5:03 PM |
. . .
Ah, such learned discourse.
The joys of a university-trained mind, able to sift generalities for specificalities and then mangle them all out of recognition.
Sorry, but that's getting personal, and as Ono Ivi quite rightly says, no need for that, especially when you can get other people to do it for you.
Comparing Barbara Dreaver with 60 Minutes is like comparing Aaron Taouma with Tagata Pasifika - one is a credible news reporter with a public history of solid research, and the other is a tightly defined infotainment package popular with the punters.
Let's get back to the facts. As the story pointed out originally, Samoa is becoming a conduit for guns and drugs because of demand from NEW ZEALAND. We can get arty-farty and deconstruct post-modern journalism all we like, but the fact is that the guns exist, the drugs exist and, yes, gangs are involved, as in organised crime.
No amount of sophistry from Ono Ivi or their ilk change, reduce or diminish these facts.
We can discuss the boys from Makoi till the cows come home, and whether or not their after hour activities include selling drugs to children, as suggested by older dealers. Certainly they look stupid enough, refusing to cover up even when asked to by a One News reporter carrying a One News microphone, with not one but two HUGE cameras with One News plastered prominently on their gun metal flanks.
Yes, it is ethically improper for TVNZ to continue screening promos for a story under active complaint, but instinct suggests this will come to be seen as a rather small aspect of what promises to be an entirely fascinating exercise in due process.
fa'afetai,
jason
. . .
2009/5/30 Ono Ivi <onoivi@gmail.com>
Hey no need to get personal Peni. It was a sad turning of events and everyone knows that it was sensationalised. Now Samoa knows what Fiji has been through. As for "the reporter in question" remember she did two stories while in Samoa, the one everyone would like wiped and the other an adoption story. Both classic "investigation" type stories in the vein of "Sunday" or "60-Minutes." But one was acceptable to the public and the other was not. In a media-ocracy the public voice should be a factor in deciding. Yes, everyone remembers the one "bad" story a journalist may do and forget all of the other "good" stories. Should this be the deciding factor? In this case, the reporter in question weathered the storm but the organisation behind her was remiss in continuing to run a promo (as Peni says) featuring this story. This is so because it was undergoing a BSA complaints procedure and there was a clear and loud outcry against it from ethnic media. You should both be thankful there was a media who had the guts to run counter stories - without them it would have gone unchecked by mainstream sources. The story was unacceptable but does this mean the reporter should lose her job? This is a serious question one has to ask. Most people have moved on but can they (the Pacific community) now trust their Correspondent? Or, has it always been that this position is not to correspond or represent from a Pacific point of view but to apply mainstream prejudices on Pacific issues? What would happen if the position was lost? Is no news better than some news? Though I still don't see what is wrong with plain old - good news or even straight reporting of real issues. This brings us back to the very conditions under which these reports are made - reporter centred and driven (constructed) stories. But it is not just the focus on the reporter which is of question in this style of reporting, it is the combination of this and the hightening of realities through editing and acting that is of question. The reporter here is the main protagonist who is going through a journey and telling the viewer what's happening on the way. But the journey and the correspondence is constructed and the presentation is acted. It is a performance. It is stylised and set-up to achieve preset aims (just as lines of questioning seek to fit with the preset storyline and only answers which fit this make it to the cut). The reporter goes out into the field with the story already made up. Then the reporter seeks to set-up situations which exemplify that story visually and contextually. This is different from a person who goes into the field with perhaps a key question and lets things unfold naturally. They may still report on events as they occur but may find these do not fit the reporters pre-thought ideas of what there was to find. It may even prove these presumptions to be wrong. At the least they may correspond that things aren't as simple as a ten second sound bite or showing a trunk-load of guns (which in this case the reporter was unaware of their origins or if they were actually licensed/legal or not). Suffice it to say, this brings this style of reporting into question. But what should people expect? As Jason points out news is "consistently sexed up."
But the question here is not about the report itself. It is about the news carrier of a potentially defamatory and BSA standards breaking item continuing to run a promo (featuring that item) even though it is under BSA investigation.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
- - - - - - - - -
comment here:
http://groups.google.com/group/pima-nius/topics?hl=en
send an email comment here:
pima-nius@googlegroups.com
unsubscribe:
pima-nius+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
more options
http://groups.google.com/group/pima-nius?hl=en?hl=en
- - - - - - - - -
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
0 comments:
Post a Comment