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.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
TOP NZ WOMEN'S MAGAZINE COVER STARS
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.
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
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."
"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."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
FAREWELL TO PAUL HOLMES
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.
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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
THE NOELLE McCARTHY PLAGIARISM CASE
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.
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.
Monday, November 17, 2008
ADVERTORIAL AND AD PLACEMENT ENCROACHING ON EDITORIAL
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.
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
THE MEDIA AND THE TRAGIC CASE OF NIA GLASSIE
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
