Morrissey11.1
ErratumThat second link I provided was wrong. This is what it should be….
[2] http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2011/08/w-p-reeves-saw-much-to-like-in-murdoch.htmlVicky3211.2
If that was not bad enough, today’s programme got even worse. For some reason, Peacocke chose to quote the self-styled “curmudgeon” Karl Du Fresnewho has written a typically vacuous opinion piece criticising journalism schools for failing to produce journalists who are “willing to challenge authority”.I am so glad I missed it then!- Well done Morrisey for bringing this up. On the Key comments about the Norway massacre I was particularly unimpressed with Peacocke’s logic.The reasons that we should not be hard on Key were:1. ‘Everyone else’ (commenting in the media) immediately leapt on the idea of it being done by radical Islamists;
2. They did this because they were following the ‘respectable’ NYT’s lead in highlighting some ‘expert’ who said some anonymous person in an internet chat room claimed responsibility for it for Al Qaeda;
3. The ‘context’ in which Key made the comment made it ‘understandable’. That context was (a) having just been talking to Obama about Afghanistan deployment (amongst other things), and (b) Obama had just spoken before Key to the media and made noises about the international effort against terrorism;
4. Key said ‘If’ and so showed – like Obama – that he didn’t know who was responsible.This is amazing. Every one of those points actually puts Key’s comments into a worse (and more culpable frame) yet Peacocke seemed to think it exonerated him!Think about it – all the headless chooks were running around in the media saying ‘definitely Al Qaeda’, ‘hallmarks of Islamist terrorism’, etc. (point 1) and, apparently, Key took his lead from these chooks despite (point 4) knowlng he did not know who was responsible?? Key apparently is so naive that he did not realise that what runs the rounds of the media (point 2) in the first hours after a horrific event (especially a human-induced one) is almost always highly speculative and, hence, inevitably flawed??As for the ‘context’ – that’s the whole point of his opportunism. That Obama was also being opportunistic (just as the ‘experts’ were trying to be first to jump on the Islamist bandwagon) hardly excuses Key from being even more explicit in his opportunism. And – this is the fundamental point – Key speculatively (and supposedly with complete knowledge of just how speculative it was) tried to link it to what New Zealand troops were doing in Afghanistan.I think what happens with people like Peacocke – the vast majority of people, in fact – is that they are so inured by the discourses that normalise and ‘reasonable-ise’ the actions of our leaders, governments and elite in general that they find it extraordinarily hard to impose some very straightforward logic onto a situation. This is particularly bad in relation to matters concerning the basic moral compass of our elite – i.e., whether what they do and say is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in a moral sense. The result is that Peacocke can list a whole bunch of reasons in an attempt to let Key off the hook without even realising he is pushing the hook’s moral and ethical barb deeper into Key.It is so blatantly obvious that Key was being opportunistic. All the defences for it that I’ve heard are to the effect that being opportunistic in that situation is perfectly understandable! I guess the same applies to lying, stealing, murdering …He’s the PM; he’s meant to have the character and judgment to navigate these situations without making the same opportunistic leaps that ‘media commentators’ with little to lose – and with no responsibilities to anyone else – do on a daily basis.Too much to ask of our PM?- Too much to ask of our PM?John Key is a politician, and a particularly indolent one. I have no expectation that he will bother to do any more study of the situation than he has already done, i.e., none. Key has just done what politicians do: blither and bluster and, of course, he has gotten away with it, largely because of the indulgence and/or blindness of “liberal” commentators like Colin Peacock. The failure here is not by the Prime Minister.Your detailed and perceptive analysis of Peacock’s rationale for exonerating that buffoon are impressive. I think you should send your comments to Colin Peacock and force him into making a response. Here’s the email address…
mediawatch@radionz.co.nz
Thursday, 4 January 2018
Colin Peacocke, defender of John Key, and champion of Karl Du Fresne (Aug. 7, 2011)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mediawatch, National Radio, Sunday August 7, 2011