Articles published in April, 2011

  1. Why Charlie Sheen can teach us all a thing or two

    Published on Wednesday, April 20th, 2011
    Two and a half men was arguably the most successful and longest running reality show on television. Given this, the intense interest in Charlie Sheen isn’t surprising; and neither is the similarity between the two Charlies, Harper on screen and Sheen in life.

    The difference is that the real Charlie is taking things further than prime time TV would ever have allowed.  Perhaps he’s living out his vision for where the character needed to go?  The next step could be a move to Jersey Shore, maybe even with the kids.

    All joking aside, the situation does raise a couple of more serious questions that, were he to suffer some serious harm during this period of scrutiny, would be hotly debated.

    Firstly is our own appetite for unreal reality unhealthy – both for the person we are following and the many impressionable minds who see the Charlie Sheens of the world as role models and think this behaviour is a perk of the fame game?  Secondly doesn’t the media have a responsibility to protect people from themselves if they lack the skills or judgement to do so themselves?

    The answers can be quite simple – if it happens we have a “right” to know, then the individual has a right to respond. When discussing this with a media friend, I was reminded that everyone has a right to be heard.  Mister Sheen would have been unfairly denied that right had he not been granted the access to media and therefore his publics. What’s more, if one media outlet didn’t cover it another one would.

    But let’s finish were we started – reality.  People are naturally interested in the lives of others, especially if they are exceptional in some way. Why not sit back enjoy the show and see what you can learn along the way? If nothing else, Sheen has offered a classic study in over-exposure.

  2. Litany of apologies, but no humility

    Published on Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
    If you watched Close Up last night you’ll know all about the problems encountered by wheelchair-bound Tanya Black and Dan Buckingham in trying to take a Jetstar flight to the Capital.

    You see, Tanya and Dan ended up ditching their tickets and flying hassle-free with Air NZ.

    There are many aspects of this episode that deserve scrutiny, from staff training to the airline policies, but we think there’s one lesson that can be quickly learned by any aspiring spokesperson.

    Jetstar’s CEO David Hall fronted up to the programme, but despite his litany of “unreserved and absolute” apologies and admissions that his airline did not get it right, he failed to stem the flow of damage to the Jetstar brand. How come?

    Although having pretty much all day to work through with his advisor(s) how this might best be dealt with, he came on Close Up in promotional-mode, when the situation required humility.

    How much of a difference it would have made had Hall referred to Tanya and Dan by name and apologised to each as individuals, rather than referring to them as “those passengers”.

    How much of a difference it would have made if he started the interview the way it ended by saying: “where we fail, I take personal responsibility”. Unfortunately by this stage, judging by social media postings, viewers were totally enraged by his wooden performance.

    Television is an emotional medium, and in issues such as this, spokespeople have to respond emotionally, rather than as a defensive talking head.

    Frankly when two people are treated the way Tanya and Dan were by Jetstar, most of us are not remotely interested in Jetstar’s messages about their “absolute commitment to providing low fares, all-day, hassle-free travel for all our passengers, including those with wheelchairs”.

    We want to see genuine humility, but apparently, Jetstar doesn’t “do” humility. Cheap and nasty are what people are saying.

  3. The tendency to editiorialise – knock it off

    Published on Thursday, April 7th, 2011
    Driving home last night, listening to Checkpoint on Radio NZ National, I heard what I understood to be an advertisement for Morning Report.

    The content of this advertisement was a clip of co-hosts Geoff Robinson and Simon Mercep heaping derision on the “plastic Waka” proposed as a Maori pavilion on Auckland’s waterfront for the Rugby World Cup.

    Earlier in the day I’d heard some of the interviews on this topic on the programme, but clearly not enough to reach the cynical conclusion expressed by these respected co-hosts.

    Regardless, I question whether their job is to provide personal editorial.

    Tough questioning and devil’s advocacy positioning is what’s expected, and most frequently what we get.  This was neither, and in my view has no place on Radio NZ’s premium news and current affairs segment. Regrettably editorialising has become something of a fashion across the media, presumably on the incorrect assumption that these broadcasters and journalists know much more than us, and/or we are not mature enough to make up our own minds.
    I’m sorry Geoff and Simon, but please stick to your knitting.

    And as regards the plastic “Waka”, let’s stop wailing crocodile tears over the cost.  If a strong cultural and business case can be made for it, let’s go for it.