The Dim-Post

July 27, 2008

Sunday Bobbleheads

Filed under: media — danylmc @ 11:45 am
Tags: , , ,

An unusually strong performance from National leader John Key on Agenda this morning; in his favour were the panelists Barry Soper and Fran O’Sullivan who were under some odd compulsion to keep asking Key the same question about Winston Peters over and over again:

Panelist: Would you have Peters in your government?
Key: That depends on the outcome of the current situation.
Panelist: Yes, but would you have him in your government?
Key: I’ve just said, it depends. If his answers to the questions put to him are satisfactory . . .
Panelist: Would you have him in your government yes or no?

And so on. Anyone being interviewed by Barry Soper instantly gains audience sympathy but Key also responded to Guyon Espiner’s more perilous questions rather deftly.

It’s not worth commenting on part deux of the Weekend Herald’s profile of Key, except to suggest that they clearly made a grave error when they sacked all their sub-editors.

The best thing in the papers this weekend isn’t even online: John Armstrong’s political diary published in yesterday’s Herald is hilarious. If you find yourself regaining conciousness in a dumpster over the next few days (I think I know my readership) it’s worth rummaging around in the filth for a copy of Saturday’s Herald on the strength of Armstrong’s contributions alone.

About these ads

4 Comments »

  1. Dumpster? That sounds very american. I normally wake up in a handi bin.

    Comment by Richard Prowse — July 28, 2008 @ 5:49 am

  2. No you don’t.

    5.49am? What the hell is the matter with you?

    Comment by JP — July 28, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

  3. Yes I do.
    Why, JP, do you have to bring ‘hell’ into every conversation we have? I have no knowledge, at this time, of anything being wrong with me. Since you got the new glasses you’ve been almost intolerable!

    Comment by Richard Prowse — July 28, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

  4. Yeah, it’d be nice if our politicians could know the coalition options that the voters are going to give them before the election happens. Maybe we could vote, see what they work out, then vote again a month later to decide if we like it or not. Like Italy, or Haiti.

    I’ve gotta disagree with you on the Key piece though – I found it comprehensive in its superficiality. They managed to cover the trivial aspects so well that anything anyone writes from now on will be guaranteed to have more substance. That must be a positive outcome.

    Also the reporters seem to have a done a fantastic job of editing themselves – they’ve managed to distill “hundreds of Key’s speeches, … the Parliamentary records of his questions to ministers, … interview transcripts dating back to the start of his political career”… not to mention “about 100 interviews” with “dozens of MPs” to a dozen trivial anecdotes – in only 3 months!

    And by clever use of an incoherent storyline they’ve managed to avoid both blatant hagiography and overly negative attack piece. (Though the “Saving the World” section possibly pushed the boundaries just a little).

    Overall it’s a nice change to see political biographers obviously not giving a shit about how well they can make a point. Hager and Wishart could learn something from this.

    Comment by gazzaj — July 28, 2008 @ 7:11 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 407 other followers

%d bloggers like this: