Comments on: Media Tip: Audiences and Agendas http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/10/audiences-and-agendas/ A sense of humour is just common sense dancing. Thu, 17 May 2012 13:23:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Sonia http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/10/audiences-and-agendas/comment-page-1/#comment-3649 Sonia Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:46:38 +0000 http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/?p=1969#comment-3649 Great information. It’s really useful. Thanks Great information. It’s really useful. Thanks

]]> By: Ben http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/10/audiences-and-agendas/comment-page-1/#comment-3616 Ben Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:01:02 +0000 http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/?p=1969#comment-3616 The problem with the scenario you present is that the CEO and the union can provide interviews to two different media outlets, tell the truth, but the public ends up with entirely different pictures. The issue is polarising. There are those who have a natural sympathy with the workers and will not believe a word that the CEO says and others just want the bus to turn up on time and regard the union boss as a reincarnation of Stalin. Unless you have something important to say and are able to present facts that are indisputable you may as well stay quiet. Most interviews of this type start with patently insincere apologies to the inconvenienced public followed by entirely subjective opinions as to why the interviewee represents the path of righteousness. Personally, I mentally switch off to interviews involving industrial disputes since i know that the chances of my hearing an objective assessment of the rights and wrongs are remote. It is like the earlier discussion about good and bad professions, as to which list the CEO and the union boss happen to belong. As an aside, and a question the media never ask, why does a work to rule cause such disruption? Does human existence depend on our collectively ignoring rules? And if they can be safey ignored why have them in the first place? The problem with the scenario you present is that the CEO and the union can provide interviews to two different media outlets, tell the truth, but the public ends up with entirely different pictures. The issue is polarising. There are those who have a natural sympathy with the workers and will not believe a word that the CEO says and others just want the bus to turn up on time and regard the union boss as a reincarnation of Stalin.

Unless you have something important to say and are able to present facts that are indisputable you may as well stay quiet. Most interviews of this type start with patently insincere apologies to the inconvenienced public followed by entirely subjective opinions as to why the interviewee represents the path of righteousness.

Personally, I mentally switch off to interviews involving industrial disputes since i know that the chances of my hearing an objective assessment of the rights and wrongs are remote. It is like the earlier discussion about good and bad professions, as to which list the CEO and the union boss happen to belong.

As an aside, and a question the media never ask, why does a work to rule cause such disruption? Does human existence depend on our collectively ignoring rules? And if they can be safey ignored why have them in the first place?

]]>