism programme.
>
>In your opinion.
TV3 is wholly owned by a private North American company. Their news
coverage is in the finest North American traditions, of course :(
It is not the first time that TV3's actions have come under scrutiny. In
fact there have been numerous incidents, some of which I mentioned in
another post.
>>I have lost respect for them because of their one-sided unbalanced
>>reporting on the Dunedin Cathedral issues a few months back.
>
>I thought it was quite balanced.
Then you are uninformed, aren't you. A journalist working for a
respectable coffee-table magazine had little difficulty in uncovering the
bias on that occasion.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics:<36296e21...@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>On , Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:51:04 +1300, d.s...@educ.canterbury.ac.nz
>(David Small), ,
><d.small-ya0240800...@news.canterbury.ac.nz>, wrote:
>
>>So, what about Fahey? Well who knows? But I wouldn't give any credence to
>>the side taken by 20/20.
>
>I would give credence to the flock of lawyers who would have vetted
>the programme for any possibility of getting it wrong and having legal
>action taken against TV3.
I wouldn't. I would be surprised if there is any such lawyership. There
have been already a number of incidents where TV3's judgment has been
called into question. This includes, harrassing Tau Henare with a TV
camera on his front lawn, and broadcasting a programme about Dean
Wickliffe while he was on trial for criminal charges.
Kath O'Dray
>I would give credence to the flock of lawyers who would have vetted
>the programme for any possibility of getting it wrong and having legal
>action taken against TV3.
I wouldn't.
TV3 recently have recently been fined by the courts over one of their
'Current Affairs' progs. Can't recollect the details (Dean Wickliffe?)
but I think they broadcasted details of a case before the court case
had concluded.
The fine was some tens of thousands IIRC. So much for their "flock of
lawyers".
Kath O'Dray
>Yea verily add...@body.of.message (add...@body.of.message) on Fri, 09
>>>I have lost respect for them because of their one-sided unbalanced
>>>reporting on the Dunedin Cathedral issues a few months back.
>>
>>I thought it was quite balanced.
>
>Then you are uninformed, aren't you. A journalist working for a
>respectable coffee-table magazine had little difficulty in uncovering the
>bias on that occasion.
Mr. Body.of.message has told us he doesn't read that particular
publication, (he only uses the pages to line his bird cage) and hence
he would be unaware of any revelations of bias by any gutter
journalists.
Dean Bedford
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
This old canard is wearing a bit thin. No reporter can send anyone to jail.
>hardly fair at all and prejudicial to the right of
>innocence until proven guilty.
Except he isn't going to be prosecuted.
> If it did come to court then it would be
>very difficult to get an impartial jury. I read somewhere the other day
>that TV3 is in trouble for broadcasting a program about Dean Wickliffe
>when he was on trial recently.
Patrick, if you were on, say, the jury of a brutal murder case, do you think
you would be able to be fair? If the answer is yes, do you think you're
fairer than the average person?
My observation of, and participation in, juries, is that they do try their
best to be fair.
In any event, the point is moot: Fahey isn't being prosecuted.
>>I think they still have the right to remain anonymous, I think they
>>must have had to identify themselves to TV3 reporters and present them
>>with enough evidence, evidence that would convince the producers, the
>>money men at TV3 and of course the lawyers that inevitably get
>>consulted with before such a programme would go to air.
>
>Money men wouldn't need much convincing. They pulled their normal
>scheduling to put this programme on, that smacks of tabloidism and very
>little else, a programme designed to push their ratings up...and thereby
>increase their advertising revenue opportunity.
Tabloidism seems to be equivalent to "any media practice I don't like".
Think about it for a moment.... If they were really interested in ratings,
wouldn't they have had it on the normal show and promoted it hard for a
week, as they usually do their Sunday show, rather than make a last minute
decision to play it on Monday, largely unpromoted.
>Lawyers, bull, these media organisations see their role as constantly
>pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - we haven't yet in this
>country achieved the frenzy of the Royal Family media circus in Britain
>or its various US equivalents, but... wasn't it TV3's camera crews which
>were hassling Tau Henare and Tuku Morgan on their front lawns?
They went to their homes to get comment on public issues and left after
filming their abusive replies.... I would have thought that was fair. If a
politician dodges accountability, should a reporter just lie down and accept
it?
>Here's another thought - TV 1 is still NZ State owned, TV3 is wholly
>owned by CanWest, a private Canadian company - it seems to me that TV3's
>actions are wholly consistent with its North American ownership and the
>sort of circuses they have over there...
I doubt very much their North American owners have anything to do with TV#s
news coverage.
>>>What does the fact of Fahey suing TV3 say about it? If you were guilty,
>>>wouldn't you be afraid of such action in case evidence came to light to
>>>show your guilt?
I thought we werent deciding court cases before they came to trial??? "I
sue therefore I must be sure I will win" seems an unsound way of predicting
court cases.
I have no idea whether Fahey would win a case or not, and the next 2
sentences do not relate specifically to the Fahey case. But many people
launch defamation cases as a way of silencing the media ("You can't comment
on this case now, it is all sub judice") and as a way of being seen to
answer the charges. Many of these cases will sit on court lists for months
or years and then be quietly withdrawn when everyone's forgotten what the
whole thing was about.
>>
>>Not a lot really, he could be merely trying to deflect attention by
>>playing a double bluff, but that is merely speculation and you have me
>>playing your hand now :-)
>
>The voters of Christchurch apparently don't think so as they have
>returned Fahey as deputy mayor.
Returned as a councillor, the council as a whole elects the deputy mayor.
Tigger
>
> On , Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:04:59 +1300, "The Spook" <rob...@es.co.nz>, ,
> <90783479...@newsch.es.co.nz>, wrote:
>
> >The timing of the program certainly smacks of a smear campaign
>
> people do hold protests when something is occuring, it would be
> pointless to say protest the 1981 Springbok tour 18 years on.
It wasn't a protest, it was an accusation. Accusations should,
generally, be made by 10 years after the alleged incidents. Certainly
unless good reason to have been silent can be shown. The timing does
certainly smack of a smear campaign, along with the anonymity.
Tigger
> >That's what 20/20 does all the time - present one side of the case as
> >though it is a balanced view. Unless this is made explicit, which it never
> >is, the public becomes convinced of the 20/20 point of view.
> >
> >Juries, by contrast, hear the best argument each side can muster before
> >reaching a verdict.
>
> But it was not just 20/20 that reached this conclusion. A lot of other
> sensible people have independently reached the same conclusion.
In the case of Peter Ellis, I didn't even see the 20/20 coverage. I'm
not convinced of his innocence, but lean strongly that way, by the
reporting of David McLaughlin. His article raised many questions that
seriously put the prosecuting side in doubt.
Tigger
> >
> >I thought it was quite balanced.
>
> Then you are uninformed, aren't you. A journalist working for a
> respectable coffee-table magazine had little difficulty in uncovering the
> bias on that occasion.
I have to say that surely 20/20 presents their programmes in as balanced
a light as possible. That is not to say that they are balanced at all,
but that they want their viewers to think they are. So the poster above
who believed it was quite balanced was merely demonstrating the success
of TV3 getting their viewers to believe whatever they want them to.
Tigger
>
> I think they still have the right to remain anonymous, I think they
> must have had to identify themselves to TV3 reporters and present them
> with enough evidence, evidence that would convince the producers, the
> money men at TV3 and of course the lawyers that inevitably get
> consulted with before such a programme would go to air.
Oh man are you naive! It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be a
good ratings-winner. And whether a local candidate for mayoralty might
have committed heinous sex crimes, disclosed a week before elections, is
a sure ratings getter!
> Would he be able to give them such records?
Would Fahey be able to give the women their own medical records? Surely
all NZers are entitled to receive a copy of their own records at any
institution, by rights? It would not have been too difficult.
> >I'm not saying he did or didn't. But the 20/20 show raised more
> >questions in Fahey's favour than against him.
>
> That then is good, isn't it?
Only to those intelligent enough to see those questions. Some appear to
have seen the show and automatically agreed with it. Never underestimate
the stupidity of the average tv watcher (*especially* those who watch
20/20).
Tigger
>
> The voters of Christchurch apparently don't think so as they have
> returned Fahey as deputy mayor.
I hear that 50 calls were made from people wanting to change their vote
after 20/20 aired. 25 wanted to change from voting for Morgan, 25 wanted
to change *to* voting for him!
Tigger
> Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
> >Trial by media -
>
> This old canard is wearing a bit thin. No reporter can send anyone to jail.
Bullshit. Sorry, but if you believe that, you're missing out. No, a
reporter can't actually send anyone to jail, but try getting a truly
balanced jury after that show aired! Once the public have made up their
minds, it is very difficult to sway them with actual evidence. People
don't like to admit they might have been wrong. Media circuses have sent
innocent men to jail before, and have freed the guilty.
> My observation of, and participation in, juries, is that they do try their
> best to be fair.
Is a person really honest, though? Do you know why psych research isn't
done entirely by asking people questions? People say what they think you
want them to, even when they've convinced themselves that they're
telling the truth.
> In any event, the point is moot: Fahey isn't being prosecuted.
Agreed. For now. I can fully forsee a situation where the trio of women
push their case harder, and police bow to public outcry to take this man
to trial. Unless it dies a sudden death now that the voting is over,
which is my prediction.
> Think about it for a moment.... If they were really interested in ratings,
> wouldn't they have had it on the normal show and promoted it hard for a
> week, as they usually do their Sunday show, rather than make a last minute
> decision to play it on Monday, largely unpromoted.
Unless the trio went to other networks and they didn't want to lose
being the first, or exclusivity.
"I
> sue therefore I must be sure I will win" seems an unsound way of predicting
> court cases.
To be sure. But it seems bizarre to initiate a case when you know you're
lying about it, or wrong.
ph...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Tigger wrote:
> Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >
> > The voters of Christchurch apparently don't think so as they have
> > returned Fahey as deputy mayor.
>
> I hear that 50 calls were made from people wanting to change their vote
> after 20/20 aired. 25 wanted to change from voting for Morgan, 25 wanted
> to change *to* voting for him!
The Press reported 100 calls, 50 each way.
--Peter "cast my vote for him before the news broke" Metcalfe
Patrick Dunford
08:27:38 +1300 in nz.politics:<6voe80$7lh$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> didst
write unto us...
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>Trial by media -
>
>This old canard is wearing a bit thin. No reporter can send anyone to jail.
They can damage a person's reputation as effectively as if he/she had
been convicted in a court. Media is rarely balanced, unlike the judicial
system where both sides are given fair and equal opportunity to state
their case. Having now seen part of the 20/20 programme I feel the
coverage was unfairly slanted against Fahey.
>
>> If it did come to court then it would be
>>very difficult to get an impartial jury. I read somewhere the other day
>>that TV3 is in trouble for broadcasting a program about Dean Wickliffe
>>when he was on trial recently.
>
>Patrick, if you were on, say, the jury of a brutal murder case, do you think
>you would be able to be fair? If the answer is yes, do you think you're
>fairer than the average person?
I think so, the point is the judicial system's fairness can be
compromised by media hype and has been on a number of occasions. I seem
to recall John Banks broadcasting someone's criminal record on his radio
programme, which was contempt of court or close to it as the matter was
sub judice at the time.
It is not unusual for trials to be moved because of the difficulty in
finding impartial jury participants.
>In any event, the point is moot: Fahey isn't being prosecuted.
But if he was, the media would be acting irresponsibly and in fact they
are.
>>Money men wouldn't need much convincing. They pulled their normal
>>scheduling to put this programme on, that smacks of tabloidism and very
>>little else, a programme designed to push their ratings up...and thereby
>>increase their advertising revenue opportunity.
>
>Tabloidism seems to be equivalent to "any media practice I don't like".
That's a cheap shot, I suppose you are a big fan of all the soap operas
(Shortland St etc) and anyone who points out they hype their stories to
attract viewers is a heretic and should be shot.
You have to realise that TV is no different from any other section of the
media, they do most things with an eye on how many viewers they can
attract because that means they can get more advertisers and more $$$.
The same is true of almost all commercial media. Get with it.
>Think about it for a moment.... If they were really interested in ratings,
>wouldn't they have had it on the normal show and promoted it hard for a
>week,
The normal show was pulled to put something else on, my guess is that
they had the show ready in time and it was put on as early as possible to
counter the TV1 coverage which was on the same evening. It was promoted
in their news programme, I believe. My guess is that they did not have
the material ready for the Sunday night programme or the story broke on
Monday causing them to quickly assemble the special for the evening
timeslot.
>as they usually do their Sunday show, rather than make a last minute
>decision to play it on Monday, largely unpromoted.
Not unusual to have a late change - Assignment and Holmes for example
regularly pull stuff at the last minute because something more juicy
comes along - Holmes had advertised different material for the Monday
night show (IIRC) and pulled it to put on the Morgan Fahey stuff, though
TV3 had got to the complainants first in some sort of apparently
exclusive deal. My guess is that the story broke very quickly and they
moved very fast to bring the programme to air.
>>Lawyers, bull, these media organisations see their role as constantly
>>pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - we haven't yet in this
>>country achieved the frenzy of the Royal Family media circus in Britain
>>or its various US equivalents, but... wasn't it TV3's camera crews which
>>were hassling Tau Henare and Tuku Morgan on their front lawns?
>
>They went to their homes to get comment on public issues and left after
>filming their abusive replies.... I would have thought that was fair. If a
>politician dodges accountability, should a reporter just lie down and accept
>it?
There has to be boundaries of acceptable media behaviour, do we really
want the media frenzy/circus that centres around the Royal Family? Last
year Holmes shamelessly milked the Ingham Twins for all they were worth,
earlier this year it was Holmes who was stalked by the media for his
affair with Fleur Revell.
>>Here's another thought - TV 1 is still NZ State owned, TV3 is wholly
>>owned by CanWest, a private Canadian company - it seems to me that TV3's
>>actions are wholly consistent with its North American ownership and the
>>sort of circuses they have over there...
>
>I doubt very much their North American owners have anything to do with TV#s
>news coverage.
I think it has a lot to do with their style.
Patrick Dunford
23:54:10 GMT in nz.politics:<361ff20b....@news.ihug.co.nz> didst
write unto us...
Wasn't there a case where John Banks broadcast details of someone who was
being tried in a court? What happened there?
Hugh Grierson
>
>Hugh Grierson wrote in message <6vj8pj$sl1$1...@ukko.trimble.co.nz>...
>>In article <MPG.10871640e...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>patrick...@hotmail.com (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>Dr Fahey's mayoral
>>>candidacy competitors have generally been reluctant to criticise and as
>>>several of them pointed out, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
>>
>>The notable exception was Ms Murray. I would have lost any respect for her
>>(if I ever had any) when she said that Fahey should stand down from council
>>because they can't have that kind of allegation hanging over the city.
>>Bitch.
>
>
>That isn't very nice calling someone a bitch.
I'm not always nice.
>Did you hear her say that by
>the way? No? So you believe everything published by the media?
The media are good at presenting one sided stories and at quoting people out
of context, but rarely will they completely misquote someone.
> Anyway, what
>made you think she was a bitch, convinced me to vote for her - different
>stokes huh?
You and, what, 13% of other voters? Stoke away.
Hugh Grierson
>
>flyer wrote in message <90766546...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>I accuse you of abusing me.
>>>
>>>Now which do _you_ think is worse?
>>
>I believe that to automatically assume everyone who makes an accusation is
>lying is worse
>
>But neither do I believe that everyone who makes an accusation is
>necessarily telling the truth
>
>There is such a thing as evidence, and such a thing as probability
20/20 showed no evidence, just anonymous uncorroborated claims.
>And there are also such things as repercussions from making an accusation
Not necessarily for the anonymous accusor.
>Rather than a knee-jerk "bloody feminists" reaction, which reveals nothing
>other than a closed and rather sad mind, how about considering all the
>above?
"Bloody feminists"? Whose knee is jerking now?
Patrick Dunford
Oct 1998 21:33:33 GMT in
nz.politics:<365ed220....@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>On , Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:42:11 +1300, patrick...@hotmail.com
>(Patrick Dunford), , <MPG.1089f0bd1...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>wrote:
>
>>Yea verily add...@body.of.message (add...@body.of.message) on Fri, 09
>>Oct 1998 20:34:22 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<36296e21...@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
>
>>>I would give credence to the flock of lawyers who would have vetted
>>>the programme for any possibility of getting it wrong and having legal
>>>action taken against TV3.
>>
>>I wouldn't. I would be surprised if there is any such lawyership.
>
>That is a very long bow for you to draw Mr. Dunford. If what you say
>is true then they would be even more careful and likely to use the
>services of a lawyer particularly when showing such a potentially
>damaging program.
The lawyer can give his professional opinion. It may be wrong. Or simply
ignored.
As is shown by North and South's article on the McPhail and Gadsby
series, they went ahead with a contentious sketch even though their
lawyers thought it was a bad idea.
Dean Bedford
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
I seem
>to recall John Banks broadcasting someone's criminal record on his radio
>programme, which was contempt of court or close to it as the matter was
>sub judice at the time.
Banks was prosecuted but found not guilty by the Chief Justice at the time.
>It is not unusual for trials to be moved because of the difficulty in
>finding impartial jury participants.
actually it is very unusual, there are thousands of jury trials each year,
maybe one jury trial a year has its venue shifted.
>>>Money men wouldn't need much convincing. They pulled their normal
>>>scheduling to put this programme on, that smacks of tabloidism and very
>>>little else, a programme designed to push their ratings up...and thereby
>>>increase their advertising revenue opportunity.
>>
>>Tabloidism seems to be equivalent to "any media practice I don't like".
>
>That's a cheap shot,
maybe... but it does get a bit wearisome how any article or TV item anyone
doesn't like is described as "tabloidism". Tabloidism has a meaning, it
refers to a design style of a newspaper, rather than a content style: the
sort of design style that papers as different as "Truth" and "National
Business Review" use in this country. But in its common usage the term
"tabloidism" has become just a term of abuse like "fascist" "feminazi"
etc... ie it is used as a substitute for reasoned argument.
I suppose you are a big fan of all the soap operas
>(Shortland St etc)
actually I have yet to watch even one episode
and anyone who points out they hype their stories to
>attract viewers is a heretic and should be shot.
I thought we were talking about news?
>You have to realise that TV is no different from any other section of the
>media, they do most things with an eye on how many viewers they can
>attract because that means they can get more advertisers and more $$$.
>The same is true of almost all commercial media. Get with it.
Well, as Ive said here before, my experience after four and a half years as
a working reporter in the "commercial" news media is very different.
Patrick Dunford
Oct 1998 18:42:11 GMT in
nz.politics:<3623f92c...@news.taranaki.ac.nz> didst write unto
us...
>On , Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:35:53 +1300, patrick...@hotmail.com
>(Patrick Dunford), , <MPG.108b2661c...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>wrote:
>
>
>>The normal show was pulled to put something else on,
>
>The moptor racing the provious day meant that 20/20 was slotted into
>the 7 or 730 slot on monday night, they had been advertising the 20/20
>programme since at least friday night with the trailer for the Fahey
>programme, they didn't of course mention who itr was because TVNZ
>often trys to gazump them, as indeed they do when they find out the
>contents of 60 Minutes.
>
>>my guess is that
>>they had the show ready in time and it was put on as early as possible to
>>counter the TV1 coverage which was on the same evening. It was promoted
>>in their news programme, I believe. My guess is that they did not have
>>the material ready for the Sunday night programme or the story broke on
>>Monday causing them to quickly assemble the special for the evening
>>timeslot.
>
>As above.
As I do not have access at this immediate time to TV3 programme schedules
I cannot comment on whether the programme was rescheduled routinely or
whether it was done at short notice.
The normal repeat of the show which runs on Tuesday evenings was pulled.
Patrick Dunford
10:13:30 +1300 in nz.politics:<6vr7k5$nf0$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> didst
write unto us...
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>
>>>Tabloidism seems to be equivalent to "any media practice I don't like".
>>
>>That's a cheap shot,
>
>maybe... but it does get a bit wearisome how any article or TV item anyone
>doesn't like is described as "tabloidism". Tabloidism has a meaning, it
>refers to a design style of a newspaper, rather than a content style: the
>sort of design style that papers as different as "Truth" and "National
>Business Review" use in this country. But in its common usage the term
>"tabloidism" has become just a term of abuse like "fascist" "feminazi"
>etc... ie it is used as a substitute for reasoned argument.
>
> I suppose you are a big fan of all the soap operas
>>(Shortland St etc)
>
>actually I have yet to watch even one episode
>
>and anyone who points out they hype their stories to
>>attract viewers is a heretic and should be shot.
>
>I thought we were talking about news?
>
>>You have to realise that TV is no different from any other section of the
>>media, they do most things with an eye on how many viewers they can
>>attract because that means they can get more advertisers and more $$$.
>>The same is true of almost all commercial media. Get with it.
>
>Well, as Ive said here before, my experience after four and a half years as
>a working reporter in the "commercial" news media is very different.
Well now Mr Reporter, I suspect you are the same as any other journalist
- you have a right to your story and any twist that you can put on it.
And let's face it, at the end of the day your editor decides what is
printed and in some sections of the media, sensationalism is what brings
in the $$$.
Ashley Campbell
Dean Bedford wrote in message <6vv4p4$1tv$4...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>>And let's face it, at the end of the day your editor decides what is
>>printed and in some sections of the media, sensationalism is what brings
>>in the $$$.
>
>media in this country... Is Truth an example of a conspicuously $$$$-full
>newspaper?
>
>
Well, actually, no, it's losing readership on an alarming basis.
But all that aside, as one who has spent 14 years as a journalist, and has
just left it, let's be honest, we're all in it to sell
newspapers-magazines-tvprogrammes.
the sad thing is, the NZ public isn't prepared to pay for intelligent
analysis in any of the above (and intelligent analysis does cost, if you
want intelligent people to build a career in it).
So you get what you pay for.
And after a few more than 4 years, you might reach that extraordinarily
depressing conclusion as well.
Hopefully, it might have changed in 10 years' time.
But I doubt it.
Blame the majority. And my stage 1 political theory subject: Does democracy
necessarily entail justice (read: Is the majority necessarily right).
Answer: No.
Dean Bedford
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>10:13:30 +1300 in nz.politics:<6vr7k5$nf0$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> didst
>write unto us...
>Well now Mr Reporter, I suspect you are the same as any other journalist
>- you have a right to your story and any twist that you can put on it.
and you accuse me of cheap shots.... sigh...
Patrick Dunford
21:46:27 +1300 in nz.politics:<6vv4p4$1tv$4...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> didst
write unto us...
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
You have never read the Women's Weekly or any of its competitors, I take
it :)
--
Patrick Dunford, Christ Church, NZ
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3405/
-----------------------------------------------------
On The Move - The Christian Democrats Newsletter
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3405/otm/
Dean Bedford
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>21:46:27 +1300 in nz.politics:<6vv4p4$1tv$4...@newsource.ihug.co.nz> didst
>write unto us...
>>media in this country... Is Truth an example of a conspicuously $$$$-full
>>newspaper?
>
>You have never read the Women's Weekly or any of its competitors, I take
>it :)
Fair point... I guess I don't think of them as journalism but you have a
point :)
I only read them at the doctors/fish and chip shop of course...
Dean Bedford
Ashley Campbell wrote in message <6vva8r$h5f$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>...
>But all that aside, as one who has spent 14 years as a journalist, and has
>just left it, let's be honest, we're all in it to sell
>newspapers-magazines-tvprogrammes.
Theres not much point doing anything in journalism if its unread or
unwatched.
>the sad thing is, the NZ public isn't prepared to pay for intelligent
>analysis in any of the above (and intelligent analysis does cost, if you
>want intelligent people to build a career in it).
Hmmm.... there is plenty of intelligent material in our media, but we are
too small and spread out a country to support newspapers like say The
Guardian in the UK if that is your definition of intelligence. By world
standards all of our newspapers are small, the Herald excepted. Im not sure
if thats what you mean though...
>Blame the majority. And my stage 1 political theory subject: Does democracy
>necessarily entail justice (read: Is the majority necessarily right).
>
>Answer: No.
sounds like a stage 1 political theory essay :) I guess you had to add a
rant and footnotes though to get an A? :)
Heres my view in potted form: our media does an okay job, given our small
population and the difficulties of reaching an audience that is so spread
out.
But the common accusation that the media is biased, corrupt, without ethics,
not committed to truth, etc, seems to me to be without merit. That goes to
the heart of what Patrick was talking about.
Ashley Campbell
Dean Bedford wrote in message <701g5c$2sb$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>
>>Blame the majority. And my stage 1 political theory subject: Does
democracy
>>necessarily entail justice (read: Is the majority necessarily right).
>>
>>Answer: No.
>
>sounds like a stage 1 political theory essay :) I guess you had to add a
>rant and footnotes though to get an A? :)
>
Isn't ranting and footnotes exactly what political theory is all about? :-)
Indeed I did!
>Heres my view in potted form: our media does an okay job, given our small
>population and the difficulties of reaching an audience that is so spread
>out.
>
>But the common accusation that the media is biased, corrupt, without
ethics,
>not committed to truth, etc, seems to me to be without merit. That goes to
>the heart of what Patrick was talking about.
>
>
Absolutely fair points
I believe most of the people who choose to make their careers in journalism
start off full of extraordinarily high ideals
But I don't think they last
No blame to those people - they are simply trying to do their job. Which is
defined by those who pay them.
Which is to sell the product.
That aside, they do ok given what they have to work with!