“by all means take pride in being a “New Zealander”, but PLEASE at least try to recognise what that means.

We all are people of the Pacific now. We are shaped by it. We take pride in it. ”

“I do suspect that, whatever your wishes may be, american culture will become increasingly important in this country, ”

” It is clear that, as a conservative, you appear to dislike change. However change is an inevitable part of living in a global village, and an inevitable part of living in an increasingly multi-cultural country, which encourages immigration.”

haw haw!

peace

Changes in the advertising “climate” are very important.

However, I find the junk programmes on TV (manily eminating out of the USA) even more worrying. They are a cheap way to fill the spaces and predominate on SKY TV, but they (along with some cheap British counterparts) are there on our free-to-air broadcasting channels as well.
Our vulnerable kids are growing up with the influence of the worst of (?) USA’s culture dominating their free time.

The effects are increasingly noticeable in our language, behaviour, and culture, and thus bring to mind the saying:

“There is no such thing as a free lunch”.

The UK has just announced a surprisingly broad ban on junk-food advertising aimed at children :
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1950542,00.html

[UK media regulator] Ofcom has announced a total ban on junk food advertising around all children’s programming, on all children’s channels and around all programmes that have a “particular appeal” to under 16-year-olds.

The restrictions are much harsher than the TV and advertising industry had been hoping for but fell short of a complete pre-watershed ban that health campaigners were seeking.

Sue Kedgely will be chuffed, she’s been pushing this subject for several years, maybe she’ll get some traction now that our chubby Pommy cousins have hauled themselves off the couch and into action.

OK, now the contrarians can bang on about what an intolerable curtailment of free speech this would be for the junk food pushers.

I find it interesting that some of you feel it necessary to ramp up the criticism of Greenpeace to the point where now they invented this evil form and are guilty of promoting it. I am sure you don’t know anything of the sort. When I first saw it, in the USA, not here, it was commercial, not political… and quite possibly before some of you were even born.

The point… the criticism is about the uncritical presentation of cr@p by the news organizations. This is getting to be a habit for them and I don’t care whose cr@p is getting dumped in my living room, it stinks.

BJ

I think Frog’s original criticism was more about lack of disclosure of sources - I think contributed video is fine if it is clearly labelled. Amcams are encouraged by media orgs.

You cannot seriously say that GP doesn’t have a vested interest that is threatened. They are adamantly against nuclear power and whaling. No science will sway that view as far as I can see. The truth if it conflicted with their agendas, would threaten their membership numbers, revenues and ability to progress their campaigns. It wouldn’t be unusual for an environmental organisation to overstate the risks and shout down countering views. They too have a lot at stake.

It is intersting to ponder why some people don’t like environmentalists and why a lot of people loath “developers”. Could it be that (once we admit that resources are finite) “”..I can’t be a giant tree because I have to consider that my roots are in the same soil as everyone elses and that my blocking the light limits the oppurtunity of the other trees around me” ??
JH

>Another point is that organisations like Greenpeace do not have interests that are threatened by the truth.

Except that big organisations such as Greenpeace and the Greens tend to, of necessity, make committee decisions and they become (in a way) the product, for example ‘no’ to nucleur energy and ‘no’ to genetic engineering.
JH

Another point is that organisations like Greenpeace do not have interests that are threatened by the truth. That is not to say that environmental organisations don’t occasionally make factual mistakes in their media work. But when these occur they are genuine mistakes resulting from inadequate research and/or limited resources, rather than the deliberate distribution of misinformation to protect powerful economic interests.

It wouldn’t be much of a blog without contrarians.
JH