The gift John Key gave TVNZ hair toucher

1. Maybe he wanted the employee to pass it on to Hosking…

   • Nah, Hosking would have preferred a mirror.

   • Even Key knows that Hosking would prefer to be given a mirror rather than a teddy, so no, it wasn’t for Hosking.

2. Can TDB reveal who the presenter was?

3. I remember during last year’s election Laila Harre noted that Key received a free haircut at TVNZ one morning, after being interviewed.

   https://twitter.com/lailaharre/status/503625914798714880?lang=en

   • @ DAVID SUTTON – hmm … mutual favours perhaps? Because Key certainly has media dancing to his tune it seems.

     All very strange and not becoming of a statesman.

     But then Key is no statesman!

4. Bugger! All of those teddy bears which Key got for himself, Simon Bridges Steven Joyce et al to give to John Campbell when they’d been on his show, will go to waste. You know the ones with “I Hate You” on them.

5. Weird….

6. Martyn – is this the incident you alluded to in a previous blog? It sounds pretty trivial really

   • All NZ women are up for grabs in the jonkey banana republic …and he pays them too in JK wine and silly teddys with ‘I Love You ‘ hearts…they should be grateful

     …except the important ones like Helen Clark…He wouldnt dare!

     (Not trivial to NZ women!…get real!…they get their space invaded and their integrity minimised!…he ignores them if they indicate they dont like it!)

7. Um, this would not be a second incident, would it, or don’t the kids whose hair he touched, count?

8. Well the man obviously has a thing about hair – and how workplace harassment and common assault doesn’t apply to him so I wouldn’t be surprised.

   In saying that…so too do a lot of Mafia Godfathers in offering a ‘keep quiet’ bribe to their victims.

   Face it….the guys a schoolboy trying to do an adults job.

   And it shows.

9. Does anyone know how Amanda Bailey is getting on? Is TDB still in contact with her?

   I’m wondering if she is still employed by the same cafe, considering how disloyal her employers were towards her, as well as the hash NZH made of the issue, setting her up through fraudulent reporting and revealing her name, going against her wishes by publishing the report.

   I do hope Amanda is OK.

10. I think Key should ditch the wine, and just start handing out personalised moisturiser while whispering “It rubs the lotion on its skin…”

11. Do NZers seriously not have anything better to worry about?

    • Minimise, obfuscate, “It’s Political”, etc etc.

      Makes you as creepy as JK.

12. Martyn, We need to raise funds to begin to put up a credible service for the dumbed down NZ public. read here why;

    You put in a complaint to TV3 about the handling of John Campbell, if so did you ever get a reply?

    maybe it will be like mine which was a lot of crap as you see below. here’s my fingers to TVNZ for their window dressing as follows,

    Dear TVNZ complainant,

    Further to your email received 8 April I wish to advise that Complaints Committee has completed its enquiry into your formal complaint about Q+A shown on 7 April on TV ONE.
    Your complaint has been considered with reference to Standards 1, 6 & 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
    The Decision
    The Complaints Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint. The reasons for this decision are discussed below.
    The Programme
    As the country’s political show of record, every week Q+A deals with weighty political issues. Q+A is an opinion based programme which crosses the political divide. These ‘political issues’ frequently spark strong debate amongst the show’s protagonists.
    Q+A prides itself on its research and ability to set the political agenda each week for the media, and is very successful at doing so. Being able to canvas topics at times that have a degree of passionate and even heated debate is important for the show, and ultimately, for the viewer. Indeed, TVNZ should be fulfilling this role in light of freedom of speech and freedom of information concerns/demands.
    On Sunday 7 April Q+A interviewed David Shearer in the wake of details about the partial sale of Mighty River Power and they discussed whether the income of that sale would be put to good use by the current government. In the course of their discussion, the topic turned to Mr Shearer’s personal finances, a subject that had been under significant scrutiny that week too. Following this, the pair talked about how the Labour Party would handle the Tiwai Point situation if it were in government.
    That day on the programme, Susan Wood also interviewed National MP for Food Safety, Hon Nikki Kaye about a new law to ensure better food labelling that aims to create improved confidence around what is in our food. Susan Wood’s interview style was consistent throughout all of the interviews she conducted with Labour’s David Shearer, National’s Nikki Kaye, and the panellist Helen Kelly. With David Shearer and Nikki Kaye being from opposing political parties this is evidence that she did not show bias.
    The panel on Q+A on Sunday 7 April consisted of Political Scientist Dr Raymond Miller, CTU President Helen Kelly and Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Michael Barnett.
    Your Complaint
    2
    You state: Susan Wood was lacking fairness, responsible programing, & lacking in good taste & decency when interviewing Labour Leader David Shearer during todays Q+A program. It was distressing to watch as she constantly interjected, so much so that it was disturbing, and prevented the questions to be answered reasonably, due to her overpowering manner shown so often with such arrogance and bias that we had difficulty listening to the answers trying to be made by Mr Shearer.
    This was very upsetting and very frustrating to the point that the whole interview never was fairly and responsibly enacted. For the record we are neutral voters and have at present no preference. We are definitely not labour Party members, trying to defend Mr Shearer or his associates and are considered swing voters that wished to hear in fairness answers from opposition members to questions asked in this TV program.
    We have actively watched Q+A for years and often admired the balanced manner in which the late Sir Paul Holmes conducted such interviews. This is now not occurring, and Susan Woods is ruining the character and balance of the program and should be sanctioned for showing such unfairness and lack of responsible programing.
    The Relevant Standards
    Standard 1 Good Taste and Decency
    Broadcasters should observe standards of good taste and decency.
    Guidelines
    1a Broadcasters will take into account current norms of good taste and decency bearing in mind the context in which any content occurs and the wider context of the broadcast e.g. programme classification, target audience, type of programme and use of warnings etc.
    1b The use of visual and verbal warnings should be considered when content is likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers except in the case of news and current affairs, where verbal warnings only will be considered. Warnings should be specific in nature, while avoiding detail which may itself distress or offend viewers.
    To constitute a breach of Standard 1 the material shown must be unacceptable to a significant number of viewers in the context that it is shown. Contextual factors include (but are not limited to): the programme classification, the time of broadcast, the intended audience and the use of warnings (if any). In the case of this Q+A interview the relevant contextual factors are:
    The Broadcasting Standards Authority has previously stated (e.g. Decision 2008-080 & 2008-087) that standards relating to good taste and decency are primarily aimed at broadcasts that contain sexual material, nudity, violence or coarse language. The Committee does not consider that the broadcast referred to in the complaint falls into any of these categories.
    However, the Authority has also said it “will consider the standard in relation to any broadcast that portrays or discusses material in a way that is likely to cause offence or distress”. (Practice Note: Good Taste and Decency (BSA, November 2006). The Complaints Committee does not agree that the interview would offend or distress a significant number of viewers for the following reasons:
    • As discussed in standard 6 (below), in his position as Leader of the Opposition David Shearer would expect to be robustly questioned by the media on occasion.
    3
    In the interview he handled himself with composure and successfully communicated the points he wished to.
    • As Labour leader, David Shearer is confident and familiar with the media and used to being rigorously questioned. He held his own in the interview during this questioning telling Susan once that he wanted the opportunity to answer a particular question. This demonstrates that he was confident and able to assert his authority in the interview in order to get the points across that he wished to.
    • Susan Wood’s manner towards Mr Shearer was professional and courteous and although she did press him on some issues this did not stray into being abusive or offensive.
    The Committee does not agree that the Q+A interview would offend or distress a significant number of viewers in the context of a robust discussion of a highly controversial issue. The Committee does not agree the discussion on Q+A strayed beyond the boundaries of good taste and decency. No breach of standard 1 has been identified.
    Standard 6 Fairness
    Broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.
    Guidelines
    6a A consideration of what is fair will depend upon the genre of the programme (e.g. factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical programmes).
    6b Broadcasters should exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.
    6c Except as justified in the public interest:
    • Contributors and participants should be informed of the nature of their participation
    • Programme makers should not obtain information or gather pictures through misrepresentation;
    • Broadcasters should avoid causing unwarranted distress to surviving family members by showing footage of bodies or human remains.
    6d Broadcasters should respect the right of individuals to express their own opinions.
    6e Individuals and particularly children and young people, taking part or referred to should not be exploited, humiliated or unfairly identified.
    6f Where the programme deals with distressing circumstances (e.g. grief and bereavement) discretion and sensitivity are expected.
    David Shearer is confident and familiar with the media. He was advised prior to the interview of topic areas and all willingly participated. In turn, Q+A was advised of announcements that he wished to make in regard to his party and ministerial portfolio. In the Committee’s view, Mr Shearer handled the interview/panel discussion adeptly and responded to each of the points put to him.
    In his public position as a politician David Shearer is well versed in being the subject of robust media interviews. The very nature of his role means he is routinely faced with people who disagree with him and he is practiced in dealing with heated debate. Throughout the interview, he came across as principled and composed and succinctly communicated the points he wished to make.
    4
    The Committee does not agree that the interview was unfair to David Shearer. No breach of standard 6 has been identified.
    Standard 8 Responsible Programming
    Broadcasters should ensure programmes
    • are appropriately classified;
    • display programme classification information;
    • adhere to timebands in accordance with Appendix 1;
    • are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress ; and
    • do not deceive or disadvantage the viewer.
    Guidelines
    8a Broadcasters should use established classification codes.
    • Classification symbols should be displayed at the beginning of each programme and after each advertising break.
    • Warnings should be considered when programme content is likely to offend or disturb a significant number of the intended audience.
    8b All promos (including promos for news and current affairs) should be classified to comply with the “host programme” (the programme in which they screen):
    • Promos for AO programmes shown outside AO time should comply with the classification of the host programme;
    • Promos shown in G or PGR programmes screening in AO time should comply with the G or PGR classification of the host programme;
    • When a promo screens during an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo must be classified G or PGR and broadcasters should pay regard to Standard 9 – Children’s Interests.
    • When a promo screens adjacent to an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo should comply with the underlying timeband.
    • Broadcasters should be aware that promos showing footage of violence or other explicit material outside the context of the original programme may be unacceptable to viewers in the context of the host programme in which they screen.
    8c Except as justified in the public interest, news flashes screening outside regular news and current affairs programmes, particularly during children’s viewing time, should avoid unnecessary, distressing or alarming material or should provide a prior warning about the material.
    8d Advertisements and infomercials should be clearly distinguishable from other programme material.
    8e Broadcasters should ensure that there is no collusion between broadcasters and contestants that results in unfair advantage to any contestant.
    8f Broadcasters should not use the process known as “subliminal perception” or any other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness.
    This Standard relates to broadcasters ensuring that the programme is correctly certified and that the certificates are displayed when the programme screens. As a live current affairs programme Q+A was not required to be certified.
    The content of the interview was consistent with audience expectations of the genre of programme and its time-slot. None of the content in the interview would cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress in the context of its screening. No breach of Standard 8 has been identified.
    Right to Refer to Broadcasting Standards Authority and Time Limit
    In accordance with section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act you are hereby notified that it is your right, should you be dissatisfied with this decision, to refer the matter to the
    5
    Broadcasting Standards Authority, P O Box 9213, Wellington, as provided under section 8 of the Act, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. You have 20 working days after receipt of this letter to exercise this right of referral.
    Yours sincerely
    Complaints Committee

Comments are closed.