Saturday 25 August 2018

Bumptious and barely articulate, Greg Newbold stinks up the airwaves. (Aug. 22, 2018)

The Panel, RNZ National, Wednesday 22 August 2018
Jim Mora, Joe Bennett, Rebekah White, Emil Donovan
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-26-08-2018/#comment-1517789
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/08/general_debate_26_august_2018.html/comment-page-1#comment-2291814
First topic for today’s program: the Crime and Justice Summit. Serious topic, and one which attracts some thoughtful and brilliant minds. Professor Greg Newbold was what Mora likes to call “the talent” in this discussion…..
JIM MORA: Andrew Little’s Crime and Justice, uh, Summit looks, ah, set to recommend have fewer people in prison, you would infer, and the pulling of other levers, as the Prime Minister puts it, to both keep New Zealanders safe and better treat and rehabilitate those behind bars. And as we’ve discussed before, doing both at the same time will be the trick. But, Panelists, you are all for this?
REBEKAH WHITE: I really—
JOE BENNETT: All for what?
REBEKAH WHITE: You go, Joe.
JOE BENNETT: No sorry, I just want to clarify, what am I “all for”?
JIM MORA: Okay. All for both the extra rehabilitative approach and getting prison numbers down.
REBEKAH WHITE: Sounds great in theory. How do you DO that?
JIM MORA: Yes, we do ask that as well.
REBEKAH WHITE: Ha ha ha.
JOE BENNETT: Heh, heh, heh, heh….
MORA: Joe, do you have an opinion on it?
JOE BENNETT:Ummm. I’m no criminologist. It’s, it’s, it’s very hard, isn’t it. Ummmm, the, I remember going to a prison once, visiting a prison, ahem, Christchurch Men’s Prison, um, for, with regards to some columns that I had written, and I went there a couple of times. And it was an appalling place. Ummm, just the bottled testosterone there, it bristled, it was, it was, you felt soiled and horrible and horrid to be there, and you couldn’t imagine that it was rehabilitative. Ah, but I remember the Governor there saying to me, and he had far more reason to know than I would, he said that only two things rehabilitated the inmates in his prison, and one was they got God, and the other one was they got the love of a good woman. And I throw that out there for what it’s worth, I can’t verify it, I can’t vindicate it, but he sounded as though he knew what he was talking about.
MORA: Memorable.
JOE BENNETT: Mmmm.
MORA: Memorable. Criminologist, uh, Professor Greg Newbold isn’t at the Summit. We’ll seek his views on it shortly, but first actually we want to ask him something else from a listener. Greg, good afternoon.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Hi. G’day.
MORA: Here’s the question for you, ahh, first up, uh. “Jim, at this summit are lots of people with all sorts of ideas on how to reduce recidivism. Lots of them make a living from this sector. Has anyone sat down and asked the criminals and prisoners what their ideas are as to what would motivate them to change their behavior and their lives? Is there any research like this?” asks Chris Malcolm. Greg, what’s the answer? What do prisoners want, what do they think will work?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Aww, they wanna get outa jail. Mo– heh!— mosta them, ahhm, they would come up with ideas, they’re not criminologists, I mean, I was in jail myself, as you know—
MORA: Mmmm.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: —for five and a half years, and um, awww, everybody had different ideas about what they’d do when they got out. The problem was that a lot of guys in prison say, when they’re in jail, they say, Ohhh, I’ve ruined my life, I shouldn’ta done this and I shouldn’ta done that, and when I get out I’m not going to make the same mistake, and then they get out and make the same mistake. You got 86 per cent recidivism in New Zealand over five years. So, ahhhhmmm, y’know, what prisoners say and what they actually do are two different things.
JOE BENNETT: Can I ask a question?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah. Please.
JOE BENNETT: Is there anywhere in the world which has, say, half that recidivism rate?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Ah, no, not that I know of. The United States has got pretty much the same as us. Ummm, we’ve got a pretty high recidivism rate, I’ll tell you, the United States is around seventy-FIVE per cent—
JOE BENNETT: What about Scandinavian countries?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah I mean people talk about Sweden and so on but you never see any real data from it. I went to a prison in Sweden once, and it was a pretty nice jail, but you know, you’ve got a different social situation and a different demographic makeup over there, so you can’t compare them. You’ve got to compare apples with apples.
MORA: When you were IN jail—
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Mmm.
MORA: —did you get an inkling of, if not what they wanted when they got out, which was to get out, but of what they needed, Greg, of what other fellow inmates needed to make them, ah, better citizens afterwards?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Ahhhh, not really, um. Most of the guys—I was in maximum security for most of my time—most of the guys up there had had horrific backgrounds, really terrible family backgrounds and childhoods, and that’s where the problem lay. A lot of them were very damaged before they came to prison and had histories of offending going back to when they were in school, absenteeism, neglectful parenting, abusive parenting, no parenting at all in some cases, and when you have a kid who’s been brought up in those circumstances, you’ve got a person who’s very very difficult to do anything with. It’s a problem which begins in childhood and is very difficult to turn around in adulthood. Quite often these guys wake up once they reach their forties and fifties, but between that age of seventeen to, say, 35 to 40 they can be pretty dangerous and pretty crazy.
MORA: And I know there are intentions, I’m sure they were voiced at the summit today and yesterday, about turning it round far earlier on in life, and that’s been discussed a lot.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Oh yeah.
MORA: Anzac Wallace, at the Summit yesterday: “If we are 52 per cent of the prison population”—meaning Maori—“why aren’t we 52 per cent of the people speaking?” Is he right, that we need the Maori voice louder here, Greg?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Well it’s no good just having—just ’cause you’re a MAORI on, uh, on, on crime or prisons. Ahhhhmmm, so I don’t think, uh, ahh, ahh, y’know, there’ll be Maoris at that thing that have got backgrounds, but ah, um, it, that’s not going to solve a problem, having a whole lotta people speaking who don’t know what they’re talking about. Um, you got seven hundred people there, and most of them won’t have any real background in criminology or corrections at all, they’ll just be people who’ve got nothing better to do for two days.
JOE BENNETT: Ha ha ha ha ha!
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: And you’ll have a big talk fest there, and everyone will come up with their own personal plans and bright ideas, but it’s not really going to make any difference.
JOE BENNETT: If you were Minister of Corrections what would you do?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: This isn’t the first one, there’ve been heaps of these bloody summits in the past. The reason I’m not there is that I’ve been to so many, and that’s all they are, talk fests, and so I didn’t bother going, I’ve got better things to do.
MORA: Were you invited, out of interest?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah yeah, I was invited to, uh, to, uh, apply to go up, which was essentially an invitation to go there, but I didn’t respond to it because I thought it would be a waste of time.
JOE BENNETT: Can I ask a question? Greg, if you were suddenly appointed Minister of Corrections today, what would you do?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: I’d start building prisons.
MORA: Seriously?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: I’d build a, I’d stop, uh, double bunking, and um, I’d set up a program for inmates who self-identify. A lot of prisoners aren’t really that interested in reforming, and I mean, where Maori are concerned, for example, 70 per cent are gang affiliated. Well, if you’re gang affiliated, um, then, uh, your chances of actually going on to a crime-free lifestyle when you get out are pretty limited. So I’d get guys who self-identify, who want to get out of gangs and don’t wanna go to jail, and I’d make things available to THEM, and the others I’d say, well get on with your lag and get out and good luck to you when you get out.
MORA: One obvious question, and I mean, I don’t really want to get into the Scandinavian model again today, because we’ve talked about it a bit on the Panel but there ARE places overseas, and countries overseas, with lower recidivism rates than ours and, getting back to the original question that Chris asked about getting into the minds of prisoners, and it was interesting to hear your viewpoint on that, and also what Anzac Wallace said, uh, isn’t it necessary to get better acquainted with the minds of Maori prisoners if we’re going to get that terrifically high number of people in prison down?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Y-y-yeah, well they talk about the Maori mind, Corrections talk about it. I don’t think Maoris have got different minds than Pakehas, quite frankly. I know lots of Maoris, they don’t think any differently to me, I was in jail with them, we all thought the same. I don’t think there’s such a thing as a Maori mind. And, ummmm, as far as that, you know, these recidivist rates, you can’t compare them internationally because they don’t ha—, there’s no standard measure for recidivism. They have different criteria and different follow-up periods, and unless you have the same follow-up period and the same criteria, you can’t compare different countries with their recidivist rates because you’re comparing apples with pears.
MORA: So you’re saying that when we hear about the success of individual overseas rehabilitative treatments, and someone says we’ve got the recidivism rate down from 49 per cent to seven per cent and measured that—
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Oh yeah, well they’re—BLOODY rubbish, absolute rubbish. AB-solute bloody nonsense. You look at that, you could look, I guarantee you, you give me that, that report and I’ll have a look at it, and I’ll find all the flaws in it. RUBBISH.
MORA: Heeeee-e-e-e! [chortling] We’ll assemble them all and present them for your, um, perusal! Ha ha!
JOE BENNETT: Ha ha!
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah yeah, give me—
MORA: Okay—
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: I’ll critique the bloody lot.
MORA: So you think nothing works. I mean, people are sending in ideas on the text, uh, “a low rate in Utah of recidivism, where prisoners are adopted by families.—Paul.” I mean, we hear all the time if you can connect prisoners with whanau for example more efficiently in prison, they are far less likely to go back to prison, so I mean, there’s a lot of pretty impressive anecdotage about this Greg.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah it is, it’s all anecdotal, that’s all it is. You could get, y’know, I mean, they talk about, they talk about strengthening family ties, Christ, most of the guys in jail come from GANGS. If you, if you, heh heh, if you strengthen family ties, specially whanau ties with Maori, all you’re strengthening is the GANG association. So, um, y’know, ya gotta be pretty careful about what you’re talking about with your, with your, ahhm, when you, when you talk about strengthening whanau [chortling] whanau links. A lot of them come from intergenerational crime families [chortling]
MORA: Well the same applies—
REBEKAH WHITE: You go.
MORA: Sorry Rebekah, I was just going to say the same applies to intergenerational Pakeha crime families you would think.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, it does. It does, it does. And they—
MORA: Rebekah you were going to say something.
REBEKAH WHITE: Go.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: But the Maori problem is particularly bad because whereas about 30 per cent of all inmates have gang association, where Maori’s concerned it’s SEVENTY per cent. It’s a HUGE problem.
REBEKAH WHITE: So going back to those families and those associations, is there research around what kind of interventions are successful at, um, correcting the course of life that someone might be on?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Can you repeat that please?
REBEKAH WHITE: So is there research around what kinds of interventions can be, um, carried out?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Oh yeah yeah yeah yeah. Yeah yeah there’s a whole lot of Canadian—
REBEKAH WHITE: What are the most effective ones?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yes there’s a whole lot of Canadians which have done this very complicated regression analysis and they’ve got these programs which they say work. See, the problem is that most programs, and Integrated Centre Management, which we adopted in New Zealand in 2002, tried to emulate it. But the problem is: most of these programs that work take place in highly structured laboratory type situations where they’re fully resourced, they’ve got specialist Ph.D.-qualified people applying them, and they do have some effect on some people. But you can’t apply that across the board in a prison population of a hundred—where you’ve got ten thousand five hundred people in prison.
REBEKAH WHITE: So we haven’t researched this in New Zealand?
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Oh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, they TRIED it, they tried it with Integrated Centre Management, they tried to apply it. But they couldn’t apply it in the real world context. It’s okay to apply these things in a laboratory context but if you try and apply them in the real world they don’t work ‘cos you don’t have the resources. Unless you’re going to spend millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars, ahhhmm, you’re not going to succeed in these things. So you’ve gotta be realistic about it. In New Zealand the Integrated Centre Management program didn’t alter recidivism rates one bit.
MORA: It’s interesting hearing the contrarian voice on this, from outside the Summit, as it were, Greg, but you’re painting a pretty grim picture of a New Zealand where our only successful strategy will be to build the mega-prison and lock more people away.
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: Yeah, well I think you’ve gotta, we’ve gotta improve prison conditions. I mean you can’t even HOPE to get the kinds of achievements, the kinds of outcomes that are desired if you’ve got people crowded up in multi-cell situations. I’m writing to a bloke at the moment who’s doing a degree at the private prison in Wiri and he’s having a hell of a lot of trouble studying because he’s got a cell-mate who wants to play the guitar all the time, while he’s trying to study. You know, if you’ve got, you do get people in prison who really do wanna get out and they’re taking realistic steps to stop themselves from reoffending, but if they’re stuck in an environment where achieving their goals is impossible, then they’re bashing their head against a wall.
MORA: All right, understood, and thanks for your—
PROFESSOR GREG NEWBOLD: We’ve gotta create good prisons, with plenty of room and well resourced, and the first thing you need to do is start building capacity.
MORA: All right. Professor Greg Newbold, thank you for joining us today on The Panel.

Friday 10 August 2018

Noelle McCarthy is doggedly reigning in her ferocity and nastiness for a while (Aug. 11, 2018)

Noelle McCarthy is doggedly reigning in her ferocity and
nastiness for a while, and pretending to be a serious person.

RNZ National, Saturday 11 August 2018, 8:10 a.m.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday
Noelle McCarthy’s breathy Cork-accented wittering is, unfortunately, becoming frequent on RNZ National. For the last couple of weeks, she’s been filling in for Kim Hill on Saturdays. This morning she’s interviewing the Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs. McCarthy is putting on her very best imitation of a decent human being, at one point saying, in perfect seriousness: “When you look at the ferocity and nastiness, especially of the gendered stuff, it really is appalling.”
She’s right, of course. When one looks at the “ferocity and nastiness” of some feral people in the media and in politics, it really is appalling….
NOELLE McCARTHY, 10 July 2013: Y-y-y-y-yeeeeeessss, …. [snort] ….he he he! He’s still in hiding. He he he! …. He he he he he! Yes he is still in that terminal! …[snort]… He he he he he he! ….[snort]…. He’s got a choice! Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador! …. Bolivia would be hard with the altitude! ….
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10072013/#comment-661123
Less than one week later, she was at it again….
NOELLE McCARTHY, 16 July 2013: [grimly] Heh, heh, heh. Well someone else with not such a good view is Edward Snowden. [snicker] Looks like he’s STILL in the airport! …
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16072013/#comment-663663
And here she is enthusiastically taking part in another group guffaw, this time about another Government-designated political target, Julian Assange….
On another occasion, McCarthy mounted a sustained attack on Roger Waters after he spoke out against Israeli crimes against Gaza. Ferocity and nastiness, indeed.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11-08-2018/#comment-1512579

Saturday 4 August 2018

Independence of Journalism----Noam Chomsky (Jan. 7, 2017)

Independence of Journalism

By Noam Chomsky

Chomsky.info, January 7, 2017

Mark Twain famously said that “it is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.”
In his unpublished introduction to Animal Farm, devoted to “literary censorship” in free England, George Orwell added a reason for this prudence: there is, he wrote, a “general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.” The tacit agreement imposes a “veiled censorship” based on “an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question,” and “anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness” even without “any official ban.”
We witness the exercise of this prudence constantly in free societies. Take the US-UK invasion of Iraq, a textbook case of aggression without credible pretext, the “supreme international crime” defined in the Nuremberg judgment. It is legitimate to say that it was a “dumb war,” a “strategic blunder,” even “the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy” in President Obama’s words, highly praised by liberal opinion. But “it wouldn’t do” to say what it was, the crime of the century, though there would be no such hesitancy if some official enemy had carried out even a much lesser crime.
The prevailing orthodoxy does not easily accommodate such a figure as General/President Ulysses S. Grant, who thought there never was “a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico,” taking over what is now the US Southwest and California, and who expressed his shame for lacking “the moral courage to resign” instead of taking part in the crime.
Subordination to the prevailing orthodoxy has consequences. The not-so-tacit message is that we should only fight smart wars that are not blunders, wars that succeed in their objectives – by definition just and right according to prevailing orthodoxy even if they are in reality “wicked wars,” major crimes. Illustrations are too numerous to mention. In some cases, like the crime of the century, the practice is virtually without exception in respectable circles.
Another familiar aspect of subordination to prevailing orthodoxy is the casual appropriation of orthodox demonization of official enemies. To take an almost random example, from the issue of the New York Times that happens to be in front of me right now, a highly competent economic journalist warns of the populism of the official demon Hugo Chavez, who, once elected in the late ‘90s, “proceeded to battle any democratic institution that stood in his way.”
Turning to the real world, it was the US government, with the enthusiastic support of the New York Times, that (at the very least) fully supported the military coup that overthrew the Chavez government – briefly, before it was reversed by a popular uprising. As for Chavez, whatever one thinks of him, he won repeated elections certified as free and fair by international observers, including the Carter Foundation, whose founder, ex-President Jimmy Carter, said that “of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” And Venezuela under Chavez regularly ranked very high in international polls on public support for the government, and for democracy (Chile-based Latinobarómetro).
There were doubtless democratic deficits during the Chavez years, such as the repression of the RCTV channel, which elicited enormous condemnation. I joined, also agreeing that it couldn’t happen in our free society. If a prominent TV channel in the US had supported a military coup as RCTV did, then it wouldn’t be repressed a few years later, because it would not exist: the executives would be in jail, if they were still alive.
But orthodoxy easily overcomes mere fact.
Failure to provide pertinent information also has consequences. Perhaps Americans should know that polls run by the leading US polling agency found that a decade after the crime of the century, world opinion regarded the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, no competitor even close; surely not Iran, which wins that prize in US commentary. Perhaps instead of concealing the fact, the press might have performed its duty of bringing it to public attention, along with some consideration of what it means, what lessons it yields for policy. Again, dereliction of duty has consequences.
Examples such as these, which abound, are serious enough, but there are others that are far more momentous. Take the electoral campaign of 2016 in the most powerful country in world history. Coverage was massive, and instructive. Issues were almost entirely avoided by the candidates, and virtually ignored in commentary, in accord with the journalistic principle that “objectivity” means reporting accurately what the powerful do and say, not what they ignore. The principle holds even if the fate of the species is at stake – as it is: both the rising danger of nuclear war and the dire threat of environmental catastrophe.
The neglect reached a dramatic peak on November 8, a truly historic day. On that day Donald Trump won two victories. The less important one received extraordinary media coverage: his electoral victory, with almost 3 million fewer votes than his opponent, thanks to regressive features of the US electoral system. The far important victory passed in virtual silence: Trump’s victory in Marrakech, Morocco, where some 200 nations were meeting to put some serious content into the Paris agreement on climate change a year earlier. On November 8, the proceedings halted. The remainder of the conference was largely devoted to trying to salvage some hope with the US not only withdrawing from the enterprise but dedicated to sabotaging it by sharply increasing the use of fossil fuels, dismantling regulations, and rejecting the pledge to assist developing countries shift to renewables.
All that was at stake in Trump’s most important victory was the prospects for organized human life in any form that we know. Accordingly, coverage was virtually zero, keeping to the same concept of “objectivity” as determined by the practices and doctrines of power.
A truly independent press rejects the role of subordination to power and authority. It casts the orthodoxy to the winds, questions what “right-thinking people will accept without question,” tears aside the veil of tacit censorship, makes available to the general public the information and range of opinions and ideas that are a prerequisite for meaningful participation in social and political life, and beyond that, offers a platform for people to enter into debate and discussion about the issues that concern them. By doing so it serves its function as a foundation for a truly free and democratic society.

Paul Buchanan on Hugo Chávez (Mar. 17, 2013)

“His supporters ADORED him—we don’t see that in Anglo-Saxon societies."
Paul Buchanan on Hugo Chávez
Radio New Zealand National, Sunday 17 March 2013
Generally interesting and fair, as one would expect from a commentator as respected and decent as Paul Buchanan. However, there is still some muddle-headed stuff here, especially when Laidlaw allows Buchanan to make the ridiculous, stereotyped statement that “Anglo-Saxons” don’t get carried away with adoration of their leaders like South Americans do. That will come as a surprise to anyone who watched the wedding of Kate to Prince William, and to anyone who listened just over an hour later to Laidlaw interviewing Sir Don MacKinnon, who raved like a young lover about how he ardently admires the Queen: “We don’t see enough of her laugh! She has a GREAT chuckle!”
Then, near the end of the interview, he lets Buchanan get away, unchallenged, with the assertion that Chávez “did not systematically torture or kill”, which implies that he did some torturing and killing. Of course, the democratically elected Chávez government did not kill or torture anyone, not even the vilest of the extreme right wing saboteurs who never stopped attempting to ruin him.
Anyway, here are the highlights that I managed to jot down….
CHRIS LAIDLAW: We move now to Venezuela. Hugo Chávez, that ebullientpopulist politician died just over a week ago. This rumbustious country has hit some real head windswhen it comes to stability. We’re joined by Paul Buchanan, an academic and former CIA operative who spent many years living in South America, and knows the Venezuela situation very closely. Paul, Chávez called his regime Bolívarian. What did he mean by that?
Paul Buchanan proceeds to give a quick outline of Bolívar and the ways that Chávez resembled him.
LAIDLAW: But Simon Bolívar wasn’t the bombastic [snicker] character Chávez [snicker] was, was he?
PAUL BUCHANAN: Hugo Chávez was a nationalist populist, similar in many ways to Juan Perón. He was very personality driven. And the trouble with this is the same as with every populist regime: it is inherently unstable. This movement will fragment and splinter over the next few years.
LAIDLAW: Really? And then you’ve got trouble?
BUCHANAN: Indeed.
LAIDLAW: I’ve been reading around Chávez [snicker] and it seems to me that his appeal was very Cuban-like, he was like a televangelist.
BUCHANAN: His supporters adored him, in fact they are deifying him as we speak. And that’s something you don’t see in Anglo-Saxon societies.
LAIDLAW: He claimed rather flamboyantly that he’d been poisoned. [snicker] What do you make of that?
BUCHANAN: Well this is the unfortunate thing. He called Bush “the Devil” at the U.N. There was a coup against him 2002 and the United States was the only government that recognized the coup. If you’re going to run a coup, you must make sure the guy doesn’t survive…
LAIDLAW: Yeah. [snicker]
BUCHANAN: You don’t let him return.
LAIDLAW: Ha ha ha!
BUCHANAN: He did not systematically torture or kill. He did bring about the abridgments of basic freedoms, but it was all legal.
LAIDLAW: He started to stack the judiciary, civil service and the armed forces.
BUCHANAN: He did a lot of good things, but he was resisted, from the beginning, by the middle classes and the United States.
  • Murray Olsen18.1
    Maybe Anglo-Saxon societies don’t adore the democratically elected, but only those who attain their exalted positions by accident of birth? Or maybe only cringing Tories who need a structured class system to give their lives meaning do the adoration bit? Or maybe, just maybe, the CIA agent doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

The nervous chuckling of radio broadcasters (Mar. 17, 2013)

The nervous chuckling of radio broadcasters
Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw, National Radio, 17 March 2013
Chris Laidlaw is one of this country’s more serious-minded and intelligent broadcasters. He goes out of his way to be fair and even-handed, and he has attracted many high quality guests on to his show, including dissidents normally shunned by the mainstream media, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.
He also has one of the very best feature writers in the country, Wayne Brittenden, who in his “Counterpoint” segment every week provides an unflinching, often startling in-depth backgrounder to current news issues.
Today, just after the 8 o’clock news, during his rundown of the programme, Chris Laidlaw said this: “At 11:40 Wayne Brittenden talks about the American soldier who is on trial for releasing hundreds of thousands of official documents to Wikileaks.” Then he chuckled, and quipped: “Which makes him flavour of the month at the Pentagon!” And he chuckled again.
Such behaviour is not just irritating, it is concerning for two reasons. (1) The American soldier (Bradley Manning) is not on trial for releasing hundreds of thousands of documents, he is on trial for blowing the whistle on atrocities and war crimes committed by U.S. occupation troops in Iraq. No doubt Laidlaw knows that, but he obediently read out the misleading words anyway. (2) The chuckle didn’t just happen. He did not chuckle while reading out anything else, only while reading out about Bradley Manning. This is, I believe, because Laidlaw realized that he was wading into extremely dangerous territory, and the consequences of even MENTIONING, let alone giving a fair hearing to, an official enemy are dire. Chuckling is a distancing mechanism, an almost subconscious way of protecting yourself from the charge of taking all this radical stuff too seriously.
That’s why Jim Mora chuckled incessantly recently whenever he even mentioned the name of official enemy Hugo Chávez. It’s not that Mora is a raving right winger like many of his guests, it’s just that he realizes it’s risky to go out on a limb and tell the truth unflinchingly.
A few years ago, Brian Edwards shrewdly assessed the behaviour of journalist/PR shill Bill Ralston: “He is an intelligent man who is afraid of being seen to be intelligent.” Replace the word “intelligent” with “principled”, and you have a perfect description of the timid “liberals” on Radio New Zealand National.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17032013/#comment-604948
  • Jenny8.1
    You should have listened to the broad cast program on climate change. Laughing and giggles and unfunny jokes all through it.
    I’ll be damned.
    Now I understand why. It was a distancing tactic. They were too frightened to seriously discuss this issue in case they ruffled the feathers of powerful interest groups who could harm their careers.
    I will right now, go and look up the link. And listen again with new ears.
  • “it’s just that he realizes it’s risky to go out on a limb and tell the truth unflinchingly”
    I agree. Man-made earthquakes are not funny things. Another way of looking at it is when they lie blatantly about something, then you know that the issue is an important one. Like common law, for example.
  • North8.3
    Methinks you may overcook Laidlaw’s chuckle there Morrissey. Doesn’t strike me that Laidlaw is an individual to be cowed either consciously or subliminally.
    Thanks anyway for the reminder to listen to the Brittenden interview @ 11.40 am. Didn’t hear the chuckle myself so won’t be adamant about it but are there possibly legs in Laidlaw actually doing a bit of a snidey at the expense of the monstrously fruit-saladed boys and girls at the Pentagon ? It was only an intro after all.
    As to Mora on the other hand…….well, he’s more a fulsomely charming dinner guest than anything else. The one whom for whatever self-preening reason brings the finest wine at the table and the only one whose demeanour is ineffably affable from start to finish.
    Anyway, raining steadily in the Mid-North for a few hours and just now quite solidly
    My ruggedly individualistic, freedom-loving, self-reliant, ACT-voting silverbeet and herbs are positvely humming. For today anyway they can safely eschew the vile-welfarism attendant in Nanny North’s watering.
    It is exciting as someone said.
    • ghostrider8888.3.1
      Love it North (possibly the laughing discomfort of dissonance Mozza)
    • Morrissey8.3.2
      Doesn’t strike me that Laidlaw is an individual to be cowed either consciously or subliminally.
      You’re correct in that he is not easily cowed. It’s hard to intimidate someone who has survived THIS….
      http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrao8j533u1qgfwr0o1_500.jpg
      I do, however, think that his slight chuckle didn’t just arise because he thinks the persecution of Bradley Manning is funny.
      Don’t get me wrong: I believe Laidlaw is a brave and independently-minded broadcaster, but even he is not immune to pressure. Chuckling like that is the verbal equivalent of wincing; it signals uncertainty and discomfort.
      It’s far from the gales of laughter that resound in Jim Mora’s studio whenever something delicate, like government crimes or human rights, comes up for discussion.