Monday Media

MEDIA RELATIONS CONFERENCE

2009-08-27T22:09:00.000-07:00

I was a guest panellist at the 7th Annual Media Relations Conference in Wellington this week. The conference was targeted to members of the public relations industry, and, among many other things, we discussed the changing face of the media. This is a big topic in these days where the mainstream media is struggling and the impact of online is rapidly increasing. The discussion was very interesting, though in the end I guess no-one really knows exactly how things will continue to move and change and where we will all end up.

At the moment I know some people who pretty much never read a newspaper or magazine, but spend huge amounts of time online and seem to gather all or most of their information that way. But I also know people who have never or rarely been online. And then there is the whole mass of people, including myself, who happily use a mix of all media options. So is it a generational thing? If there is a whole generation of young people coming through who never read them, will newspapers and magazines eventually evolve out completely? Will a generational shift change everything completely, or will things just continue to merge and evolve? Only time will tell.

As discussed at the conference, media people who ignore the rise of online do so at great risk. All of our big media outlets in New Zealand now have websites as well. Whether they make money or not at this stage, they can’t afford not to have them. And this of course brings me to the thorny topic of getting consumers to pay for online news/magazine content. Internationally, Rupert Murdoch has announced plans to charge users for content, and locally Fairfax are making similar noises. The National Business Review is already charging for some online content via paywalls. It will be really interesting to see how this goes for NBR. I’m more of the mind that it’s too complicated and that consumers are now too used to getting everything for free for the concept of paying for online journalism to work. I think it may make sense to just give more and better away for free in the hope of eventually making money from advertising and related promotional activity.

But Barry Colman is a savvy businessman and Rupert Murdoch apparently knows quite a bit about the media too! So I guess we can all watch this space.

Because the conference was for the public relations industry, we also talked a lot about the need for PR people to work with both mainstream and online media these days, and the similarities and differences in working these two worlds. Many of the usual business courtesies and efficiencies apply in both worlds, and similar judgement calls based on knowing who you are dealing with are also involved. But social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter do have some quite particular things to bear in mind. If you are too overtly commercial on Twitter, people will quickly block you from following them. You need to come across as a real member of the Twitter community. And if you send your general news release to a blogger you risk them deciding to do something rather irreverent with it, so your action could backfire and you could become the victim of a blog piss-take. Bloggers don’t obey the traditional rules of journalism - and they won’t necessarily respect an embargo date, so PR people need to be careful.

There was a lot of interesting talk at the conference about what works and what doesn’t work for PR people in terms of all types of media outlets. But the main thing that was agreed upon was that you ignore the online world at your peril!

THE CLAYTON WEATHERSTON CASE AND BLOGS AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

2009-07-13T00:02:00.000-07:00

The Clayton Weatherston murder trial is perhaps New Zealand's worst example yet of blogs and social networking sites playing fast and loose with the laws governing court reporting and contempt of court.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and that's why there are rules and regulations surrounding court reporting that mainstream media have always had to follow. But how do you police the internet - how do you police blogs, and facebook and twitter? There's talk at the moment that some of the more prominent blogs and facebook sites might be targeted for legal action. This makes sense as it would serve as a reminder that the normal rules do apply even in the online world - but there's no way you could keep every blog, facebook mention and tweet about the case under control, so in the end this would be a symbolic action as much as anything.

I think it is also important that juries be constantly reminded that they are not to look at the internet during the course of a trial - and I understand this is happening these days.

The interesting thing about the Weatherston case in terms of blogging, tweeting and all, is that a lot of what is being said online is almost comic in nature (in a dark and cynical kind of way) - so you could possibly argue that it's not really the sort of thing that would influence any sensible jury member anyway. I mean if someone posted some supposed new evidence on a case online, that would be one thing, but just to poke fun at an accused and say that he seems guilty, well if I was on a jury I don't think that would change my thinking much.

It's certainly an interesting issue. I'm really not sure if the legal system can stem the giant tide that is the internet - so I do wonder where we will all end up with this one.

CAMPBELL LIVE STILL HAUNTED BY MEDAL THIEF INTERVIEW

2009-07-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

I see in today's Herald on Sunday there is a not-quite-apology on Paul Holmes' column page, relating to a suggestion he made in last week's column that perhaps the controversial John Campbell interview with the medal thief never actually took place.

Holmes was speculating that a lawyer or some other middle man may have interviewed the thief on behalf of Campbell Live and then Campbell just recreated the questions with the hooded man, who we now all know was an actor. I thought at the time Holmes made the suggestion that it was unlikely, but the fact that the programme didn't tell viewers on the night the story screened that they had only secured an audio interview with the thief and so the television interview scenario was being re-created with an actor, left them wide open to such speculation.

It was a major cock-up on TV3's part, and to be fair they know that and have apologised for it. So fair enough that they wanted to set the record straight with the Herald on Sunday that Campbell's interview with the medal thief did indeed take place.

This one has been a bit of a sorry saga for TV3 and Campbell Live, and it continues to drag on. The Campbell Live team are now in the awkward position where they will have to fight a legal fight not to give up the name of the thief, as journalists must always protect their sources. This is an important journalistic principle, and one that is worth fighting for. It's just a shame that some hasty decision making back when this story screened means this important point of principle is being fought over a medal thief loathed by the nation rather than a brave whistle-blower or some other more admirable human being.

A FOND FAREWELL TO EYE TO EYE

2009-07-11T19:41:00.000-07:00

I'm very sorry to hear that Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson is finishing its run with TVNZ.

The current affairs panel discussion show with a Maori focus has run for six years off-peak on TV ONE. Funding for off-peak shows is a rather perilous thing these days, and it was almost inevitable that the plug would eventually be pulled, but it's a shame. The show was great, and had a real role to play in furthering understanding of Maori issues and points of view.

I'm not an entirely unbiased observer on this one, as - in my other life as a freelance executive producer - I worked on the show for a couple of seasons a few years back. It was one of the most interesting and enjoyable productions I have ever worked on, and my time spent with Eye to Eye gave me a greater understanding of the Maori world that I am still grateful for.

It was this providing of another perspective in an easily accessible, very watchable way that was Eye to Eye's strength. The Maori Television Service should have a look at whether there might be a way they could pick the series up with funding from Te Mangai Paho.

SUNDAY NEWSPAPER WARS

2009-07-06T23:47:00.000-07:00

The employment law case involving one-time Herald on Sunday Assistant Editor Stephen Cook has highlighted the intense competition between the HoS and the Sunday Star-Times. The case has been before the court this past week, and the judgement is now reserved.

Between the information actually revealed in court and the rumours circulating about what is contained in some of the suppressed evidence, there have been a few wild stories floating about. A telescope to spy into the SST editor's office (a joke apparently), stealing stories (probably not a joke), deliberate rumour spreading about rival staff members - it's been all on.

I'm amazed the journos have time to do any work with all this carry on. And I'm equally amazed to hear they fight so bitterly when the stories both the papers feature seem so little worth fighting for!

MEDIA COVERAGE OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH

2009-07-05T23:51:00.000-07:00

I've waited a week and a half to write about the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death. It just seemed too hard in the beginning. There was so much to say, and - in another way - so little to say. Because in the end the coverage is pretty much what I would have expected it to be - there's really nothing surprising about any of it.

Every now and then something happens that generates absolutely saturation media coverage from both serious and tabloid media - Jackson's death is one of these events. And when this happens you see the best of journalism and the worst of journalism. Great writers from legendary publications write some thoughtful and striking pieces, and - at the other end of the spectrum - madness rules. This is just the way of it I guess.

The American showbiz website TMZ broke the story first, and they've had some other significant scoops in recent times, so they are obviously good at what they do, and you have to give that to them. Getting the scoop is an important part of journalism, and they got it. But as the first reports filtered through, I found myself not believing the story when it was just on the TMZ site. It was when the LA Times reported it that I sat up and took notice. And I don't think I was alone in that.

Also like a lot of other people, I had very mixed feelings about Jackson's death. There's no denying that he was an exraordinarily gifted entertainer, but what a questionable lifestyle he led. I once read a book written by Jordy Chandler's uncle, which was so restrained and balanced in its approach that it was extremely credible and believable. Jordy Chandler was the boy at the centre of the first high profile child abuse scandal. The book told a story frighteningly similar to that told in the later child abuse court case. I know he wasn't convicted of any crime, but I do believe Jackson hurt these boys. He may well not have thought he was hurting them, but maybe that's what all paedophiles think. As I say, mixed feelings indeed.

But in the hours immediately following Jackson's death, it wasn't really the time to talk about the darker sides of his life, and most of the media coverage here in New Zealand didn't. And I'm okay with that. It's a social convention that you don't speak ill of the dead, and I think to a degree it is and should be a media convention too.

Actually one of the best things about this past 10 strange days has been getting to see and hear Jackson's music again - and to remember how great it was before it all started to feel a little tarnished.

I haven't sought out much other Jackson coverage - there's such an enormous amount of it online, I haven't even really gone there. I've been content with reading my daily Herald, listening to radio reports and watching the TV news. The Herald has done the best job for me. Their coverage has been thorough and considered, but not over-kill. The paper has run some excellent pieces of writing from some of the respected overseas publications - the David Randall piece from the Independent in today's Herald is a great example.

On TV ONE news, Tim Wilson looks a little earnest, and Dominic Bowden rather lightweight. David Farrier strikes a better balance on TV3.

And if you're not troubled by mixed feelings like I am, and you just want to be a fan - grab the colour lift-out section from this week's Woman's Day. It's simply a pretty pictorial of a pop star who has died. Maybe that's enough. And maybe soon we can all move on and a tortured genius can rest in peace.

NEW IDEA DAVID BAIN EXCLUSIVE

2009-07-04T18:44:00.000-07:00

TV ONE have just shot an interview with me for tonight's news, about the David Bain exclusive in this week's New Idea magazine, and whether or not it is a good scoop.

In one sense it is - it's what journos call a "good get" and all of our media outlets would have been keen to have it. After all, Bain is someone once convicted of killing five members of his family, who has been found not guilty after spending many years in prison. New Idea editor Hayley McLarin is a good and hard-working women's magazine editor. I don't doubt that she will have worked her contacts and done the necessary groundwork to secure the interview, but of course it is also more than likely that money changed hands. Today's Sunday newspapers are speculating that the price for this two-part story could have been as much as $50,000. That seems a lot for these tough financial times in journalism, but at $25,000 for each of the two parts of the story, it may well be possible. Paying this kind of money for big exclusives is certainly not unheard of for our weekly women's magazines.

So because many readers will be suspicious that they may be reading a piece of chequebook journalism, the scoop is compromised. More savvy readers may well ask themselves - if Bain was paid for the article did that give him control over what questions were asked and what was written? Did he get to vet the questions in advance and did he get copy approval of the final piece? It is certainly a very soft story - there are no questions about why Bain thinks his father killed his family and how he now feels about that, and there is nothing about why some of the forensic evidence seems so incriminating to Bain junior. Of course I haven't seen next week's part two of the interview yet, but I'd be surprised if it contains those harder questions. In the end it is a feature piece for a women's magazine.

I don't know what Bain's motives were for doing the story. They may have been purely financial - no doubt he needs the money after so many years in jail. He may also want to tell his side of the story. But if the latter was the case, picking a soft women's magazine to do so probably doesn't help his cause. The roughly 50 per cent of New Zealanders who believe he is not guilty will no doubt still think so after reading the New Idea piece. But conversely the other 50 per cent who have misgivings about the not guilty verdict aren't likely to change their minds either. In fact their opinion of David Bain may worsen if they feel that he has now profited from a terrible crime.

If Bain had allowed himself to be interviewed for a serious current affairs media outlet like TV ONE's Sunday programme or The Listener, and if he'd had some convincing answers to the tough questions, that might have done more for his reputation and P.R. But I guess it was always unlikely that he would take that path, especially bearing in mind that it is mainly the women's magazines who are known to pay for stories in this country.

So to answer the original question - yes it is a good scoop for New Idea, and it will no doubt sell some magazines for them. But it is a compromised scoop, and I doubt that it will be a P.R. triumph for David Bain and his supporters either.

HYSTERICAL MEDIA AND A LOST OASIS

2009-05-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

In my commentating on media coverage of the Napier seige story, I remarked upon the sensational tone of a lot of the coverage. Since then we've had the Christine Rankin and Melissa Lee sagas also reported on at fever pitch. And maybe it all began with the Tony Veitch case, which attracted an extraordinary amount of frenzied coverage that still festers on.

A journalist friend of mine, Zara Potts, remarked on Twitter that she felt our media was getting more hysterical every day. I think I agree with her. I've never been a purist in my media commentating. I accept that in these commercial times, there will be lighter stories, and showbiz stories and a sometimes populist approach to journalism. But at the moment things feel a little out of control.

Is it the result of increasingly tough economic times for our media outlets, and the added pressure of mainstream media fighting something of a losing battle with the online world? Are we breeding a new wave of young journalists who think that breathless sensationalism is the normal way to go? It's getting scary. If someone with fairly populist taste like myself is getting turned off by it all, I hate to think how people with more classic taste in journalism are feeling.

Sadly, one little oasis of calm in our local media landscape made its final appearance last Sunday. Finlay McDonald and Andrew Patterson's excellent Sunday Live show on Radio Live has ended to make way for sports programming. The show was a fine mix of pop culture and current affairs. It was informative and entertaining - intelligent but never elitist. It was a soothing Sunday morning listen and I will miss it. I hope Radio Live has plans for it to come back in some form or other.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE NAPIER SIEGE

2009-05-10T22:37:00.000-07:00

The Napier siege has been a huge news story and a lot of journalists have done a lot of hard work, in some cases in quite scary circumstances. As I have said before in my media commentating, we tend to be reasonably good at on-the-spot news reporting in New Zealand, and coverage of this awful incident was generally strong.

But one thing I would criticise is the rather sensational tone that crept into a lot of the coverage. In these very competitive commercial times for our media outlets that does seem to be the way of things - to be sensational - and the language a lot of reporters used was rather over-the-top at times.

A mate of mine who knows a thing or two about guns and the military - from a historian/collector point of view, I hasten to add - says not only was a lot of the reporters' language sensational, in some cases it was also inappropriate and inaccurate.

He says: "They talked about the gunman firing a 'volley of shots' at police. A volley is fired by a number of shooters firing at the same time. What the gunman fired was a 'burst' or 'series" of shots."

The New Zealand Herald made an interesting call for its Saturday morning edition when it came out that morning with the banner headline Gunman Dead - something that was not confirmed at that time. Maybe a question mark at the end of the headline might have been a better, more accurate option.

Talkback radio has been an interesting part of the media coverage of the siege. On the plus side, it was an opportunity for some really strong and immediate first-hand eyewitness reports as events unfolded, and also a good chance for people who knew him to paint a picture of the gunman. But on the downside, as usual there were all the same old armchair experts who knew what they would do if they were there and doing the job of the police. Yeah right.

It was a hell of a situation, and it seems to me the cops handling it were doing okay. Especially when they were knee-deep in journalists at the time!

TV NEWS RATINGS

2009-04-03T20:55:00.000-07:00

It's not the done thing these days - in sales and marketing terms - for TV networks to refer to 5+ ratings (that is, all viewers five and over). Somewhere along the line the advertising world decided that big bulk audience didn't matter and demographics, particularly younger ones, were where it was at. But despite that, I've always been surprised that TVNZ doesn't make more of the fact that its news programmes always have more viewers in 5+ than TV 3's news shows do. They've tried all sorts of fancy tag-lines on their promotional billboards over the years, but never the basic "New Zealand's most watched news." So I was intrigued yesterday to see a small, simple advertisement placed in the Business section of the NZ Herald just quietly stating the 5+ viewing figures for all of the main news shows across the two big networks in March. The ad didn't have a note on it to say who had placed it, but I can only assume it was TVNZ, though the subtlety was unusual compared to the network's usual efforts. And of course the rarely quoted 5+ figures show a very rosy picture for the TVNZ shows - quite a different picture than that painted by the many news releases TV 3 puts out talking up its ratings success in News and Current Affairs. These many news releases play with ratings data shamelessly, and if TVNZ has finally been driven to a bit of subtle rebuttal - good on them.

For the record, here are the numbers that appeared in the ad:

TVNZ TV 3
NZI Business 38,100 ASB Business 12,440
Breakfast 113,830 Sunrise 21,980
ONE News Midday 93,890 3 News at 12 29,600
ONE News 548,580 3 News 303,670
Close Up 456,990 Campbell Live 177,960
Tonight 164,200 Nightline 138,210

KEVIN SMITH TRIBUTE

2009-03-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

As well as my media commentating and executive producing, I have recently taken up the position of Content Director of NZ On Screen. NZ On Screen is the NZOA-funded website that is charged with acquiring and showcasing New Zealand television and film content going right back to the beginning of the industry. The website is great - there's already a lot of good content there and it is being added to all the time. And we've just launched a new feature where you can access a collection of titles from one home page button. We can use this to celebrate the work of a significant performer or producer, or to mark an occasion like ANZAC Day.

Our first featured collection is a tribute to the late actor Kevin Smith. It went up on the site to mark his birthday on March 16 and will be there for around six weeks. The tribute features television and film work from Smith, as well as written pieces by friends and colleagues such as James Griffin, Michael Hurst and Geoff Dolan.

The collection has come together very well and shows what a versatile and appealing performer Smith was, and what a terribly sad loss his early death was. It feels like there would have been so much more to come.

If you would like to have a look at the Kevin Smith collection, or anything else on NZ On Screen, go to www.nzonscreen.com

A CORO ST FAVE BOWS OUT

2009-03-24T13:30:00.000-07:00

The episode of Coronation St where long-time favourite character Vera Duckworth died was watched by 760,400 people when it screened here last Friday night - up from the usual average of 530,000. When the tear-jerker episode screened in Britain a year ago, almost 12.5 million people watched it. As is always the case with Coro St, when there's a big event to stage, they do it well. Bill Tarmey, who plays Vera's husband Jack, was just right in his reaction to her death. It was a very moving piece of tele. Vera was played by Liz Dawn, who is retiring due to ill-health. Her portrayal of her larger-than-life Coro alter ego will be missed.

ROBERT BRUCE R.I.P.

2009-03-08T14:36:00.000-07:00

Long-time agent Robert Bruce's sudden passing is a very sad loss for the television and film industry. Robert was one of the true gentlemen of the business. I had a lot of dealings with him when I was running TVNZ's internal production unit, as he represented many of our top presenters as well as actors. Even though we were haggling over his clients' pay, our discussions were always friendly and enjoyable. Robert got great deals for his clients, but producers like myself didn't come way hating him or never wanting to deal with his talent again (and believe me some agents can have that affect on you!).

Robert's business style was always to be amiable and respectful. He was very good at his job. I came to be extremely fond of him, as I think did everyone in our very strange and imperfect screen industry. His death was sudden and unexpected. He was such a fit, strong, larger-than-life man. I couldn't believe it when I first heard of his passing, and I still feel a bit in shock.

Robert's funeral on Thursday was incredibly sad, but also really lovely. I've never seen so many actors and showbiz personalities in the same place at the same time. It showed the mark of the man and the big loss that is felt. Jackie Clarke and Frankie Stevens made our spines tingle with their acapella version of Amazing Grace, Tem Morrison made us laugh with his eulogy then made us cry when he led a rousing haka around Robert's coffin, bagpipes played, and SPCA dogs howled. It was a heart-felt and heart-breaking send-off.

R.I.P. Robert. You showed us all how the business side of show business should be done.

FAREWELL TO TIM PANKHURST

2009-02-28T21:30:00.000-08:00

Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst is leaving the job after seven years. Pankhurst has an excellent track record for supporting and encouraging investigative work, including the long-running Louise Nicholas story, the Donna Awatere fraud story, and some good work on the Winston Peters and Vela Brothers saga late last year. Investigative reporting is time and resource consuming and therefore expensive, and Pankhurst is to be commended for his efforts in this area. Pankhurst is leaving to run the Newspaper Publishers' Association. I wish him well, and hope the Dom Post continues to do well in his absence.

HILARY BARRY JOINS RADIO LIVE BREAKFAST

2009-01-25T18:20:00.000-08:00

TV 3 newsreader Hilary Barry is to join Marcus Lush's Radio Live breakfast show as news anchor from Monday February 9. This is an interesting strategy from Radio Live.

Marcus Lush is an unusually talented broadcaster, but his quirky, folksy style is an unusual choice for a breakfast show on a news and talk station. Lush doesn't come from the classic current affairs interviewer or news journalist background, and sometimes this shows (though he actually does make a good fist of a lot of his interviewing).

Radio Live is no doubt hoping that Barry's profile and newsreading cred will beef the show up a bit as the station tries to make some inroads on Newstalk ZB Breakfast. Radio Live bosses may feel that ZB Breakfast is a little vulnerable at the moment with the departure of Paul Holmes and the arrival of Mike Hosking. Hosking is such a strong current affairs host, I doubt that ZB Breakfast is all that vulnerable, but good on Radio Live for trying.

Barry will be newsreading on the Lush show, but also presenting a new current affairs and information feature called "The World at 7" - a half hour of news, interviews with the day's key newsmakers, and other information from New Zealand and around the world.

It will be very interesting to see how this new strategy goes, and how the on-air relationship between Marcus Lush and Hilary Barry develops.

REPORTING THE RECESSION

2009-01-17T22:57:00.000-08:00

I've heard a lot of people saying lately that they are sick of the media endlessly reporting recession stories and all the negativity and doom and gloom that comes with that. Some folks go so far as to say if we journalists all just shut up about it, everyone would carry on as normal and everything would be a lot better. While there may be some truth in that, journalists can't really ignore something that is a global reality. It isn't the media's role to protect us from bad things that are happening in the world. And people do want to know what is happening and to get advice from those who are, hopefully, in the know.

But because of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of recession it is incredibly important that our media outlets act responsibly and get the balance right. Over the quiet news period of the past few holiday weeks we have definitely had rather more daily news stories about falling house prices and desperate times in retail than was perhaps really necessary. Overall, house prices haven't actually fallen by a huge amount yet, and Christmas retailing wasn't nearly as bad as so many column inches predicted.

I'm not saying things are great out there, but as Bob Jones said the other day, for people who can keep their jobs and pay their mortgages things won't really change all that much. And there are always those who actually do well out of recession. All sides of the recession story need to be reported. A balanced picture is important to us all, and our journalists must rise to this challenge.

I'm not suggesting all our newspapers suddenly start running "good news" columns - but a bit of positivity here and there would be welcomed by many readers I think. This weekend's Herald on Sunday ran a feature piece by reporter Leah Haines called "Upside to the Downturn" - looking at ways to make the recession work for you. Good on Haines and the HOS for doing that. It was refreshing. More please.

CONGRATS TO NORTH AND SOUTH AND MIKE WHITE FOR MARK LUNDY STORY

2009-01-17T22:16:00.000-08:00

The February issue of North and South magazine features a piece on the Lundy Murders, by senior writer Mike White. It is a 12,000-word feature, and the level of in-depth research work and the clarity of writing about complex court evidence is really impressive. Congratulations to White for what must have been a mammoth effort.

The great thing about the story is that it goes straight down the middle. It is not an emotional piece playing up on the fact that a man who has lost his family may also have been wrongly convicted of murdering them. It doesn't prominently feature interviews with Lundy supporters. It just lays out and analyses a whole lot of evidence - some of which was presented to the jury and some of which was not.

The story doesn't overtly criticise Lundy's defence team, but the implication is that they were rather weak. Neither does the piece overtly criticise the Police - but once again you get the feeling that the cops picked their man and then picked and chose their evidence to fit.

We all form our own opinions on these high profile court cases that are not cut and dried - based on what we read and what we hear. I've always sensed that Lundy was guilty as charged. But the North and South story made me think again. Even if the man is guilty, it certainly doesn't seem that this was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Mark White's feature story is a long read but it's a very good read and well worth the effort. Grab a copy of North and South and have a look for yourself.

HAVE YOU HAD YOUR THREE HOURS AND EIGHT MINUTES TODAY?

2009-01-14T21:55:00.001-08:00

Nielsen research figures released by the NZ Television Broadcasters' Council say that New Zealanders watched an average of three hours and eight minutes of television in 2008 - the highest level of TV viewership in this country since records began.

Many would have predicted that the arrival on the scene of new media, in particular the internet, would have hurt the traditional old media of television. But it seems the reverse has happened. As Television Broadcasters' Council Chief Executive Rick Friesen says - "it seems that content from these newer media outlets is helping grow interest in traditional television programming." I think another part of this same equation is that when viewers are deciding whether or not they will commit to a long-running series, the fact that they can now access missing episodes on the internet perhaps means they are more willing to make a commitment to the series.

The tightening economy may also have contributed to the rise in viewership. There is certainly a TV industry theory that television is something that does well in tough times because people are staying home with their cheap entertainment option. And with the technology we have these days - wide-screen, flat-screen, high definition, etc - perhaps the home viewing experience is getting closer to that of the cinema.

It was also a big year for television in New Zealand - we've got a lot of channels now and most of them did what they do reasonably well. Pay operator SKY TV had a particularly good year in 2008. It was also a year with a lot of special event television - the Olympics, the New Zealand General Election, the American Election, and big stunt-type local series like Dancing with the Stars and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Health experts and educationalists may not think NZers watching over three hours of tele a day each is a great thing, but it is certainly very good news for the television industry.

TOP 10 PEOPLE OF 2008

2008-12-22T17:42:00.000-08:00

As part of my media commentating and magazine reviewing work for TV ONE Breakfast, the team asked me to compile a list of my top 10 people of 2008. Here it is, from number one on down:

Barack Obama - for inspiring America and the world at a time when inspiration was in short supply.

Helen Clark - for being one of the best PMs we've ever had, for her incredibly hard work for NZ, and for her dignified and gracious exit.

John Key - for a great start.

Murray Burton (Elim College Principal) - for extraordinary dignity at an appallingly difficult time.

Rob Fyfe (Air NZ CEO) - for the same kind of grace under pressure with the Air NZ crash.

Valerie Villi - for her Olympic win and her modesty and grace.

Mahe Drysdale - for battling on at the Olympics when he was terribly ill, and for not using it as an excuse for not winning gold.

Tina Fey - for being a better Sarah Palin then the real Sarah Palin. And for giving us all a laugh in a year when we really needed it.

Prince Harry - for being the only even slightly interesting Royal since the loss of Princess Diana, and for stopping falling out of nightclubs for a moment and becoming a minor war hero.

Rob James-Collier who plays Liam Connor on Coronation Street - for being the first genuine spunk in 48 years of the show. Beats all the Hollywood hunks hands down.

TOP NZ WOMEN'S MAGAZINE COVER STARS

2008-12-20T15:01:00.000-08:00

So who has featured on the most covers of our three weekly women's magazines this year? It's a tie between the two Kates - Middleton and Holmes.

As of this past week, Kate Middleton has featured on 17 covers - 10 for Woman's Day, four for New Idea and three for Woman's Weekly. She is the Day's favourite cover girl by far.

Katie Holmes has also been on a total of 17 covers, but more evenly spread between the three mags - WD 7, NI 6, WW 4.

Angelina Jolie is in a close second place with 16 covers -NI 8, WD 6, WW 2.

Woman's Weekly and New Idea both had 30 different cover stars for the year. Woman's Day was more repetitive with 15 different stars - Victoria Beckham and and Jennifer Aniston were two big favourites for the Day with eight and seven covers respectively.

In terms of local covers, Woman's Weekly had 17, New Idea had 16, and Woman's Day just five. The Day definitely seems to have decided that it sells just as well by using the regular overseas celebrity favourites as its cover stars.

THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET ON NEWSPAPERS

2008-12-20T14:43:00.000-08:00

Much has been written and said about the impact of the rise of the internet on the newspaper industry. Rupert Murdoch recently came out and said some people are over-reacting in their cries of doom - that there will always be a place for good journalism and that readers will always trust newspapers more than the net. Johann Hari is a columnist for the Independent in London. The NZ Herald runs some of his work, and it is always impressive. This past week there was an excellent Hari piece about the most over-rated and under-rated things of 2008. Here's what he wrote for "Most Under-rated Phenomenon:"

"Newspapers. Here's a weird paradox. If you include the internet, more people are reading quality newspapers than ever before. Yet newspapers are - as the bankruptcy of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune shows - dying. We don't just want it all, we want it free. Does it matter? As good as some bloggers are, they don't have the army of foreign correspondents or in-depth investigative teams that are necessary to make sense of the world. If print newspapers - for all their manifest flaws and corporate biases - die, there will be an aching hole where news-gathering used to be. Newspapers: buy them or lose them."

FAREWELL TO PAUL HOLMES

2008-12-14T15:52:00.000-08:00

Love him or hate him, and these days there seems to be much more love than hate, you can't deny that Paul Holmes has been an extraordinary contributor to New Zealand broadcasting. Paul will do his last breakfast shift at Newstalk ZB this Friday (December 19). His show has been number one in the the Auckland market for most of its 22 years of existence, and this year it hit number one in Wellington for the first time as well. Forty-three successive ratings surveys have had Paul at number one in the tough Auckland market. In his last survey, he had 20.9 per cent of the market. The second highest rating station had six per cent. That's all pretty incredible.

Paul also had 15 years of television success with his nightly current affairs show Holmes. Yes he's had his ups and downs with both his television and radio careers, not to mention his colourful personal life, but there is really no-one else to rival him in his NZ broadcasting success. He's been a pioneer of a certain style of populist current affairs that he does so well and with such heart that you can't help but be captivated.

Newstalk ZB boss Bill Francis has handled Paul's departure from Breakfast brilliantly. He has an excellent successor in Mike Hosking; the succession plan was announced a long time ago to give listeners a chance to get used to the idea; and Paul will still have a role with ZB, contributing some words of wisdom to Breakfast every morning, and taking over the Saturday morning show that Hosking does now. TVNZ could learn from Francis and ZB in how to manage dignified exits for veteran broadcasters.

Good luck in your new life, Paul. You will be missed, and your legend will live on.

THE NOELLE McCARTHY PLAGIARISM CASE

2008-11-30T13:00:00.000-08:00

Radio New Zealand has now publicly dealt with the Noelle McCarthy plagiarism case, and McCarthy herself has apologised. While RNZ management may have been a little slow off the mark in dealing with the situation, I think their handling of the case is appropriate. I don't think this was a serious enough instance of plagiarism to warrant McCarthy's dismissal from the station. If the lifting of other writers' work had happened to a broader extent in McCarthy's NZ Herald column that might have been another matter, but spoken pieces for radio feels a little different than print.

McCarthy delivered at least three editorial pieces on National Radio that were significantly lifted from other media. I suspect her actions were a looseness around attribution of sources rather than a wilful plagiarism, but her behaviour was certainly not acceptable in broadcast journalism. She showed a naievity and lack of experience that is no doubt embarassing for Radio New Zealand, which sets its journalism standards high.

But McCarthy is in fact relatively inexperienced. I don't think she has had much in the way of formal journalism training. She was something of an overnight sensation in the New Zealand media, coming from nowhere to everywhere fast.

When she was on the way up, the praise that was heaped upon her was far more than she deserved. But strangely, now that she has in effect "made it," the criticism she attracts is also more than she deserves. The knives have really been out for her on this one - far more than they were for the young New Zealand Herald journalist who got in trouble for a similar instance of plagiarism involving a Tawera Nikau profile a few years back. She too was relatively inexperienced, and she too kept her job.

Yes, McCarthy has made a stupid mistake - one I'm sure she won't commit again - but she doesn't deserve to have her radio career destroyed over it. National Radio needs some young fresh blood, and McCarthy does fill that role for them nicely.

ADVERTORIAL AND AD PLACEMENT ENCROACHING ON EDITORIAL

2008-11-17T19:05:00.000-08:00

Our tightening economy has been having an impact on our print media, with moves such as staff cuts at the two big publishing companies APN and Fairfax Media, out-sourcing of subbing, and editors overseeing two or three magazines at once instead of just one. Lately I have noticed another sign of the tough times - the placement of advertising features and advertisements is changing.

It's a long time since I worked in daily journalism, but back then there were quite strict standards regarding the placement of ads and advertorials (ads that look like editorial copy). They couldn't be near any copy that was too similar - nothing that would cause reader confusion or blurring of the editorial lines. This was always a source of tension between editorial and advertising staff at our publications. Journalists want purity of product, but sales people are charged with making money.

As times get tougher, I can see that a lot of the old standards are being eroded. A Greer Robson ad runs opposite her column in Woman's Day. Well the Woman's Day is a very commercial magazine, you might say, what does it matter? But then you see an ad for Brian's Gaynor's investment seminars under his column in the Business section of the NZ Herald. That wouldn't have happened a few years ago.

Going back to the Woman's Day, the Warehouse runs a multi-page advertising feature for its clothing lines inside the mag, and some of the pages are almost identical to the magazine's own fashion pages. Do readers notice? Does it matter? Maybe not as much as the purists in the industry would say. But it's kind of "thin end of the wedge" stuff. If advertising and advertorial gets too tacky looking and too messy in its placement it will affect the over-all look of magazines and newspapers and it could eventually drive readers away. Like most things, it's a question of balance, and a subject worthy of discussion.

THE MEDIA AND THE TRAGIC CASE OF NIA GLASSIE

2008-11-02T19:52:00.000-08:00

People have a strange sad fascination with these awful child abuse cases and, like all the others, this story got a lot of publicity initially. But now that the full dreadful details are being outlined in court, this one is so completely hideous that it's almost like our media outlets are slightly shying away from it. I've heard members of the public saying that they mute the TV reports on it or change channels because they can't bear to hear the horrific details. I think journalists and editors sense that, and I think it's affecting the coverage, or at least the low-key placement of the coverage. I've talked before in my media commentating about to what extent journalists should use or not use really grisly crime details. It's not the media's responsibility to protect us from the awful things that happen in the world, but there are definitely issues of taste and sensitivity and reading the public mood that come into play, and this tragic case is an illustration of that I think.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN

2008-10-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

As I write this, there are only two weeks to go till the election. Consequently much of our TV and radio air-time and newspaper, magazine and internet column inches have lately been taken up with campaign coverage. So have our journalists and commentators been doing a good job?

Well I guess that depends a bit on your perspective. For a media and politics junkie like myself, the New Zealand media's fairly gung-ho approach to election coverage is reasonably satisfying. We tend to cover election campaigns as if they are a sports event or perhaps a great theatrical spectacle. It's all very "he says, she says" and about the day-to-day cut and thrust of the campaign. And a lot of our journalists do that basic daily coverage well.

Where I think we fall down a bit is in the more grunty, intelligent analysis end of things. There really isn't a lot of serious coverage of whether some of the policies being spouted are workable or highly flawed. We get more caught up in Lockwood and Maurice Williamson's gaffes, the constant drama surrounding Winston Peters, whether Helen Clark's billboard photo is too air-brushed, and what the hell is going on with Rodney Hide's yellow jacket.

I have to confess I get completely caught up in the almost showbizzy side of the campaign too. So, as I said, the kind of media coverage we've been getting by and large works for me. But if you're looking for something a litte smarter and more in-depth, you might be struggling a little to find it.

TV ONE's Agenda does a good job at the more serious end of the spectrum, but a lot of TVNZ's other more in-depth coverage has been buried on their little-watched digital channel.

In terms of the more basic day-to-day coverage that is the bulk of what we are served up, I think TV 3's Duncan Garner does a good job of putting everything into understandable lay terms. Some people think he's a bit bovver boy in style, but I kind of like that about him.

In the print world, I really rate the work of NZ Herald political columnist John Armstrong. He consistently writes strong, sensible analysis, and is so even-handed it's hard to tell if he has any political leanings of his own. The Herald's Audrey Young is also very able.

Jane Clifton's columns in the Listener and the Dominion Post have a clever and appealing mix of humour and analysis. And 2008 Qantas Media Awards winner Colin Espiner is a really good all-rounder, in his writing for the Christchurch Press and in his on-line blog for them. He is also an informed and personable guest commentator on Radio Live.

Radio Live has been my radio station of choice this election year. With former MPs Michael Laws, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere in their regular on-air line-up, along with long-time political junkie Bill Ralston, and a strong roster of regular commentators, they've been doing a great job.

There are no doubt other names I could have mentioned. I've hardly even touched on contributors to the blogosphere. Feel free to let me know who you think has been doing a good job, or to take issue with any of my commendations. Election coverage has certainly been extensive. And no doubt it will continue to be as we count down to November 8.

NEW MANAGING EDITOR FOR FAIRFAX SUNDAYS

2008-10-19T21:16:00.000-07:00

Australian Mitchell Murphy has been appointed Managing Editor of the Sunday Star Times and the Sunday News. He is currently Managing Editor of Fairfax Digital in Queensland. Murphy, 42, is apparently very much of an "Aussie bloke," so that should provide something of a contrast with the Star Times' departing editor Cate Honore Brett. Chris Baldock remains in the role of Sunday News editor.

The Sunday Star Times has been looking a little on the dull side lately, with strong competition from its APN rival the Herald on Sunday. It will be interesting to see what Murphy does with the paper. On the one hand it could perhaps do with a little livening up, but hopefully it won't go right to the other extreme and become ruthlessly commercial and tabloid-style in its content.

The paper is also losing its long-time deputy editor Donna Chisholm, to the ACP magazines North and South and Metro. Chisholm is one of the best journalists around - an old-fashioned newsperson in all the best senses of the word! She'll be a great addition to the ACP team.

A TALE OF TWO FRONT PAGE LEADS

2008-10-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday's New Zealand Herald front page lead story was a classic example of the beat-up of a story on a slow news day. "Teen dies at party in reality TV house" - the sensational headline shouted, as if we'd had a death at a Big Brother house or something of that ilk.

A young woman had tragically died at a house in Mt Maunganui that Greenstone Pictures had been filming at for the reality series Neighbours at War, but her death was as a result of a congenital heart condition and had very little to do with the TV show.

The Greenstone crew had left the house three hours before her death and the Police had no criticism of the production company, who they had in fact invited to the notorious party house, in the hope that the Neighbours at War mediators might actually help an ongoing situation they were struggling with.

Yes, the young people at the house may have started behaving even more badly for the sake of the TV cameras, but it seems Greenstone - one of the more principled and responsible TV production companies around - left as soon as that started happening. They didn't deserve to have their names dragged through the mud in this way. The Herald and other print media outlets do have something of a habit of picking on television, and the angle of this story just seemed unnecessary.

Rather ironically, there was a far better story buried in the very last paragraph of the Herald piece, which read: "Courtney is the third of five siblings to die suddenly. The other two collapsed and died when they were aged 13 and 16."

Now there's a story. And, to its credit, the Sunday Star Times recognised this on Sunday with its front page lead story headline - "Parents mourn third dead child." This was a really moving piece about this family's tragic and difficult situation.

To be fair to the Herald, it may have been difficult to get this second angle in time for their deadline, but in these increasingly challenging commercial times for our publications, it all just smelt a bit like taking the easy sensationalist option.

THE LEADERS' DEBATE ON TV ONE

2008-10-18T19:41:00.000-07:00

Close Up host Mark Sainsbury has taken a bit of criticism for his role on the TV ONE leaders' debate. Certainly if Sainbsury was there in the role of debate moderater, then he didn't really do that. He pretty much just left Helen Clark and John Key to slug it out, rarely attempting to let one finish if the other started talking over the top, and not doing much in the way of making the two leaders stick to the point or picking them up if their answers were a little light on truth.

Rather than adding to the criticism of Sainsbury though, I'd be more inclined to question his casting in the role. He's just not a hard-arse interviewer/moderator. Never has been. He's a warm and genial host - so he hosted the programme and facilitated it, but he didn't really moderate. If TV ONE wanted that style, they'd have been better to use Paul Henry or Mike Hosking, who have more of the current affairs interviewer killer instinct.

For myself, I didn't actually mind that the debate had a slightly loose and un-moderated feel. I agree with NZ Herald columnist Noelle McCarthy who said that gave it a relaxed kind of Kiwi feel that was nice to see after all the razzamatazz of the American presidential debates.

And I liked the You Tube voters' questions part of the programme concept. I think that is probably part of why the debate rated better than political programmes usually do. It was unashamedly populist in its style rather than pointy-headed. I'm not sure about the role of the three guest journalists, however. I'm unconvinced that their presence really added anything.

Anyway, enough from me, what did you think? Did you think TV ONE made a good job of the production of the debate? Did you think Sainsbury did a good job or a bad one? Do you think he should be on the other leaders' debates TV ONE still has planned? Who else would you like to see in that role? Paul Henry? Mike Hosking? Any other suggestions?

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS

2008-10-11T21:05:00.000-07:00

There is a saying that goes "if you put all the economists in the world end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." Economics is by no means an exact science and I don't envy journalists having to cover the global economic crisis and its affect on New Zealand. For every respected economist convincingly giving one theory, there is another equally convincingly telling us the opposite. The truth is no-one really knows exactly what will happen in the next year or so.

So who should you listen to and what should you read in order to find out what's happening to the economy and how it will impact on you? It's a tough question and one I can't answer definitively.

In terms of TV news, I think TV ONE's business correspondents Owen Poland and David Young generally have a better handle on things than their TV 3 counterparts. Also, on Sunday October 12's Agenda programme on TV ONE there was an interesting debate on tax policy and the financial crisis with Bill English and featuring panelists Vernon Small and John Roughan. There was a similar programme on Sunday October 19 featuring Michael Cullen. These are worth a look.

On the radio, Radio New Zealand's Morning Report Business Editor Patrick O'Mara has a good reputation for being well-informed and clear in his explanations. Radio Live use guest business journalist Bernard Hickey a lot, and I find him good at putting things into lay terms that I can understand. Hickey is the Managing Editor of http://www.interest.co.nz/, which is worth checking out.

In the print world, I find the coverage to be a bit more patchy. But the Sunday Star Times of October 12 had a very good piece by reporter Emma Page called "Meltdown or motivation: how will you cope?" The sub-heading was "how will ordinary New Zealanders be affected by a global recession?" and the feature answered that well. I thought it was a good example of the simple nuts and bolts end of journalism on this complex and challenging topic. Money expert Mary Holm - a regular contributor to the New Zealand Herald - also gives good clear advice at the everyday consumer end of things.

At the more in-depth end of the spectrum, last week's Listener features a well-rounded piece by Gareth Morgan that is a more detailed analysis of the international and local situation. It's a good read for people wanting a bit more grunt on the subject. Not everyone will agree with all that Morgan says, but at least he and the Listener have stuck their necks out and said it.

So there are a few thoughts for you if you're wondering where to start to make sense of it all. Of course there is the other option, of reading and listening to nothing. Then you won't know we're having an economic crisis, and you'll just keep spending, keep employing people and doing business, keep on banking as normal, and maybe we'll all be okay!

NOSTALGIC LOCAL TV

It's interesting to see that TV 3 is planning to do a Telethon next year, and now it has been announced that TVNZ will be bringing back the old Top Town series. Seems like our networks are getting a little nostalgic. Or at least they are realising that the audience maybe has a bit of an appetite for nostalgia these days. And I think they're right. If the shows are produced well with a good modern update on the old style, I think they'll do well. It feels like the timing is about right for a new Telethon and a new Top Town, and nostalgia is all about timing. I think there's a reason why all those great old 80s bands have dragged themselves out in front of us this decade not back in the 1990s! The other part of this equation is that in these days of a highly fragmented television market and new technologies, the free-to-air networks are desperate for event-type TV that gets everybody watching the same show again and talking about it the next day. Good luck to TV 3 for Telethon and TVNZ with Top Town - I hope both shows do well for them.

GOTCHA JOURNALISM

When Sarah Palin used the expression "gotcha journalism," I had not heard the term before, and wondered if she herself had coined it. It's an apt description of the type of questioning from a journalist where they seem to be trying to trap the interviewee, either with something the interviewee should know and probably doesn't, or to get them to deny something that the reporter knows can be proved, or to get them to contradict an earlier statement that the reporter has on tape.

I've been doing some digging, and it seems that Palin didn't in fact coin the phrase. There are a few different theories on exactly what it dates back to. An edition of Britain's The Sun back in 1982 used the word "gotcha" as a massive headline in relation to an incident in the Falklands War. That's where the colloquialism seems to have come from, if not the current meaning and usage.

Dan Quayle - with whom some are making Palin comparisons - apparently used the expression "gotcha journalism" in an interview with David Letterman in 1999. And during the 2004 American presidential election the term was apparently heavily used by Republican campaign managers to try to diminish the credibility of journalists asking hard questions about Iraq.So Palin hasn't coined a new phrase, but it is a very descriptive one.

I guess we've had our own examples of "gotcha journalism" here in New Zealand politics. Mike Williams denying he had said something at the Labour Party conference before he realised that TV ONE's Guyon Espiner had it on tape. John Key fudging on Lord Ashcroft's visit to New Zealand to TV 3's Duncan Garner before he realised how much Garner already knew. And then John Key again fudging - this time to TV ONE's Fran Mold - about his rail shares ownership when the Labour Party had obviously made sure that TV ONE had all the facts on that one!

There's something kind of sneaky and obvious and easy target-ish about "gotcha journalism" that makes it not sit that well with me - and I think it affects a lot of members of the public the same way. In fact it's probably one of the things that creates public negativity about the media.

But I guess it has its place. After all, politicians know the stakes are high and that they always need to be well prepared. They also know that they are supposed to tell the truth. And it is part of a journalist's job to keep them on their toes and keep them honest.

As for Palin, if certain sectors of the American media keep on asking her general knowledge and foreign policy questions they know she's going to get wrong, it will be interesting to see if that damages her or actually makes a lot of people think she is being picked on by smart-arse journalists thereby creating a sympathetic backlash.

TO WHAT EXTENT DO OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS SHOW THEIR POLITICAL COLOURS?

The New Zealand Herald copped a bit of flack for its issue with the latest on the Winston Peters political donations saga hugely prominent on the front page, but the John Key fudging the truth on his rail shares story buried on an inside page. Was the Herald blatantly showing its political colours, or was this a slightly strange but genuine editorial decision?

The Dominion Post in Wellington had covered both stories on its front page, and TV news programmes had also featured the Key story prominently.

I suppose only the Herald editorial team really knows exactly what went on in the paper's decision making that day, but it was interesting to see them give more prominence to the story the following day, and then the next day it was the subject of an editorial that was strongly critical of John Key. So maybe it was just an odd editorial judgement, rather than a wilful nailing of the colours to the past.

The political leanings of media outlets tend to be judged by the stance of their editorials, rather than the general content of the paper. All of our big daily papers - the Herald, the Dom Post, the Christchurch Press and the Otago Daily Times - have traditionally been judged as right leaning, or at least centre right.

Regarding the Sunday papers, I would say the Sunday Star-Times is left leaning, and the Herald on Sunday is centre right.Current affairs magazine the Listener has historically been leftie, but lately seems to have moved a little to the right. North and South is still pretty much on the left. And the National Business Review (NBR) is definitely right wing.

Radio stations Newstalk ZB and Radio Live are all over the place politically, depending on which host and which show - and I think that's a good thing. National Radio tends to be left leaning in general, though Morning Report host Sean Plunket seems to be equally tough on everyone these days. TV ONE, despite being state owned and all the suspicions and allegations that come with that, seems to run its news fairly straight down the middle. If anything, they maybe lean a little to the right. TV 3 News and Current Affairs, on the other hand, seems to be a bit left, particularly the Campbell Live programme.

As I said earlier, the political stance of a media outlet's management and editorials isn't necessarily reflected in the total content of the publication itself. Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority rules regarding fairness and balance would prevent that to a large degree, as would the differing views of the teams of journalists working at the publications and broadcast outlets.

Nowadays the blogosphere tends to be more the home of obvious political leanings and unashamedly politically subjective writing rather than mainstream media outlets, with right wingers like David Farrar and lefties like Chris Trotter and Russell Brown all doing some great writing.

While individual media outlets may get fairness and balance wrong sometimes, I think there are enough different political views being represented in the New Zealand media to ensure that a general fairness and balance does actually happen here overall.

A slightly odd aspect of this debate is that sometimes broadcasters and journalists who have made no secret of their political allegiance are actually harder on the party they support when it stuffs up than the other way around (perhaps because they expect more of them?). There was an interesting example of this this past week when TV ONE Breakfast host Paul Henry, who is completely upfront about his conservative political views, got absolutely stuck into John Key over the shares issue. He gave him a real grilling and I think a few people were surprised to see it. But Key had stuffed up and Henry wouldn't have been doing his job properly if he had let him off the hook.

And that brings me to another thing to remember when you are talking about political bias and the media. You do have to take into account where political parties are at in their history. The Labour Government definitely got a long honeymoon period with almost all media during its first term, and that was fair enough. The Government was new and people were giving it the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't get that now. It gets full-on scrutiny of the job it has done for the past nine years, and so it should. Likewise, National leader John Key had something of a honeymoon with the media when he was first in the job, but now he gets full-on scrutiny. And as someone who is trying to become our Prime Minister, that is also entirely appropriate.