Another example why the Sunday Star-Times gets no respect
3 posts by 3 authors
 |
 |
Preliminary comment by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daiscutter Sports:
Obviously, it is a big ask to keep up a modicum of local stories in a
Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
But we think that the following Sunday Star-Times piece, wherein one
MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
2004.
Note the headline for this idiotic attempt at a beat-up. Now,
admittedly, Tony Veitch is a halfwit and an indictment on the
broadcasting "system" that has anointed him as a sports "commentator"
. Three years ago he made a national spectacle of himself at Auckland
International Airport when, giggling and waving a large woolly
microphone, he was forcibly removed from the presence of Anna
Kournikova. We have no doubt that he is stupid enough to say grossly
offensive things on air.
MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
2004.
Note the headline for this idiotic attempt at a beat-up. Now,
admittedly, Tony Veitch is a halfwit and an indictment on the
broadcasting "system" that has anointed him as a sports "commentator"
. Three years ago he made a national spectacle of himself at Auckland
International Airport when, giggling and waving a large woolly
microphone, he was forcibly removed from the presence of Anna
Kournikova. We have no doubt that he is stupid enough to say grossly
offensive things on air.
However, on this occasion, his smiley, empty-headed remark was callow
at worst. Even the Race Relations commissioner found nothing even
remotely offensive about what Veitch said. He has received NO
COMPLAINTS. Bill Francis, general manager of the Radio Network,
received NO COMPLAINTS.
at worst. Even the Race Relations commissioner found nothing even
remotely offensive about what Veitch said. He has received NO
COMPLAINTS. Bill Francis, general manager of the Radio Network,
received NO COMPLAINTS.
Yet the headline claims that Veitch is "under fire". From who? Well,
that's rather unclear: all we are told is that the Sunday Star-Times
"was contacted" by "people" who were "concerned" over Veitch's use of
the term "golliwog". We are not given any details who these people
might be, or how many of these people there were.
that's rather unclear: all we are told is that the Sunday Star-Times
"was contacted" by "people" who were "concerned" over Veitch's use of
the term "golliwog". We are not given any details who these people
might be, or how many of these people there were.
Would it be unkind to suggest that the "people" who "contacted" the
Sunday Star-Times were.... Sunday Star-Times staffers, desperate for a
"story" about a "celebrity", no matter how tenuous, no matter how
lowly the "celebrity" it involved. And poor Mary Jane Boland drew the
short straw of actually producing something out of thin air.
Sunday Star-Times were.... Sunday Star-Times staffers, desperate for a
"story" about a "celebrity", no matter how tenuous, no matter how
lowly the "celebrity" it involved. And poor Mary Jane Boland drew the
short straw of actually producing something out of thin air.
We wonder if others were touched by the poignancy of the very last
sentence of this article, when Ms Boland suggests where readers can
send their complaints.
sentence of this article, when Ms Boland suggests where readers can
send their complaints.
Veitch under fire over 'golliwog'
SUNDAY , 26 DECEMBER 2004
by MARY JANE BOLAND
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/
Broadcaster Tony Veitch is under fire for calling an African American
tennis player "the world's ultimate golliwog".
by MARY JANE BOLAND
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/
Broadcaster Tony Veitch is under fire for calling an African American
tennis player "the world's ultimate golliwog".
Veitch was interviewing James Blake - who is coming to Auckland for
next month's Heineken Open - on Friday, when he asked why the popular
player had cut off his dreadlocks.
next month's Heineken Open - on Friday, when he asked why the popular
player had cut off his dreadlocks.
"You were the world's ultimate golliwog . . . now look at you, you're
bald," Veitch said on his Radio Sport breakfast show.
bald," Veitch said on his Radio Sport breakfast show.
The Sunday Star-Times was contacted by people concerned at Veitch's
use of the offensive term "golliwog".
use of the offensive term "golliwog".
Radio Sport is owned by the Radio Network, home to Newstalk ZB, which
came under attack last year when Paul Holmes called United Nations
secretary-general Kofi Annan a "cheeky darkie".
came under attack last year when Paul Holmes called United Nations
secretary-general Kofi Annan a "cheeky darkie".
Asked if he meant to be insulting, Veitch - who also hosts sport for
TV One - said: "Not at all." He said he and Blake had joked about the
term before the interview.
TV One - said: "Not at all." He said he and Blake had joked about the
term before the interview.
Veitch referred further questions to Radio Network general manager
Bill Francis, who said he had not heard the interview live. But he had
discussed the issue with Veitch since.
Bill Francis, who said he had not heard the interview live. But he had
discussed the issue with Veitch since.
"Certainly, in talking to Tony you've got to look at the context of
the programme this morning, where it was a Christmasy programme with a
lot of fun and entertainment. There was nothing derogatory meant by
that term."
the programme this morning, where it was a Christmasy programme with a
lot of fun and entertainment. There was nothing derogatory meant by
that term."
Francis said the network had not received any complaints.
He planned to listen to the interview with Veitch and refused to
discuss whether Veitch would be censured for the comment.
discuss whether Veitch would be censured for the comment.
Asked if it was an acceptable term on the network, Francis said: "It's
a term that's not used today. It's an old-fashioned term that's no
longer applicable."
a term that's not used today. It's an old-fashioned term that's no
longer applicable."
Race relations commissioner Joris de Bres said such comments depended
on context. Any complaints should be made to Radio Sport or the
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
on context. Any complaints should be made to Radio Sport or the
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Click here to Reply
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Preliminary comment by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daiscutter Sports:
>
> Obviously, it is a big ask to keep up a modicum of local stories in a
> Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
> lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
> padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
> seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
>
> But we think that the following Sunday Star-Times piece, wherein one
> MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
> broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
> one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
> 2004.
>
> Preliminary comment by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daiscutter Sports:
>
> Obviously, it is a big ask to keep up a modicum of local stories in a
> Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
> lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
> padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
> seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
>
> But we think that the following Sunday Star-Times piece, wherein one
> MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
> broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
> one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
> 2004.
>
I went cold turkey on the SST a few weeks ago. It was their portrayal of
Arafat as some kind of hero that made me quit. Now the only thing I go
to the Dairy for on a Sunday morning is a Moritz.
Arafat as some kind of hero that made me quit. Now the only thing I go
to the Dairy for on a Sunday morning is a Moritz.
|
>Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Preliminary comment by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daiscutter Sports:
>
> Obviously, it is a big ask to keep up a modicum of local stories in a
> Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
> lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
> padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
> seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
>
> But we think that the following Sunday Star-Times piece, wherein one
> MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
> broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
> one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
> 2004.
[snip]> Preliminary comment by MORRISSEY BREEN, Daiscutter Sports:
>
> Obviously, it is a big ask to keep up a modicum of local stories in a
> Sunday paper in a country like New Zealand. It's inevitable that a
> lot of trivial and/or dull and/or spurious stuff will be used as
> padding ---- even for a broadsheet Sunday which obviously takes itself
> seriously as a "quality" alternative to such trash as the Sunday News.
>
> But we think that the following Sunday Star-Times piece, wherein one
> MARY JANE BOLAND tries to convince her readers that a sports
> broadcaster is "under fire" for a harmless comment he made on-air, is
> one of THE most trivial, THE dullest, THE most spurious non-stories of
> 2004.
The rag has got progressively worse since Cate Brett was installed as
editor.
editor.
No comments:
Post a Comment