Posted by BE on October 7th, 2010
I thought “Mud mud glorious mud” would also reflect the Henry wallow?
In earlier times Wars were possibly started with the approach Paul Henry takes.I would consider him to throw mud rather than wallow in it.
It would seem that the pressure for “good” has prevailed and Paul Henry will be seeking employment elsewhere now. The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister appears to think that it now brings closure to the episode.
Maybe not… his part in this sorry story has yet to be fully exposed – indeed Key was feeling slight relief when attention was diverted to the “Dikshit” side of things. Now the focus may well come back on him I feel.
Good riddance to bad rubbish is all I can say.
Mind you, let’s not forget Hone Harawira’s comments which, in my mind, were equally disgraceful racist remarks.
Shouldn’t he have fallen on his sword also? Surely, the underlying notions aren’t terribly dissimilar?
I never watch breakfast TV. I find it interferes with the digestion of my Drambuie-laced porridge.
Nevertheless, Mr Henry was just a bad joke.
Here’s a much better one – http://indiaknight.posterous.com/extremely-funny-joke
‘Cause we gotta move on ……
Out of interest where is Merv? I would have thought he might have had a different, if unpopular slant on this.
He is studying his grammar text books.
Thankyou Brian for your opinions and the intelligent responses that it generates. It is a refreshing antidote to the drivel that infests the mainsteam media. Merging RNZ with TVNZ is another attempt by Govt to emasculate an underfunded free to air, independant RNZ. Indeed, the quality of our democracy depends on the media keeping the Government under close scrutiny, all the time.
With Tony Veitch back, it will not take long for Paul to pick his own radio spot.
As for Paul’s replacement, I am hoping it will be Raybon Kan. Smart and witty on his feet, he will bring humour without the nastiness.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first pebble.
Nobody, but nobody, anywhere I’ve looked, has addressed the central question, which is this;
If “we” are so outraged by Paul Henry’s remark/s, how is that he was, up to the tipping point, a ratings WINNER for TVNZ?
Answer: Because Paul Henry could only exist in a consumer milieu that had execrable taste to begin with.
I won’t matter if Paul Henry is fired or not, the appalling taste of the great unwashed will remain the same, whether they complain or not; and soon there’ll be another Paul Henry – there always is.
The hypocrisy on all sides is deeply profoundly depressing.
Wake up, ‘Wake up’.
“If “we” are so outraged by Paul Henry’s remark/s, how is that he was, up to the tipping point, a ratings WINNER for TVNZ?”
You’re ‘begging the question’, because we aren’t all “outraged”; least of all, me.
“It won’t matter if Paul Henry is fired or not, the appalling taste of the great unwashed will remain the same, whether they complain or not;”
Your begging bowl doth overflow.
Actually, I rather think Paul Henry’s audience was more likely to have been the great washed. The ‘lowest common denominator’ in cases such as this indicates more an aberration in popular taste, rather than the socio-economic origins of the audience.