Partisan But Not
I prepared to leave the house today having missed Breakfast and consequently the news -- which is, of course, of particularly intense interest at this moment in time, owing to the swift approach of the General Election. In a moment of confused panic, I found myself overcome with a strange craving for intravenously injected current affairs information. However, I ended up forcing myself to settle for the next worst thing. I grabbed my pocket radio and headphones out of my drawer and hurried out of the house. I was going to spend the hour-long train trip into the city listening to Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB.
What I did hear of the show was surprisingly objective and non-partisan; it was certainly not what I had been expecting given Leighton's reputation as a decidedly disagreeable individual, particularly to someone of my political persuasion. Indeed, the quality of the show did deliver on Newstalk ZB's promise to be "more stimulating talk radio." Leighton's opening statements were excusable, possibly due to the mere fact that they were of such a ridiculous nature and so hard to take as politically serious. He described one of today's anti-Labour leaflets put out by the Exclusive Brethren (titled "CLAIM YOUR SEAT TO WATCH THE ALL BLACK ACTION!") which many of you undoubtedly will have seen. He then went on to ask the question as to whether the All Blacks would come under fire for being promoted by the Brethren "for the sake of fairness," given what happened to National.
What followed however was thoroughly interesting -- a discussion about a social-political commentator whose name evades me now, who has declared that he will not be voting this election and has not voted since 1975, because he believes that it is the right thing to do given the nature of his profession. His idea is, presumably, that via not voting he is able to project a vague notion of his neutrality to the audience, and also to assert within himself that sense of being neutral. Of course, what was under criticism on Leighton's show was whether it is "appropriate" for this social commentator to attempt to increase his personal credibility through this method. One verbalisation that it brought forward from many callers was the assertion that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, and that it is therefore wrong for this individual to provide commentary.
It was Leighton himself who introduced the most interesting concepts. He noted that everybody has a political persuasion; that whether they admit it or not they lean in a particular direction. As such, all commentary is subject to varying degrees of ideological bias. There is no such thing as commentary in which there is no inherent bias. In the case of virtually all social commentators -- Leighton used himself as an example -- it is solidly evident "which way the wind blows" for them. This leaves them with a responsibility to vote for their party of choice; that they may not look upon the citizens of this country as fools who can't figure out any particular commentator's ideology just by listening to their respective commentary.
As a consequence of all this, abstaining from voting altogether with the intention of adding more credibility to one's self as a commentator -- essentially to erect a neutral image -- is in fact a backwards and devious thing to do. I thoroughly agree with Leighton on this point. I feel that a commentator's proud participation in the democratic process is in actuality what may attribute to their credibility, as they are being straight up about the fact that they do hold ideological biases as opposed to trying to hide it from the public. It shows that they are confident in the public as not being devoid of the ability to see through farcical covers, such as that of proclaiming that one doesn't vote. It makes you think, doesn't it?
What I did hear of the show was surprisingly objective and non-partisan; it was certainly not what I had been expecting given Leighton's reputation as a decidedly disagreeable individual, particularly to someone of my political persuasion. Indeed, the quality of the show did deliver on Newstalk ZB's promise to be "more stimulating talk radio." Leighton's opening statements were excusable, possibly due to the mere fact that they were of such a ridiculous nature and so hard to take as politically serious. He described one of today's anti-Labour leaflets put out by the Exclusive Brethren (titled "CLAIM YOUR SEAT TO WATCH THE ALL BLACK ACTION!") which many of you undoubtedly will have seen. He then went on to ask the question as to whether the All Blacks would come under fire for being promoted by the Brethren "for the sake of fairness," given what happened to National.
What followed however was thoroughly interesting -- a discussion about a social-political commentator whose name evades me now, who has declared that he will not be voting this election and has not voted since 1975, because he believes that it is the right thing to do given the nature of his profession. His idea is, presumably, that via not voting he is able to project a vague notion of his neutrality to the audience, and also to assert within himself that sense of being neutral. Of course, what was under criticism on Leighton's show was whether it is "appropriate" for this social commentator to attempt to increase his personal credibility through this method. One verbalisation that it brought forward from many callers was the assertion that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, and that it is therefore wrong for this individual to provide commentary.
It was Leighton himself who introduced the most interesting concepts. He noted that everybody has a political persuasion; that whether they admit it or not they lean in a particular direction. As such, all commentary is subject to varying degrees of ideological bias. There is no such thing as commentary in which there is no inherent bias. In the case of virtually all social commentators -- Leighton used himself as an example -- it is solidly evident "which way the wind blows" for them. This leaves them with a responsibility to vote for their party of choice; that they may not look upon the citizens of this country as fools who can't figure out any particular commentator's ideology just by listening to their respective commentary.
As a consequence of all this, abstaining from voting altogether with the intention of adding more credibility to one's self as a commentator -- essentially to erect a neutral image -- is in fact a backwards and devious thing to do. I thoroughly agree with Leighton on this point. I feel that a commentator's proud participation in the democratic process is in actuality what may attribute to their credibility, as they are being straight up about the fact that they do hold ideological biases as opposed to trying to hide it from the public. It shows that they are confident in the public as not being devoid of the ability to see through farcical covers, such as that of proclaiming that one doesn't vote. It makes you think, doesn't it?
posted by Gary at 9:43 pm
2 Comments:
Fuck you fucking fuckers Ive got my fucking phone in my pockot.
"more stimulating talk radio" - doesn't this belong to Radio Pacific?
No one east breakfast anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home