26 posts tagged “news”

Dabysan has a few interesting observations about Moment of Truth, the game show airing on a Murdoch Press network in the US and, God help us, TV2 in New Zealand.
   The good news is that this show has reached the end of its run in New Zealand as of this Friday and let’s hope it doesn’t return.
   It’s basically a game show that paints a highly negative image of United States and the decline in taste and responsibility of New Zealand television programmers. The cancellation may be a sign that the Kiwis have found some sense again (as is the return of Life on Mars and the airing of Jekyll). The only reason it ever aired, as far as I can tell, is that it must be dirt, dirt cheap.
   Dabysan wrote: ‘The show is a sure sign of the coming of the apocalypse.’ How right that is.
   On Dabysan’s blog is a clip of one of the episodes:

   That is the sum total of the show but somehow through “editing” (which means using the same footage over and over again, and having really long and repetitive previews telling TV audiences to come back after the break) it lasts the full 46 minutes (i.e. a commercial television hour).
   If it were shown in this shortened format I might not think so ill of it, but for it to occupy an hour of some viewers’ lives is daft.
   I wrote in the comments:

I can’t see the entertainment value in Moment of Truth. The contestant knows what questions will be asked so she should not be surprised. She was obviously not ashamed to reveal his or her answers to a total stranger, so why should millions of strangers be a problem? As for their loved ones, the contestant obviously has no shame to have engaged in embarrassing conduct so she shouldn’t be ashamed now. If she is potentially ashamed, she should not have gone on. I am glad this show is getting killed off after this Friday’s episode in New Zealand after a very short run.

   What I did not write is that this sort of show, displaying the lax morals of certain US citizens, is an insult to decent Americans—but it has a secondary effect. There is a very real danger that all Americans are grouped in our minds as being like those idiots on the show.
   When you see this and news about how many sexual partners a typical New York woman has had or that one in one hundred adult Americans are in jail, you begin to form a very negative image indeed: sleep around, cheat, lie, dis your parents, be unfaithful, commit crimes. Meanwhile, the American newsmedia, as broadcast internationally, play down things such as Sen. John McCain’s military record or provide us with exemplary behaviours (exceptions of US shows that do include the little-watched Real Life Heroes).
   The blogs are good in that they give voice to some normal folks—but most people are still influenced by the stereotypes and the sensationalism caused by biased editing in the old media.
   It is the same effect as the casting of Middle Eastern actors as terrorists in US shows, which groups them into a negative bunch and propagates a false stereotype.
   A second danger is that young people watching this show—I forget what time it airs in New Zealand but it is not that late—might think that such behaviour is acceptable.
   The message is: you can engage in any behaviour, from sexual deviancy to outright deception, and be rewarded for it if you have no sense of shame.
   I can think of a few people already who act this way and am delighted at the distance I have from them.
   It is not dissimilar to some reality TV shows which show that connivance and arrogance are the keys to winning major cash prizes.
   The world simply does not work this way, and if it ever came to that, then civilization is in deep, deep crap.
   When some people point out conspiracy theories about Communists seizing the media, promoting a value-destroying ideology and showing that emotionally harmful behaviours are normal, it’s easy to laugh at them. Then you see just what the media are propagating and you have to really think: jeez, they have a point, regardless of what Snopes might say.
   It might not be Commies doing the dirty work, as some citizens are quite happy to go down a destructive path, exhibiting behaviours that every experience tells them is bad. There are enough of us whose lives have been rendered so valueless by our own governments or corporations that Schadenfreude pushes us to enjoy seeing others’ shame and controversy.
   A good society, a decent, honest, progressive one, would never have the time or inclination to indulge in shows such as Moment of Truth or, for that matter, gossip tabloids that depend on a declining society for their success.

Yves Saint Laurent, arguably the world’s most famous fashion designer, has died in Paris on Sunday, 11.10 p.m. local time, aged 71, according to the Pierre Bergé-Saint Laurent Foundation. Full obituary detailed today at Lucire.

Samantha Powell (Miss Universe New Zealand 2008), Rebecca Connor (Miss Wellington), Rhonda Grant (second runner-up, Miss Universe New Zealand 2008), Kylie Anderson (second runner-up, Miss Universe New Zealand 2006).

Why is it that they stem from Christchurch? Are there more anti-pageant types down there?
   Last year, The Press ran a piece on how Laural Barrett, the winner of Miss New Zealand 2007, had allegedly stolen shoes along with her sister, when anyone reading between the lines of journalistic double-talk could tell the writer had used enough ‘seems’ and ‘allegedly’ in an ill-researched story based on a leaked rumour. It would have been fitting on a gossip blog, not a metropolitan newspaper.
   But hey, it sells newspapers in a land where tabloids can successfully masquerade as broadsheets. I had to go on the warpath that time and accuse Fairfax of tall-poppy syndrome with unpatriotic journalists appeasing foreign owners. However you looked at it, that Press story was poor, poor journalism, which only fed blogs, rumours and envious teenage girls.
   Now we had that liberal professor down at the University of Canterbury attacking 2008 second runner-up Rhonda Grant for being good-looking and effectively sending a message that her degree is valueless and that she should not be fêted for her success. Shame.
   I’m just glad that Samantha Powell has managed to steer clear of controversy this year, but then, she didn’t go to university—which obviously means that she escaped the liberal pen of an American Studies professor.
   But given that beauty pageant winners’ academic successes should not be celebrated according to the Association of University Staff—since the release was sent under its banner then I take it to be policy—it’s just as well Sam received on-the-job vocational training rather than have a worthless degree from a New Zealand tertiary institution.
   I sure hope I never joined the Association unwittingly when I was a lecturer, since I cannot agree with its position.
   I believe in individual excellence, working hard and being treated fairly.
   Unless Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery’s aim was to send out a nothing story—when I first read it I had no idea anyone cared and nearly advised Val Lott, pageant director, to ignore it, and a contact at a TV network actually agreed with me—and see how trivialities can propagate in the New Zealand media.
   Because that made a fascinating study. I held off sending out a release till the morning because I had no idea anyone—from Paul Holmes on the wireless to TV1’s Close-up—would be interested.
   All Dr Montgomery needed was a willing conspirator in the form of the New Zealand Press Association, with the weight of the Association of University Staff behind her, and the publication of the wire story by The New Zealand Herald.
   From there, the story suddenly had legitimacy, even if I think the Irish-owned Herald should have sought comment from the pageant or Massey University side before publication of a clearly biased article.
   Perhaps Dr Montgomery’s Irish roots and the Herald’s part-Irish ownership just went hand in hand and there’s some unwritten rule to help your own inside the newspaper.
   I shall send my future releases to the Herald under the name O’Malley.
   If this was a study of the lowering of media standards and their (and the public’s) obsession with trivia, then I actually applaud Dr Montgomery, with a standing ovation.
   Being London-born, Dr Montgomery will have seen the lowering of standards in her lifetime before she left Thatcher’s Britain (she said ‘escaped’, which shows her thoughts on Thatcherism) with the Australian takeovers of two tabloids and The Times. And, perhaps out of interest, this was an experiment to see how far these tendencies went in New Zealand, a protest against the technocratic injustice that has been emerging over the last quarter-century—again something she has witnessed after her arrival here.
   I don’t know. If that were her aim then I thought it rather cruel to target a young woman who has never done anything against her.
   But as I said, there was a part of me that enjoyed it because it was darned good profile for the pageant and for Rhonda.
   Rhonda spoke well on TV for someone with no media training, and I think she did better on the live interview with Mark Sainsbury on Close-up than the recorded piece with John Campbell on Campbell Live.
   The other good thing was that Rhonda was one of two contestants who identifies with the Christian faith, which allowed her to put this into perspective of a greater plan.
   I shall be interested to see what happens next—or possibly next year. Will Christchurch go for the hat-trick?

This video, from the Élysée, was taken yesterday when the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the First Lady arrived in London to meet HM Queen Elizabeth II and HH the Duke of Edinburgh. I wrote in a comment on Timothy’s Vox blog, after reading an article about it, that Mme Sarkozy did not know where to stand and tried to follow her husband and the Queen on the inspection. I was wrong: looking at this video, the First Lady knew exactly where to go and accompanied Prince Philip in her meet-and-greet. The Jacqueline Kennedy comparisons aren’t invalid.
   And it seems the newly hyphenated Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is on her way to being the most photographed woman of 2008: her image sells political, fashion (she’s wearing Dior by John Galliano) and gossip media.

Folks may recall the videos I posted about the possibility that Hillary Clinton committed a breach of electoral finance laws in 2000 a few weeks back.
   The following was Dugg today: ‘Paul v. Clinton: Experts Question Whether Clinton Campaign Finance Case Will Impact ’08 Race’.
   It’s an old article from 2007 but the last time it was on Digg, Democratic supporters dismissed it as a right-wing attack on their Hillary.
   Now you see from the comments on Digg that many, many Democrats have joined in and the right-wing charge has disappeared. It’s obviously accepted by more of the US population.
   The excerpts are interesting (and I am being biased against Sen. Clinton in selecting these):

The star-studded August 2000 event was later deemed to be a violation of federal campaign finance laws: The Clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Elections Committee. Clinton’s campaign finance director David Rosen was accused of lying to the FEC, indicted, but eventually acquitted. …
   The case presents the classic question of what Clinton knew and when she knew it, said election lawyer John Armor. He said the tape shows that Clinton allegedly committed at least four felonies pertaining to illegal campaign fundraising and obstructing subsequent federal investigations into the matter. …
   “No presidential candidate was ever caught on videotape engaged in felony,” Paul told Cybercast News Service. “No candidate [has ever been] engaged in major civil fraud suit [that] she was forced to testify in.” …
   In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said only that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.
   “I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton,” Clinton wrote.

   The following excerpt, however, is very sad:

From a political perspective, the public stopped caring about alleged misdeeds by either of the Clintons, said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University.
   “When it comes to the Clintons, they are generally immune to public condemnation regarding ethical lapses and violations of the law,” Rose told Cybercast News Service. “If this case continues into the general election, we'll see how it affects swing voters and independents, but it is not going to derail her bid for the nomination. I still remember Bill Clinton’s polls, and two-thirds of voters said they didn’t trust him but voted for him irrespective of his morality or ethics.”
   Even critics of Clinton don’t think the case will harm her politically.
   “She’s going to hold the highest office in the country. She’s got the money, the organization and the FBI files,” James Nesfield, president of the Equal Justice Foundation of America (EJFA), said in an interview.

   I don’t think Americans are that stupid but there is one part that rings true: we are so used to the idea of the Clintons being crooks we don’t bat an eyelid any more. The more news like this surfaces, the more it becomes part of the Clinton noise, and fewer and fewer will care. We become desensitized.
   None of this has made it into the MSM in this country and I bet little has made it into the MSM in the States. 
   Also, the voting public was different in 1996 because they did not see the Sen. Dole as being potentially effective—either have an ineffective, uninspiring president, or an untrustworthy one. Americans chose the latter, since when did politicians and trust go together?
   In 2008, the world is different—Americans have the choice between an experienced candidate (McCain) or the claimed agent of change (Obama). Or, the least experienced of the three in elected office who claims sleep deprivation causes lies (Clinton).

Sen. Hillary Clinton frequently stresses her foreign policy credentials over Sen. Obama. Today on al-Jazeera, which covered the Russian presidential election, Sen. Clinton was shown fumbling the pronunciation of Dmitri Medvedev—badly. And added a ‘or whatever’ to the end of that. This is hypocritical of Sen. Clinton and disrespectful to President-elect Medvedev (which is not a very hard word to pronounce for anyone who has had contact with Russians).
   If President George W. Bush did this, it would be all over the news, David Letterman would have it on ‘Great Moments in Presidential Speeches’, and the Democrats would be going on and on about what a dumbass Dubya is.
   I have not seen the American media showing Sen. Clinton’s gaffe, at least not as part of a news bulletin, but a quick Google search did show that it aired there in the US as part of a presidential nominee hopefuls’ debate. One blog commenter, Redmanrt, at Slate wrote this sentiment and I have to agree:

I wouldn’t be happy being an American taxpayer right now.
   The Los Angeles Times says Britney Spears’ hospital motorcade, probably smaller than the one Dick Cheney has for his annual heart attack, cost the LAPD $25,000.
   There were motorbikes, cruisers and even at least one helicopter escorting the ambulance carrying the singer.
   The last time I saw a motorcade-with-ambulance that huge was in the fictional film Dave, where the President of the United States was driven to hospital.
   In fact, satirical site The Spoof wrote, ‘White House Press Secretary Britney Spears was rushed to a hospital early Thursday morning while riding with President Bush in his presidential motorcade, a White House spokesman said.’
   I can understand, for her public safety, having some police presence but considering that a few cops on duty at the courthouse were enough the last time she had to embarrass herself in the public eye, this is excessive.
   She only went in for a psych. evaluation, for goodness’ sake.
   This woman managed to get more cops escorting her than, say, a fallen US soldier who paid the ultimate price serving her or his country.
   I still vote for leaving Spears alone, and let her get her treatment in peace. She might actually get better if we treated her as a normal person and that means keeping her out of the headlines.
   I’d rather hear about someone making a difference to our world. I mean a real difference. Marrying a dude with the same name as the guy who played George Costanza does not count.
   And, if I may follow the order of the news here: ‘in other news,’ Microsoft has offered to buy Yahoo! for $44·6 billion.

Nice to know that al-Jazeera is already covering the lead-up to the Sir Edmund Hillary funeral, with a huge piece just now on the news bulletin live from Auckland outside the Holy Trinity Cathedral, where his body is lying in state and people are paying their respects. Nothing of the sort on TV One and TV3 at the moment, though from what I remember, one of the networks will carry the actual funeral live. Good on al-Jazeera for being truly global.

The Dick van Dyke Show’s Rose Marie once told a story how her husband, Bobby Guy, got upset when the trumpeter at John F. Kennedy’s funeral missed a note. Everyone’s more sensitive when a national figure has died.
   In New Zealand, I had a similar but more subdued reaction when the TV3 journalist, in the six o’clock news’s lead item, referred to ‘Governor-Generals’—in that Sir Edmund Hillary is getting a state funeral, an exception to the rule that these are reserved for heads of state. Note to the Australian-owned network: Governors-General is the plural form.
   Then again, this is the same network that once referred to the ‘US Marine Corpse’, so I am not sure why I should be surprised.
   TV One’s That’s Life or How’s Life or Life or Life at 5.30 or whatever it was called—heck, everyone knew it as The Charlotte Dawson Show—had ‘pronounciation’ when discussing the topic, so I think that still takes the cake.
   How funny to be corrected by some dumb immigrant for whom English is his second language.

What was your reaction to the results of the Iowa caucuses?  

Total surprise. I thought I wouldn’t care but I do. Last time, the Democrats had a clear front-runner in the form of Sen. John Kerry and I found that sparked a greater interest for me, to see how he would fare against President Bush. This time, the interest comes from how unpredictable the fight is.
   I would not have predicted Obama, Edwards and Clinton for the Dems, and I would not have predicted Huckabee, Romney and Thompson for the GOP.
   Go back two years and most of my GOP friends were pessimistic because the only candidates they could foresee were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Others, perhaps prescient, said there would be a surprise candidate that must emerge closer to the end of 2007. They were right.
   I thought Fred Thompson might have been that man but there certainly has been a lot of attention surrounding Gov. Huckabee. That momentum continued.
   Among my Democrat friends, the hope a few years back was that Al Gore would consider running. Back in 2004 I had good friends who felt Edwards supported their values more and were disappointed that Sen. Kerry emerged as the front-runner in Iowa. Through 2007 I had next to no Democratic friends who felt Sen. Clinton was right for them.
   I am glad the usual rule of “who spends the most wins” did not apply for either party here. It is another example of branding: a good consistent brand that taps in to the consciousness can outweigh huge spends. And that’s something I hope will buoy smaller parties in New Zealand as we face our General Election this year.
   Now that the Iowa caucus item is over, the BBC is running a Britney Spears–K. Fed. story.