Well, I won’t keep you in suspense. It wasn’t Goff. And it wasn’t Key. It was you and me – the voting public. We were conned by Television New Zealand into thinking that for an hour-and-a -half last night the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would debate the serious issues that confront this country, the channel’s Political Editor, Guyon Espiner, would keep order and, by the end of the 90 minutes, we would all be better informed.

We should have learned from history not to trust that promise. Television New Zealand has never treated the Leaders’ Debates as anything more than an entertainment. Its remit to sell audiences to advertisers, its suspicion that viewers are fundamentally uninterested in politics, its conviction that the attention span of the average television consumer is seven minutes tops and its paranoia about doing anything that might bore that viewer into switching channels, all contribute  to the entertainment ethos that drives the Leaders’ Debates.

‘Debates’ is of course a misnomer. A real debate requires an extensive exchange of views between the parties. Three or four minutes on a topic, some part of that time spent in an undecipherable cacophony of moderator and leaders talking at once, cannot be called a debate. But that is precisely what TVNZ wants and the programme is structured to ensure that result. 

A 90-minute programme does not of course comprise 90 minutes of content. A standard commercial half-hour has about 22 minutes of programme material. So a commercial hour-and-a-half will have no more than 70 minutes of content.

Into this 70 minutes last night, TVNZ managed to squeeze the following ingredients:

• Mark Sainsbury’s opening and closing;
• Guyon Espiner’s topic introductions and questions;
• John Key’s and Phil Goff’s responses on at least 15 different topics. (I didn’t count.)
• Sainsbury’s interviews with Jon Johanssen and Claire Robinson during the breaks;
• Questions from Fran O’Sullivan, Wallace Chapman and Shane Taurima;
• Viewers’ questions;
• A text poll.

 It can’t be done.

And it wasn’t done. In almost every case, the so-called ‘debate’  between Key and Goff had to be cut off mid-stream or earlier, leaving the issue not merely unresolved but barely touched on.

Respected  Media and Communications scholar Ernest Hess-Luttich called this sort of exchange ‘pseudo argumentation’. As it happens, this is precisely the form of entertainment that TVNZ wants from its election debates – political leaders squabbling to no purpose.

We were at least spared the bedlam of audience shouting and abuse which occurred during the first of the Clark/Brash debates in 2005 when a senior TVNZ network executive appeared in the studio during the first commercial break to encourage the 50:50 National/Labour audience to ‘rark up’ the leaders with even more shouting and abuse.

I don’t want to get too precious about this, but doesn’t an organisation called ‘Television New Zealand’ have an obligation in an election year to provide its audience with proper forums for discursive political debate rather than programmes based on the entertainment ethos of a Punch and Judy Show? TVNZ clearly thinks it doesn’t. I find that shameful.

As to who won, I leave that to you. It seemed to me that it was pretty even.

I produce Campbell Live and I would argue,  Brian, that we were being honest. Yesterday was a huge day for Christchurch and after the good work we have done there for the past two weeks (I would argue a combination of our caravan of complaint, compelling stories consistently night after night and John’s interviews over the past fortnight put some pressure on the Government to bring yesterday’s zoning decision forward.)

On a day that meant so much not just for Christchurch but for the rest of the country too, we’re hardly going to run a 27 minute interview with Alasdair Thompson. In fact, if we had you would probably have written a column about it! We had to choose the best part to put to air. That’s our job. When John does an interview with someone in the field, e.g. John Key on budget day, he might speak to him for 20 minutes. We don’t put the whole interview to air. We put the best bits to air. I had four spare minutes yesterday and now the whole interview is on the internet for people to watch, judge and draw their own conclusion. That’s what good journalism is all about (I think you taught me that during my journalism course?)

If it wasn’t on the internet, you wouldn’t have seen it. You wouldn’t have known what else Alasdair said or the context of the interview so to say we are dishonest I would argue is wrong. What didn’t go to air in the TVNZ interview? Would you have watched the first four minutes of Alasdair speaking with Mihi? The middle four minutes? The last four minutes? It was pure coincidence that he was interviewed by two TV3 female reporters. I asked Mihi to ring Alasdair and she did. She then went down to his office for an interview. At this point he had already done two other interviews. He had every opportunity to tell her to go away but he didn’t and instead spoke with her for 27 minutes. At no point did he ask for the camera to be turned off or the interview to be stopped.

Re the poll. The story had been around all day. John promoted the poll at the top of the show but people didn’t see Mihi’s interview until the last segment of the show. People were voting on what they had seen and heard all day and in the news. They must have been because 80 per cent of our votes were in by the time the story went to air. Others rolled in after the show and after the interview but were not included in the result that went to air. Interestingly, the percentages didn’t change.

I Reply:

Thanks for your response to my criticism of the Campbell Live item on Alasdair Thompson. I had not intended to reply to any more comments, since a majority seemed to be about Thompson’s opinions, which I had said in the post I disagreed with and which were not intended to be the subject of discussion.  

However, it was an episode of your programme which I attacked and you quite clearly deserve a response.

I should perhaps begin by saying that Judy and I have had numerous discussions recently about Campbell Live. We have been struck by the manner in which the programme has increasingly taken on the role of crusader on behalf of the dispossessed and of those unfairly treated by large institutions, including the Government. The “caravans of complaint”, to which you refer in your comment, are a very good example. I also said in the post that I regarded Campbell Live as “superior in almost every way” to its competitor on TV One and that I really liked Mihingarangi.

But the item on Alasdair Thompson was not in that category. It was, in my opinion, unworthy of you, and I do not resile from the judgement that it was unprofessional, unfair and (if not by deliberate design, then certainly through lack of judgement) journalistically dishonest.

Your response to my criticism of the programme is essentially based on television production values  rather than on journalistic ethics. What it comes down to  is that you didn’t have time to be fair – it was a heavy  news day, Christchurch was the big story and you only had four minutes to spare for Mr Thompson.

A similar appeal to television production values as justification for unfairness was advanced by Fair Go a year or so back when it  put the photographs of people who refused to front in the studio up on its ‘wall of shame’, even though several of those people  had completely put right any wrong they had done the complainant. The rationale for this was essentially that having the complainees in the studio made better television.  

The journalistic ethics question in this case is: could you do justice to Thompson’s argument and demeanour in the original, unedited, 27-minute interview with a 4-minute clip from the end of the interview during which Thompson loses his composure? Was that fair?

Your argument is, I didn’t have time to play the full interview, I only had time to play four minutes and so “we put the best bits to air”. The obvious next question is, “Why, in your judgement, were they ‘the best bits’?” I’m happy for you to respond to that question in a further comment. But I’m pretty sure I know the answer already: They were “the best bits” because the interviewee lost his cool, stormed off, came back, stood very  close to the interviewer – he’s taller and bigger than her – argued with her and accused her of telling lies. You might not have liked Thompson, but for 22 minutes he had been reasonable and calm and maybe a bit boring, and then suddenly there it was, the core ingredient in audience-pleasing current-affairs television: CONFLICT! 

Not quite Dennis Conner perhaps, but close. Careers have been made on episodes like this.

With regard to the poll, you suggest that viewers would have been largely uninfluenced by the four-minute clip since “people didn’t see the Mihi interview until the last segment of the show. People were voting on what they had seen and heard all day and in the news.”

You’re correct that many viewers would have been unsympathetic to Thompson as a result of the media publicity which his comments had received during the day. But you’re not entirely correct in your assertion that “people didn’t see the Mihi interview until the last segment of the show.” They did. Not the whole interview of course, but the bit that really mattered, the “really best bit” if you like: Thompson losing his cool, storming back, standing face to face with Mihi, arguing with her.  That short but oh-so-vital clip was shown right at the beginning of your programme, on the first of four occasions on which the poll was promo-ed during the show.

You place considerable emphasis in your reply on the fact that the interview could be seen in its entirely on the TV3 website. But this was not mentioned anywhere in the programme. Nor is it in fact particularly relevant. The Broadcasting Act requires broadcasters to provide balance on any particular issue either within a single  programme or over a series of programmes. It makes no reference to other media. The reason for this seems to me simple: the viewer or listener should not be expected to look for balance beyond  the programme itself; the number of those who do will be considerably smaller than the audience for the original programme; and the impact of any clarification will be considerably less than the impact of the original live programme. Something to do perhaps with first impressions.

Finally you say that “at no point did he ask for the camera to be turned off or the interview to be stopped”. I’m afraid I can’t agree.

There’s one very interesting aspect to all of this. In a live radio interview Thompson made a single remark that brought the world down on his head. He then agreed to two television interviews, and possibly other media interviews which I’m not aware of, in which he attempted to explain and contextualise what he had said. This had the opposite effect of increasing the outcry against him.

Though I did not agree with what Thompson had said, it was my view that he had been unfairly dealt with in one of these interviews – your interview on Campbell Live. My objection was to the way the interview had been edited which I considered dishonest. I said so. Almost no-one agreed with me and I came in for some heavy flak.

At that point pretty well everyone was on your side. That was until you decided to comment yourself. This was because, within your quite lengthy comment, there was one short sentence that you may now regret having written: “We put the best bits to air.” That single comment was enough to turn the tide against you. (Andi Brotherston may have experienced something similar when she opined that, in his interviews, Paul Henry was often just saying what most people thought.)

Over the last few years I’ve become very aware of an increasingly prevalent media phenomenon. A single unscripted comment,  often made during a media interview, frequently taken out of context and, in some cases at least, out of keeping with the speaker’s personal history or known views, can lead to calls for that person’s immediate dismissal or resignation from his or her job, with the resultant trauma and suffering that that will incur for the person and their family.  Every apology is dismissed as worthless and every explanation merely serves to provide further ammunition for the accusers. This is the mentality of the lynch mob.

Photo: Richard Robinson

Here’s a little quiz: Who said this?

“I believe that in life most women are more productive totally than most men. I absolutely believe that. When you take into account the things that women do in their lives compared to most men. They often do all the arranging of the finances for the whole family, they run the household, they care for the children, they do all manner of things and they go to work. Their total productivity in life, in my opinion, is higher than most men.”

The answer? Alasdair Thompson. Where? In an interview with Mihingarangi Forbes for Campbell Live.

How come you didn’t know that? Because that part of the interview wasn’t shown on the programme. In fact only 4’18” of this 27 minute interview was shown.

TV3 is entitled to edit the programme, a fact which Thompson acknowledged and accepted at the start of recording. But what it is not entitled to do is to select a passage which is totally non-representative of the original interview in its entirety.  That is precisely what it did.

As it happens, the piece which it did select constitutes roughly the last five minutes of the original interview. This is because the previous 22 minutes did not suit the programme’s or the interviewer’s agenda which was to cast Thompson in the same role that other branches of the media have already cast him, as a male chauvinist pig.

Annoyingly for Campbell Live and its reporter, Thompson comes across in those first 22 minutes as pleasant, reasonable, a strong advocate of gender equality in the workplace and, in one reply, as  an exponent of values that could almost be called “feminist”. He also says to Forbes that she is probably more productive than most of the men she works with. She agrees, but points out that she has three children, sometimes has to take time off work and suspects that she isn’t being paid as much as her male counterparts – the very point that Thompson has just been making. His reply? That, if that was the case,  she should be taking it up with her employer. It’s all about productivity.

At one point in the interview, Thompson indicates that he doesn’t want what he is about to say on camera. (“Not for this interview, by the way.”) His reason is that he doesn’t want to bring one of his women employees into the debate. It becomes clear that she is the person in the organisation who keeps the employment records and on whose information he has based his comments on some women being less productive than some men.

He later asks Forbes to ask him the question about where he gets his information from again. Forbes does so. He begins but isn’t happy with his reply and says, “Just go off camera for a moment.” Forbes protests. He says, “I’ve just got to get the answer for you correctly, I’m very sensitive at the moment as you can imagine, having been hung, drawn and quartered today. I want to tell you the answer and then I want to frame it for you on camera.” He then gives a reasoned explanation of where he gets his information.

Forbes then asks: “So then if someone is sick here, you ask them why they are sick, and they tell you because they’ve got heavy period pains?”

Thompson hasn’t actually said this and angrily gets out of the chair and walks away. He finally walks back. Both are standing. He is clearly angry. This exchange follows:

Forbes: “Ok, maybe you should resign then because you can’t represent half of the population – women.”

Thompson: “Did you come into this meeting thinking that?”

Forbes: “No, I’m just telling you because you don’t represent me very well as a female, because you believe that I’m less productive a female…”

This is precisely the opposite of what Thompson had said earlier in the interview, not only about women in general but about Forbes herself. He justifiably protests, accusing Forbes of telling lies.  They both sit down again and a further exchange follows.

Thompson then asks: “When do you want to roll again?” Forbes replies, “It’s an interview, we’re rolling the whole time.” Thomson protests that he had stopped the interview. Forbes says, “You didn’t say you were off the record.” It’s correct that Thomson did not use those words. He may well have thought that getting up, walking away and heading for the door was sufficient indication that the interview was over.

It’s our advice to clients that they should never say anything to journalists “off the record”. We frequently add that it’s often not clear when either interviewer or interviewee understands the conversation is “on the record” again. This is very much the case in this interview.

But even if we give Forbes the benefit of the doubt on this, the fact remains that four fifths of the interview, in which Thompson came across in an extremely positive light was not shown to viewers, while the remaining fifth, in which he became animated and angry was.  That is dishonest journalism.

What’s more, and to add insult to injury,  it was on the basis of this dishonest journalism that viewers were invited to take part in a poll on Thompson’s competence to remain in his job and whether he should resign. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of respondents said he should.

I’m a fan of Campbell Live. I regard it as superior in almost every way to Close Up. I also really like Mihingarangi Forbes.  But this item was a journalistic disgrace. I don’t agree with Thompson’s views, but my strong advice to him would be to refer this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I would happily support him.

In the meantime, watch the full interview and the broadcast edit for yourself, and see what you think.

Campbell Live

The idea isn’t entirely new. For a long time Fair Go had a ‘Wall of Shame’ which served much the same purpose. Malefactors who refused to front in the studio had their  name and photograph displayed on the wall, until they learnt the error of their ways and made an appearance.

I objected to the Fair Go version because people and companies who had sorted things out to the complainant’s satisfaction still had their name and photograph posted on the ‘Wall of Shame’ where it remained till they relented and turned up. This had absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with television’s requirement for pictures and conflict.

Paul Holmes used to have what you might call the ‘Empty Chair of Shame’. The chair was reserved for evildoers who had been invited to appear on Holmes but had declined. The conceit behind the empty chair was that hope springs eternal and that the invited guest might just change their mind and turn up. The camera (and Paul) returned frequently to the empty chair to indicate that hope was fading fast (and to further humiliate the no-show).  

So how fair is Campbell Live’s ‘Stone Wall’? I guess the answer is that it depends. Cabinet Ministers are extraordinarily busy people and will frequently have legitimate reasons for not being able to turn up at 7pm for an interview with John Campbell or Mark Sainsbury or anyone else. They may also from time to time have other reasons for not wanting to appear, including that this is simply not a topic they’re willing to discuss. Democracy does not require politicians to commit hara kiri for the entertainment of TV viewers or John Campbell’s ratings.

But democracy does require politicians to be answerable to the electorate, and the broadcast media now provide the major platform for that to happen. Campbell Live cannot summon any Minister of the Crown to appear, but if a Minister repeatedly refuses to turn up to answer questions about topics within his or her area of responsibility, the programme is entitled to draw attention to that fact and we, the viewers, are entitled to conclude that the Minister is on weak ground or has something to hide. Not only the programme, but the programme’s audience as well, is being given the Ministerial fingers.

The key word here is ‘repeatedly’. So it seemed to me entirely appropriate that Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, who has repeatedly – I think she’s now in double figures – refused to front on Campbell Live, should have the dubious honour of being the first Cabinet Minister to feature on the programme’s ‘Wall of Shame’. Not a good look in election year.

And while I’m at it, a huge bouquet to Campbell Live which in recent weeks has become a crusader on behalf of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed in this country. Through the ingenious device of ‘caravan democracy’, the programme’s ‘Caravan of Complaint’ has given citizens a voice on everything from the scandalous and indefensible deportation by the Department of Immigration of a successful and much loved Kapiro garage owner, to the frustrations suffered by dozens of Christchurch earthquake victims at the hands of the EQC, to Thursday’s budget. This is great stuff. Well done, Campbell Live.  Don’t let the bastards grind you down.

Major criticisms:

Someone had raced round and found a batch of model kiwi and waka and other Newzild stuff and scattered it round the set. Tacky, tacky.

And Key’s diction! The trick seems to be: Never use four syllables if you can get away with two. It may be OK for speeches at the United Nations – they have simultaneous translators – but the overseas audience would have needed subtitles to get the drift of his answers in this interview.

If the details of the 2005 election have faded into the mists of time this is an eye-opener. It’s also well worth reminding ourselves about some of the shenanigans that went on, with Don Brash now leading the Act Party.

This is your chance to get a copy of the documentary. Trevor Mallard has copies to give away. If you email your name and address to me at: judy@brianedwardsmedia.co.nz, I’ll send it on to him. Trevor’s only request – pass it on when you’ve watched it!

And my own suggestion – read the book as well, for the extra details. Apart from being a brilliant piece of investigative journalism, it’s a real page-turner. The Hollow Men, by Nicky Hager, published by Craig Potton.

UPDATE Still a few DVDs available – Trevor has a secret store!

NZ on Screen have unearthed my television play Casualties of Peace, much to my amazement. I thought it had been wiped years ago. There was a shortage of tapes and we just re-recorded over everything. 

It was made in 1982, starring Judie Douglass, Peter Vere-Jones and Michael Hurst, playing a teenager. It was Michael’s first major television role and he won an award for it – Best Newcomer, from memory.  A very young Fiona Samuel appears in it as well, with Kevin Wilson, Ken Blackburn and Joanne Simpson.

World War II lingered on for our returned soldiers and haunted their families for decades.  The vets would gather together to make sense of  their experiences, and to find again the camaraderie and mateship of service life.  My childhood was filled with war stories, with strange men who would turn up at our door and spend hours reminiscing with my father. He seemed younger and more alive when they were there. 

This play was based on my father, these lost men and their conflict with the next generation, whose view of the Vietnam war was so out of step with their own lives and beliefs.

I have no brief for Mr Ring or his theories, but after watching your treatment of him tonight, I have considerably more respect for him as the reasonable exponent of an admittedly controversial point of view than I have for you as an interviewer.

What mattered to you in this exchange was not what he had to say, but what you had to say. And since he thought the process was meant to involve his being critically questioned on statements he had made and being given reasonable opportunity to reply, he had every right to complain when you preferred to deny him that opportunity by shouting him down. It was, quite simply, appalling.

My advice to Mr Ring would be to immediately complain to Mark Jennings, the Head of News and Current Affairs at TV3 about your mistreatment on the programme tonight, and the breach of Broadcasting Standards of fairness and balance which it contained. And, when your complaint is almost certainly rejected, to take the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for their deliberation and judgement.

The microphone is a potent tool in the bullying interviewer’s hand, especially when the interview is not face-to-face and the interviewee is isolated in a remote studio location. Fortunately most interviewers do not abuse that situation. Tonight we saw what has overall been excellent television coverage of the Christchurch earthquake on both TVNZ and TV3 marred by a descent to broadcasting at the level of Jerry Springer. I have seldom been so angry.

stuff.co.nz

Close Up – Undoubtedly a major coup, though I suspect that Hotchin, or an agent on his behalf, approached the programme. However, the  production team blotted its copy book badly by totally abandoning editorial balance and showing clips damaging to Hotchin -  largely newspaper headlines – while Hotchin was speaking. An appalling lapse in editorial judgement.

Hotchin – Plausible and persuasive. I thought he was very good. His appearance has been and will be dismissed as a PR exercise and there may well be an element of truth in that. But the risks inherent in taking part in a live and predictably aggressive television interview were considerable. And, in the end, all the PR in the world will not assist the lying or dishonest television interviewee. The audience will see through him.     

Sainsbury – Handled the interview well. Asked the questions that viewers, and some at least of those who lost money in Hanover, would have wanted asked. Somewhat repetitive and it really would be good if Mark could put his questions in a less excitable way. But overall a good performance.

Campbell Live – Ended its show last night with an undignified piece of sour grapes in which John bewailed the fact that Hotchin was appearing on his competitor’s programme and re-ran old Campbell Live clips which served merely to explain why Hotchin had gone to Close Up.  John is the superior broadcaster of the two, but would he have done this particular interview better? I doubt it.

The Viewers – Will many have changed their view of Hotchin after watching the interview? Probably not.