Thursday, December 09, 2004
God forbid, a journalist with an opinion?
TV3 has come to the defence of its newsreader Carol Hirschfield who, shock horror, was seen at a demonstration protesting against the continued imprisonment of refugee Ahmed Zaoui.
TV3's boss Mark Jennings said Hirshfield's presence did not constitute political bias, although the company required its reporters to remain politically "disinterested and neutral".
Yes you read that right - journalists are supposed to be "disinterested".
I see TVNZ gleefully ran the story, perhaps they should look a little closer to their own backdoor?
If society can't rely on journalists to be out there questioning authority and championing causes who the fuck will be?
Surely it's a journalist's job to out there creating a stink and adding their voice to public outcries when they percieve injustices are being committed.
Is Carol allowed not to eat meat or might that prejudice the stories she presents on the sheep and beef industries?
The whole - "she was only there supporting her husband" - sounds suspiciously like PR bullshit, I don't know why Jennings' doesn't just say "our reporters are human beings, and they are entitled to do what ever the fuck they want in their own spare time".
Do the public realise that journalists are journalists because they do give a shit about what goes on around them?
Granted, you don't want mainstream journalists wearing their Labour 2005 elelection t-shirts as they cover the National Party's annual conference but surely there's a difference between that and protesting against the continued imprisonment of someone who has never been charged?
Someone who the Government has refused to tell the public why they are being held?
This is New Zealand not fucking Guantanamo Bay.
TV3's boss Mark Jennings said Hirshfield's presence did not constitute political bias, although the company required its reporters to remain politically "disinterested and neutral".
Yes you read that right - journalists are supposed to be "disinterested".
I see TVNZ gleefully ran the story, perhaps they should look a little closer to their own backdoor?
If society can't rely on journalists to be out there questioning authority and championing causes who the fuck will be?
Surely it's a journalist's job to out there creating a stink and adding their voice to public outcries when they percieve injustices are being committed.
Is Carol allowed not to eat meat or might that prejudice the stories she presents on the sheep and beef industries?
The whole - "she was only there supporting her husband" - sounds suspiciously like PR bullshit, I don't know why Jennings' doesn't just say "our reporters are human beings, and they are entitled to do what ever the fuck they want in their own spare time".
Do the public realise that journalists are journalists because they do give a shit about what goes on around them?
Granted, you don't want mainstream journalists wearing their Labour 2005 elelection t-shirts as they cover the National Party's annual conference but surely there's a difference between that and protesting against the continued imprisonment of someone who has never been charged?
Someone who the Government has refused to tell the public why they are being held?
This is New Zealand not fucking Guantanamo Bay.
Comments:
surely the "journalistic integrity" of a talking head like Carol isn't too much of a drama. What is she going to do? put the wrong inflections on a piece about skinheads and inflame the nation? I think that in one way that you didn't mention it is good to see Carol out there - if a Journalists "political cards" are out on the table then it makes it easier for us plebs to 'read between the lines' amd put our own spin on events by (usually erroneously) trying to remove someone elses.
but on the other hand I wholeheartedly agree that relatively speaking we ought to be able to "do what ever the fuck [we] want in [our] own spare time".
its sad enough that people even care about the private life of celebrities really.
but on the other hand I wholeheartedly agree that relatively speaking we ought to be able to "do what ever the fuck [we] want in [our] own spare time".
its sad enough that people even care about the private life of celebrities really.
# posted by 
: 10 December 2004 at 16:07
: 10 December 2004 at 16:07
I've got no problem with people protesting. Public figures or not. I also agree that two years is too long. This should have been sorted out a long time ago. As to being held without charge, he has an alternative. Go back from whence he came. He is free to do that anytime, but chooses not to. There's conficting evidence as to whether he is in any danger elsewhere. Simply, he is either a threat or not. If not, welcome to NZ. If so.....see ya!
# posted by : 10 December 2004 at 21:28
: 10 December 2004 at 21:28
Oh, and they can't leave G'mo bay. As stated, he can leave whenever he wants. A small differnece. But very much like it except for that. And the armed guards, foot chains, lack of media, beatings, lack of resources.....
# posted by : 11 December 2004 at 08:49
: 11 December 2004 at 08:49
Post a Comment