This is funny, and proves without a doubt that some people have even more time than me, behold cheekydarkies.com. [Updated 2/10: Dan points out this site has been removed "by a court order." No loss to mankind] Vendors of fine celebrity golliwogs.... Right.
But back to me. Now I certainly think Holmes is a bit of a dork (not withstanding his smack down on Dennis Conner) but I'm not getting on this particular bandwagon. Yes Holmes said something that many people think is not on, but... so what? Personally I think he says any number of things that are not on a lot of the time. I think a lot of what he says is comeplete bollocks, and his show is generally not to my taste. But so what.
Nothing, that's what. He can say what he likes (within reason, and this I don't think falls within libel or slander or whatever other restrictions we have on freedom of speech (which I'm not sure on) and even if it did, the head of the UN is a very public figure, and as such it is generally accepted that he has given up a lot of his right of protection from libel and slander anyway) and he did.
Now if you don't like it, that is fine, I'm all for not liking what he says, I do it all the time. But. But. But why should he get told off? Especially by the state?
If the company that was paying him (Newstalk ZB) is not happy with what he said, then they are welcome to say so, and as I said people can complain to various people all they want. But really the only people that have the right (shudder*) to complain are his employers. And given that they employ him to get ratings and earn the bling bling, and to talk and talk and talk, and usually say whatever he wants, I doubt they will be too upset (Yes, I know TVNZ lost a sponsor, but I'm not aware of Newstalk losing one, in fact I would bet it has increased ratings (but that is another story (and another bracket)))
But why is everyone screaming for his head? Muh? OK he is employed by the state, in the guise of TVNZ, and as such perhaps the state might be a bit miffed that one of their highest paid people said somethign it doesn't agree with, or doesn't want said, but I think that people should get over this. He said something nasty. Oh no! The sky is falling help me help me, what shall I do?
I concur with the UN (from NZHerald)
Mr Annan has read the reports, but at UN headquarters in New York, deputy spokeswoman Hua Jiang responded: "It's not worthy of comment."
Except, obviously I have commented on it. Well haha, no I haven't, I've commented on the response. Sweet.
Anyway I'm rambling because, well I do that. Anyway if Newstalk want to hassle him fine, let them, within the rules of his contract, and the same with the state owned broadcaster, but let's not go all crazy reactionary on him just because he said something we don't like. I mean really. Also, I would think Holmes has a lot of leeway in his contract to say what he feels like saying most of the time, as otherwise it would not be very interesting programming would it? If he just toed the company line, it would be The Edge, and not talkback (this should not be seen as implying talkback is at all good, just that I assume it is less scripted and with more actual talking, rather than reciting (although I could well be wrong))
As for the person that quit Holmes' show because of this rascist comment, yeah well fair enough you can do that. I assume that you have made this decision on the basis of more than this one comment, because if you haven't it seems like an over reaction to me. But then again you probably know more about it than me. If it is on this one comment(s) alone, then I feel this is an overreaction.
FYI: What Holmes actually said(ish) (note, he is apparently called Hitler, which is close to, but not quite worse than Hitler, but points for trying)
*= Sorry, I have a thing about rights, see me for any necessary expansion.
Later.... Ah, damn. I have run face first into Arc's opinion (luckily we can do that). But it does make me wish I had written this with some form of logical structure, rather than without. Oh well. Also, I assume he means Quix. Hmmm, it definitly shows poor judgement (which he has admitted) Hmmm I could delete this prior to publication, fear my non self censorship. Bah.
I am pleased that the US does not think it would be a good idea to nuke hurricanes. Very pleased.
Posted by luther at September 29, 2003 10:29 PM | TrackBackWell in defence of talkback the point is that everyone gets to have their say, from which we can extrapolate that everyone also gets to have their say on what's said on talkback.
Now if everyone gets upset and says fire Paul Holmes I say "Yay!".
Beyond that there is a distinct difference between putting up with prominant broadcasters (and as Luther noted, indirectly state sponsored)being dickheads and putting up with them promoting racist commentary.
And to those who say "He's not a racist, he's just a dick / did something stupid", I say "Feeble". If you don't want a shotgun wedding, don't fuck the inbreed country girl. Or more traditionally, he's dug his grave and now he has to lie in it.
Posted by: Wreak on September 30, 2003 08:16 AMContext people, context.... Apparently Holmes may have been trying to impersonate Bush when he made those comments - I'm not sure, I didn't hear the broadcast, but as always the context of the comments made makes a *huge* difference to what was actually being said.
Still, I'm not trying to stick up for him, I think they were probably the worst taste comments made by a NZ broadcaster for quite some time. And more importantly, by doing what he did, he did manage to (to a certain extent) drag NZ's reputation down internationally - like it or not, he is our highest profile media personality and therefore he does bear some responsibility for his actions and speech. If what he says affects NZ, then its perfectly fair for the state to chastise him - he has potentially affected future state relationships.
Anyone blindly defending free speech (or any freedom for that matter) without accepting that a certain level of responsibility comes with any freedom, is only making half the argument.
Oh, and good to see sponsors are pulling out and academics calling for his resignation. Quite a lot of anger out there, it would seem.
Posted by: saint on September 30, 2003 12:54 PMmy remarks are on my website.
The NZ Herald has the most complete transcript I've seen, and there's no indication that he's trying to impersonate anyone. If it was at all clear that he was trying to impersonate someone, or to be ironic, or something like that, then I think this would have come to the fore by now --- not in the sense that everyone would have gone 'oh, that's alright then', but in the sense that this would be a defense in use, if not used by Paul Holmes himself then by his friends and colleagues who all seem to be going 'wtf? I know Holmes and I don't think he's a racist... why the hell did he say those things?'. It would be a matter of public knowledge, not rumour.
Posted by: arc on October 1, 2003 10:54 AMSee the website has been removed under 'court order'. Fnah.
Posted by: Dan on October 1, 2003 11:20 PM