My second survey of the AM Show took place today between 7 and 8am. National didn't get a single mention so I'm going to back down and say I was wrong. The AM Show are quite fair minded.
All mentions that directly related to New Zealand politics were clearly references to Labour, or one or more of their coalition partners. The AM Show did so generally positively 11 times and negatively 7 times. Included in those 7 times was a 42 second rant against Labour from both Duncan Garner and Mark Richardson who used the old anti-left canard of the "hypocrisy of the left". Nothing surprising from Richardson, he's the ugly face of conservatism in New Zealand. I'd be surprised if he's ever read a book.
But the audience expect nothing else really and there was so many positive mentions of Labour that I'd go so far as to say that their rant makes them look balanced. It's likely to reinforce the positive mentions of Labour, not boost National.
What of National now? They're spent and you have to place the blame firmly at the feet of the staggeringly incompetent Simon "Bill" English.
[A follow up survey 13/11/17, 7-8am showed more positive about Labour than negative, despite that hour being dominated by CPTPP talk. Only the one positive mention of National. This illustrates the difficulty of being in opposition, they can't get heard at all. Well they deserve it so I won't be crying.]
Showing posts with label AM Show. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AM Show. Show all posts
November 06, 2017
November 01, 2017
AM Show aka NatTube
I can report progress on my survey of the AM Show on New Zealand's TV3 and whether they're really National Party TV.
What I do is throw dice to determine which day and what hour I'll be surveying. The first hour drawn was today, Wednesday the first day of November. The time surveyed was one hour between 8 and 9am.
Early days I know, but so far there is no evidence of bias. If anything the bias is pro Labour. I divide up which side is being mentioned, National or Labour (Labour includes all parties in government), and whether they're treated predominantly positively or negatively.
During the one hour in question, Duncan Garner talked for 40 seconds predominantly positively about Labour. He did not mention National and nor did Mark Richardson. The news segments presented by Amanda Gillies contained initiatives announced by Labour and these were handled even-handedly.
My readers will be aware that when I surveyed NBA games I found obvious bias, proving NBA regular season games are rigged. Well, so far no obvious bias from the AM Show. I'll keep randomly sampling. Funny thing was my wife saw my survey sheet ready on the coffee table and she left a note and a hand drawn emoji warning me not to get too upset with Mark Richardson as he's known to be a Nat. I called her to thank her for being so thoughtful but she needn't have worried, Richardson didn't offend.
More on this later and a report on the overall results.
What I do is throw dice to determine which day and what hour I'll be surveying. The first hour drawn was today, Wednesday the first day of November. The time surveyed was one hour between 8 and 9am.
Early days I know, but so far there is no evidence of bias. If anything the bias is pro Labour. I divide up which side is being mentioned, National or Labour (Labour includes all parties in government), and whether they're treated predominantly positively or negatively.
During the one hour in question, Duncan Garner talked for 40 seconds predominantly positively about Labour. He did not mention National and nor did Mark Richardson. The news segments presented by Amanda Gillies contained initiatives announced by Labour and these were handled even-handedly.
My readers will be aware that when I surveyed NBA games I found obvious bias, proving NBA regular season games are rigged. Well, so far no obvious bias from the AM Show. I'll keep randomly sampling. Funny thing was my wife saw my survey sheet ready on the coffee table and she left a note and a hand drawn emoji warning me not to get too upset with Mark Richardson as he's known to be a Nat. I called her to thank her for being so thoughtful but she needn't have worried, Richardson didn't offend.
More on this later and a report on the overall results.
October 31, 2017
AM Show aka National Party TV
The AM Show is a New Zealand weekday breakfast TV show. It's a lightweight attempt at current affairs, most of the guests are conservative and the views expressed are generally right-of-centre. That said, I think in the run up to the recent General Election and in the weeks after they've crossed the line and become an organ of the National Party. To recap, National are now in opposition as they lost the General Election and are out of office.
How I think the AM Show tried and still tries to support National is in the relentlessly favourable coverage they provide. This support extends to all levels, even right down to captions, with the National party leader Simon "Bill" English being described recently as 'National Leader' instead of Leader of the Opposition. With the former title one could be confused about his actual role.
So what I'm going to do is run a survey just to check if I'm right. I'll listen to three hours of the AM Show, each separate hour chosen randomly on any given day (also chosen randomly). What I'll be listening for is either National being mentioned or the government which could be Labour, NZ First or the Greens. How many times does the AM Show mention either and in what proportion?
Then I'll be listening for generally favourable comments. How I'll determine this will be going by how the commentator leaves the viewer or listener (the show is also simulcast on radio).
For example, imagine a new road is being announced. What I think the AM Show do is boost National but detract from Labour. What they'd say is something like this:
"Labour has announced a new road, 'bout time I'd say, where's the money coming from? (Labour spokesperson comes on and makes sense in pointing out National failed to build the road). Trust Labour to have not done their sums."
Then when National have their say (remember National had planned this road but never built it):
"The very capable Steven Joyce will be all over this, over to the money man, what about this then (Steven Joyce speaks with little interruption). Well that's the final word then, trust National to sort this mess out."
Clearly in such an exchange the intention is to create a generally favourable impression of National, wouldn't you say? I don't know why New Zealand puts up with it, there could be a good argument for having TV3's licence to broadcast suspended.
And a sidebar, the presenters are white and middle class. Duncan Garner is the so-called 'star' who wrote an offensive and deeply racist opinion piece for the Sunday Star Times awhile back, while the sports guy is a former cricket player for NZ. Cricket is largely white and who you know not how good you are largely determines selection. His name is Mark Richardson (you are not expected to recognise the name and few know what he has done despite his repeatedly reminding the audience he once played for NZ's biggest sporting chokers) and he openly endorsed National prior to the election.
When TV3 next goes bust, I suggest the frequencies be allocated to Radio New Zealand and let them run a TV news channel.
How I think the AM Show tried and still tries to support National is in the relentlessly favourable coverage they provide. This support extends to all levels, even right down to captions, with the National party leader Simon "Bill" English being described recently as 'National Leader' instead of Leader of the Opposition. With the former title one could be confused about his actual role.
So what I'm going to do is run a survey just to check if I'm right. I'll listen to three hours of the AM Show, each separate hour chosen randomly on any given day (also chosen randomly). What I'll be listening for is either National being mentioned or the government which could be Labour, NZ First or the Greens. How many times does the AM Show mention either and in what proportion?
Then I'll be listening for generally favourable comments. How I'll determine this will be going by how the commentator leaves the viewer or listener (the show is also simulcast on radio).
For example, imagine a new road is being announced. What I think the AM Show do is boost National but detract from Labour. What they'd say is something like this:
"Labour has announced a new road, 'bout time I'd say, where's the money coming from? (Labour spokesperson comes on and makes sense in pointing out National failed to build the road). Trust Labour to have not done their sums."
Then when National have their say (remember National had planned this road but never built it):
"The very capable Steven Joyce will be all over this, over to the money man, what about this then (Steven Joyce speaks with little interruption). Well that's the final word then, trust National to sort this mess out."
Clearly in such an exchange the intention is to create a generally favourable impression of National, wouldn't you say? I don't know why New Zealand puts up with it, there could be a good argument for having TV3's licence to broadcast suspended.
And a sidebar, the presenters are white and middle class. Duncan Garner is the so-called 'star' who wrote an offensive and deeply racist opinion piece for the Sunday Star Times awhile back, while the sports guy is a former cricket player for NZ. Cricket is largely white and who you know not how good you are largely determines selection. His name is Mark Richardson (you are not expected to recognise the name and few know what he has done despite his repeatedly reminding the audience he once played for NZ's biggest sporting chokers) and he openly endorsed National prior to the election.
When TV3 next goes bust, I suggest the frequencies be allocated to Radio New Zealand and let them run a TV news channel.