It’s difficult to stand out as especially stupid in the desperately mediocre world of New Zealand radio. But listeners to (or sufferers of) Radio NZ National have over the last few months probably noticed the increasing frequency of one Susie Ferguson, formerly of the BBC and ITN. Ferguson is yet another Irish voice on Radio New Zealand National; her Ulster inflections provide a complement to Noelle McCarthy’s Cork accent. But while Noelle McCarthy has a high degree of urbanity and sophistication, and obviously reads and thinks a great deal, the same cannot be said for Susie Ferguson. Her interviews stand out for their lack of empathy, or basic understanding of an issue; her style is often confrontational and downright rude.
For this morning’s show, the producers of Morning Report gave her an easy assignment: interview someone about the minor furore that has blown up about the film Maniac, starring Elijah Woods. This Festival movie has been bizarrely attacked by the New Zealand Chief Censor. In his wisdom, he has decreed that it can be shown only to Film Festivals and tertiary study classes. The producers no doubt trusted that even Susie Ferguson would be capable of getting a few straight, even interesting, comments from Neil Foley, of the distributor Monster Films. But no, even that simple assignment was beyond her; she succeeded in flabbergasting Foley, and no doubt any sentient listeners, by asking one of the stupidest questions of the year, not counting any press conference involving Television One’s Andrew Saville.
Neil Foley explained to Ferguson that, while the violence is graphic, it is supposed to be from the serial killer’s point of view, and that this is an established horror convention. Ferguson, though just did not get it….
SUSIE FERGUSON: If, as you say, this has all been done before, why do it all again?
NEIL FOLEY:[snorts in derision] You could say that about any film. These are conventions.
The rest of the interview went nowhere. Susie Ferguson used to work for the BBC. That tells you a lot about that organization.
I think you are being overly harsh on Ms Ferguson. Her interview with Helen Kelly last week was one of the best I have heard on National Radio. She didn’t but in and cut Helen off during her answers. As well, she listened to what Helen said and asked the next question accordingly. A really refreshing change.
hush now, with that mistrust, it’s an accurate transcript…
It is, actually, in this case. Even this writer, i.e. moi, isn’t going to blow it with a mere two-line transcript. Where I get myself into trouble is when I start condensing thirty minutes of dull inanity into twenty or thirty lines of Neil Simon-quality dialogue.
And, of course, whether she’s from Scotland or Ulster doesn’t affect what she said.
Except you did blow it. These words you wrote are not the actual words spoken. Some you have made up. Some you have omitted.
You, of course, will provide us with a verbatim transcript, so that you can back up your allegation.
And the “snorts in derision” is entirely imaginary. I’ve had to publicly call you out only the other day for your propensity to overstate your case. “Entirely imaginary” is of the same extreme order as your claim that Chris Trotter did not deliver a windy lecture about the need to respect lynch law in the Deep South. When you overstate your case, felix, it renders suspect everything else that you say.
If anything he chuckles. You have in your previous sentence just claimed that it was “entirely imaginary”. Now you have, carelessly, invalidated that claim. I will for the sake of civility do you the favour of conceding that Neil Foley chuckled derisively at Susie Ferguson’s foolish question—but I’m sure anyone who heard it will recognize my rendition of his reaction is more accurate and honest than yours.
1. I don’t need to provide a transcript Mozz, the audio is available to anyone who cares and anyone who listens to it will be rewarded with the knowledge that it does not match your transcript.
This is doubly disturbing because in your comment above you assured us all that in spite of your previous lapses of concentration, errors of omission, inventions, flights of fancy, misquotes, and extremely liberal use of artistic license, this time you’d finally got one right.
And you still hadn’t.
2. Trotter didn’t say what you claimed he said, and not in the context you claimed. Again the audio is available to all so I’m not going to play silly games with you.
“need to respect the lynch law”?? FFS do you ever read your own words before you post them? He said nothing of the sort.
3. I’ve invalidated nothing. It’s not my fault you don’t know the difference between a derisive snort and a hearty chuckle.
“I’m sure anyone who heard it”
I’m not convinced that you actually go back and listen after you write your impressions. If you did, you’d never be here defending their accuracy like the black knight.
1. I don’t need to provide a transcript Mozz, the audio is available to anyone who cares and anyone who listens to it will be rewarded with the knowledge that it does not match your transcript. You keep saying that, possibly in the hope nobody will actually check. I stand by the substance of what I wrote; there might well be the odd “um” I have either missed or gratuitously inserted, but what I wrote, whether or not it technically qualifies as a “transcription”, was accurate and fair.
This is doubly disturbing because in your comment above you assured us all that in spite of your previous lapses of concentration, errors of omission, inventions, flights of fancy, misquotes, and extremely liberal use of artistic license, Your language is extreme and prosecutorial; once again you have chosen to go out on a limb with your carping and trivial allegations. You know perfectly well by now what the intention of my transcripts is: it is to catch the zeitgeist of the often foolish and sometimes depraved stuff that surrounds us on the air. Do I always get it word-perfect? No, of course not—I have no BASF tapes currently operable, and my shorthand is imperfect. You choose to focus on that and make an issue of it; I stand by my interpretation of Foley’s reaction to Susie Ferguson’s utterly stupid question; you may choose to pretend he “chuckles” indulgently. Such cockeyed generosity is not surprising in light of your indulgent view of Trotter’s fustian oratory on behalf of that Florida lynch-mob.
…this time you’d finally got one right. And you still hadn’t. I got it exactly right. You are the one who claimed that Mr. Foley’s derisive snorts were “entirely imaginary” and then in the very next sentence quibbled about the description of those snorts: “If anything he chuckles.”
2. Trotter didn’t say what you claimed he said, He said it in the way I showed it. I didn’t get his immortal words down perfectly, but he DID deliver an absurdly self-important lecture to his inferiors (that’s clearly the way he thinks of most people) about the need to “respect” the decision of that Florida jury. If anything, I modified the extreme pomposity of his delivery.
…and not in the context you claimed. The others on the Panel all expressed disdain and horror at that obscene travesty; Trotter decided he’d deliver a lecture about the need to respect any jury decision, no matter how harebrained or unjust it might appear to be. That was the context; are you trying to suggest something else was going on in that studio? What “context” did we miss?
Again the audio is available to all… Then you will provide a transcript of the bit that shows Trotter did NOT deliver a windy and self-important caution to his fellow Panelists.
…so I’m not going to play silly games with you. That’s a bit late, I’m afraid. You are playing silly games, and so far you have not done very well at all. Putting up that word-perfect transcript might help your case.
“need to respect the lynch law”?? FFS do you ever read your own words before you post them? He said nothing of the sort. Of course Trotter did not use those words. But that’s exactly what he meant.
3. I’m not convinced that you actually go back and listen after you write your impressions. If you did, you’d never be here defending their accuracy like the black knight. You are correct there, felix.
I’ll wager you were the doyen of the debating crowd back in the day. Oh no, no, no. My idea of debating “back in the day” consisted of pontificating to my long-suffering compañeros in the public bar of the King’s Arms. Still does, pretty much.
Documentary on Helen Clark was on TV3 last night at 9:30, covers her entry into politics, up to winning the 1999 election and becoming the first elected female PM. Has heaps of archive film footage, interviews with Helen, Jim Bolger, Jim Anderton, Roger Douglas and others.
Quite well done, and interesting. The only disturbing part of it came when her dad was proudly listing all the movers and shakers Helen mixes with. “She’s got contacts all over the world,” he beamed. “Um, Blair, Gordon Brown, uh, Clinton. She knows them all.”
The poor old fellow seemed to approve of his daughter being involved with those blood-soaked criminals.
Yes, how silly it is for the leader of the nation to have contact with the heads of NZ’s major trading partners.
They are criminals, every one of them. They should all be in prison. At least Clark, as vacillating as she was, had the courage to speak out, however guardedly, against the crimes of the first two.
Yeah well…….my mother (born 1918 – first job at 13 in a greengrocer’s in Onehunga) used to proudly cluck her lovely Old Labour self to sleep after I’d call “on tolls” from Wellington to relate my often ginned-up late-night progress office to office through the corridors of Parliament commencing early 70s. Mike Moore, Roger Douglas, Bassett et al……….look how those pricks turned out !
That’s parents for you. Completely understandable. Thank Christ it took that woman’s son only a decade and a half to stop being a slimey little Soymin Brudges wankfest !
Ah what refreshing prose, both Morrissey and North together and firing on all cylinders all we need now is erudite Prof Longhair to join the conflagration and one’s life is complete.
Ah what refreshing prose, both Morrissey and North together and firing on all cylinders all we need now is erudite Prof Longhair to join the conflagration and one’s life is complete.
Hmmmmmm…. Just what are you allegitating there, “sockpuppet”?
sockpuppet What about you getting your own blog. Are you a forerunner of RWNJs we are going to ‘enjoy’ in the run up to the election, putting your tainted little toes in a left wing pond to gauge how warm it is. Back home, nearer to hell it’s really warm, you probably would be more comfortable there.
Yeah, same. I think it was a product of trying to cram such a long period of time into a single episode.
If the whole series was 4 shows rather than 2, they could devote 2 episodes to the early years, and 2 episodes to her PMship, and that’d be a good amount of depth I think.
Would love to have heard more dirt about her time in opposition and the issues and events of the day. The older footage was pretty interesting.
I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but I might be able to fill in some of the dirtprior to… and in the first three years of her time in opposition. Lprent can probably fill in the rest. Will watch it this evening. Thanks for link Lanthanide.
John Key’s comments amused me. “She lived and breathed politics 24 hrs a day.” She no more lived and breathed politics 24/7 than he does now.
Jane Clifton’s comment re- the death stare. I was the recipient once when she was still just the candidate for Mt. Albert. At a campaign meeting I decided to play the role of devil’s advocate to see how she would handle it. Never again.
There is a little known aspect to that candidate selection that Helen Clark won. During the long lead up to the selection meeting there were two local factions. One faction supported Helen Clark and another supported the electorate chairman, Keith Elliott. It seemed like the two groups were roughly equal in support. But a third faction appeared about two months before the scheduled meeting and they were pushing for Malcolm Douglas – Roger Douglas’ brother. Malcolm was a young lawyer, personable and articulate. The hope was Helen and Keith would cancel each other out and Malcolm would come through the middle. They conducted a campaign that was largely under the radar and quite dirty in content. (Won’t go into details here.) It could have succeeded if it wasn’t for the fact that Helen made such an outstanding speech on the night, nobody else got a look-in.
Years later most of that third faction ended up in ACT and I don’t think they ever forgave Helen for giving their candidate a thrashing.
Thanks for the link Lanthanide. I found the doco really interesting, and to be honest, I had kind of hoped that when I opened TS this morning I’d find that one of our wonderful writers had written a review. There were many things that I’d be interested to know others’ views on.
I was also chilled when Clark’s father proudly proclaimed his daughter’s “friendships” with those particular culprits. But it’s worth remembering that family loyalty and paternal pride aside, Clark’s Dad was and is an arch conservative and that list probably represents leaders that he has great respect for, and may not reflect HC’s attitudes. I’d certainly like to think not.
It seemed to me that Anderton was strongly suggesting that Clark was a social dmocrat and that her actual politico/economic views were more aligned to the Alliance policy than to Labour’s.
Clark’s Dad was and is an arch conservative and that list probably represents leaders that he has great respect for, and may not reflect HC’s attitudes. I’d certainly like to think not.
He WAS an arch conservative just saying. Indeed back in the 1970s he and Helen had many rows which became so heated that Helen’s mother banned all talk of politics. They were estranged for a number of years, but when she became the candidate for Mt.Albert her father swallowed his pride and her parents’ wholly supported her. They eventually joined the Labour Party and became enthusiastic members. That was my understanding anyway.
No. 1: SUSIE FERGUSON
I’ve had to publicly call you out only the other day for your propensity to overstate your case. “Entirely imaginary” is of the same extreme order as your claim that Chris Trotter did not deliver a windy lecture about the need to respect lynch law in the Deep South. When you overstate your case, felix, it renders suspect everything else that you say.
You have in your previous sentence just claimed that it was “entirely imaginary”. Now you have, carelessly, invalidated that claim. I will for the sake of civility do you the favour of conceding that Neil Foley chuckled derisively at Susie Ferguson’s foolish question—but I’m sure anyone who heard it will recognize my rendition of his reaction is more accurate and honest than yours.
You keep saying that, possibly in the hope nobody will actually check. I stand by the substance of what I wrote; there might well be the odd “um” I have either missed or gratuitously inserted, but what I wrote, whether or not it technically qualifies as a “transcription”, was accurate and fair.
Your language is extreme and prosecutorial; once again you have chosen to go out on a limb with your carping and trivial allegations. You know perfectly well by now what the intention of my transcripts is: it is to catch the zeitgeist of the often foolish and sometimes depraved stuff that surrounds us on the air. Do I always get it word-perfect? No, of course not—I have no BASF tapes currently operable, and my shorthand is imperfect. You choose to focus on that and make an issue of it; I stand by my interpretation of Foley’s reaction to Susie Ferguson’s utterly stupid question; you may choose to pretend he “chuckles” indulgently. Such cockeyed generosity is not surprising in light of your indulgent view of Trotter’s fustian oratory on behalf of that Florida lynch-mob.
I got it exactly right. You are the one who claimed that Mr. Foley’s derisive snorts were “entirely imaginary” and then in the very next sentence quibbled about the description of those snorts: “If anything he chuckles.”
He said it in the way I showed it. I didn’t get his immortal words down perfectly, but he DID deliver an absurdly self-important lecture to his inferiors (that’s clearly the way he thinks of most people) about the need to “respect” the decision of that Florida jury. If anything, I modified the extreme pomposity of his delivery.
The others on the Panel all expressed disdain and horror at that obscene travesty; Trotter decided he’d deliver a lecture about the need to respect any jury decision, no matter how harebrained or unjust it might appear to be. That was the context; are you trying to suggest something else was going on in that studio? What “context” did we miss?
Then you will provide a transcript of the bit that shows Trotter did NOT deliver a windy and self-important caution to his fellow Panelists.
That’s a bit late, I’m afraid. You are playing silly games, and so far you have not done very well at all. Putting up that word-perfect transcript might help your case.
Of course Trotter did not use those words. But that’s exactly what he meant.
You are correct there, felix.
Thanks, buddy!
THANK you!
http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/i_love_you_teddy_bear-wide.jpg
Oh no, no, no. My idea of debating “back in the day” consisted of pontificating to my long-suffering compañeros in the public bar of the King’s Arms. Still does, pretty much.
What about you getting your own blog. Are you a forerunner of RWNJs we are going to ‘enjoy’ in the run up to the election, putting your tainted little toes in a left wing pond to gauge how warm it is. Back home, nearer to hell it’s really warm, you probably would be more comfortable there.
I found the doco really interesting, and to be honest, I had kind of hoped that when I opened TS this morning I’d find that one of our wonderful writers had written a review. There were many things that I’d be interested to know others’ views on.