I thought the introduction of new faces to the breakfast television line-ups might change the tone of the programmes on TVNZ and Three. And, briefly, it did.
When Daniel Faitaua returned to Breakfast on TVNZ1 and Lloyd Burr appeared on the rival AM Show, both men had a certain seriousness about them. They were journalists doing news.
It did not last long. Before their first weeks were out, they had become part of their respective jolly, jokey teams.
I am reminded of mixed flats, with the inhabitants sitting around with their morning coffee (sponsor’s name redacted), making light of the world before they have to venture out into it for the day. It is banter-ridden, full of laughter at each other’s witticisms and antics, punctuated by moments of seriousness when the news demands it.
Everyone is expected to play along with the light-hearted interactions. That includes the news readers – Nicky Styris on AM and Chris Chang on Breakfast – which I think is a mistake. Whatever they do with the rest of the three-hour shows, they should keep the news straight. That means their newsreaders displaying a degree of separation and certain amount of gravitas. Gravitas cannot be switched on at the top of the hour then switched off for 20 minutes or so before the next bulletin. It doesn’t work like that.
It takes something like events at Waitangi to tone down the levity, as we saw in yesterday’s offerings.
TVNZ obviously regards the Breakfast format as a success. After all, it pays four people to host it Monday to Friday. Perhaps that success is why the AM show has many similarities, not least the multiple hosts and banter-impregnated content.
I had thought that the recruiting of Lloyd Burr to the programme might have signalled a change of approach by Discovery. Both Burr and his co-host Melissa Chan-Green are former Newshub London-based foreign correspondents and were very good in that role. They were tailor-made to make the AM show significantly different to the offering on the rival network.
Or, if we want to turn that around, TVNZ could have changed Breakfast to achieve the same effect. Host Anna Burns-Francis is a former US correspondent for the network and performed very well in that role. Daniel Faitaua was the broadcaster’s European correspondent, and returned a more experienced and worldly journalist than when he had left Breakfast five years earlier.
Yes, their respective journalistic skills are employed in some of the interviews on each show, but the spell is then broken by largely irrelevant frivolity.
For those who want a gentle introduction to the day, there is room for the light-hearted approach, but do we need two of them? There should be significant differentiation in the two networks’ 6 am to 9 am offering, with one taking a stronger, more serious, news/current affairs approach and leaving the giggles to the other team.
Three may be better placed to make the format change. It is part of Warner Bros Discovery, which also owns CNN, international sports networks, and other broadcast television operations. Imagine how those assets could feed into a half hour or hour world roundup of what was happening while we were asleep. And it would be fronted by people with personal experience of operating in foreign fields.
Perhaps we will have to wait to the other end of the day for a clear differentiation in news and current affairs. When Ryan Bridge’s new 7 pm programme finally appears – and the New Zealand Herald’s Shayne Currie reported last weekend that it may not air before March – we will see whether he marks a return to serious current affairs after the news bulletin. Or will he simply try to match the light-heartedness of Seven Sharp – without the Barry-Wells chemistry? I hope not.
Waitangi
By tonight we will know whether Waitangi Day 2024 marked constructive kōrero or divisive angst. The stage is set for both.
ACT’s treaty referendum bill has been cynically supporting by National through its first reading in order to stitch together the coalition government. In so doing, it has galvanised and unified Māori in opposition. It has also encouraged other New Zealanders to give thought to both te tiriti and the principles that attempt to transfer its intent into law.
I picked up my copy of the New Zealand Herald one day last week and out of it fell an eight-page insert with the word ‘Advertisement’ in the top left corner. It was headed “The Treaty of Waitangi: An explanation” and contained an essay written by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922.
The printing and insertion into the country’s newspapers had been paid for by Dr Muriel Newman’s right-wing think-tank, the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.
Originally written in Māori, the essay was Sir Apirana’s attempt to explain the heading and three articles of te tiriti to a lay audience.
I thought its distribution was a valuable contribution to the debate…until I read it. Social anthropologist Jeffery Sissons has described Ngata as a “post-assimilationist” and that came through in the booklet. My misgivings were well articulated on Waatea News on Friday by constitutional lawyer and treaty historian Carwyn Jones.
Jones told Waatea News that “cherry picking historical documents to push a modern narrative about the Treaty of Waitangi doesn’t help the current debate”. He added that Sir Apirana’s explanation was “a product of its time” and scholarship over the past 50 years in particular had advanced understanding of the two versions of te titiri/the Treaty.
Personally, I think the Centre for Political Research would have made a much more meaningful contribution to the debate if it had funded the placement in every school of a copy of Ned Fletcher’s book “The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi” which I think is the most constructive contribution to the debate in years. His conclusions, however, might not suit some agendas. Muriel Newman is a former ACT MP.
The importance of names
Last Friday, The Post published a political cartoon on its opinion page that cast Green co-leader James Shaw in a poor light. Here is the cartoon.
The cartoonist is entitled to his opinion. It contained some undeniable facts, and no doubt there is a constituency that will agree with his view.
That is not the issue. Look at the ‘signature’ and you will see it is either a pseudonym or an online address: @onekickduck.
Enter onekickduck into Google and it brings up the cartoonist’s website. Apparently, his name is Barney Walker.
Mr Walker may prefer to use a signature that draws potential customers to his art and merchandise, and he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, when the product of his talent is a political cartoon in the opinion pages of a newspaper, other imperatives come into play.
The Post demands that its letter writers sign correspondence with their names so why does that not apply to the most powerful opinion on the page after the editorial? Why was the cartoonist not instructed to sign the work with his name? Alternatively, why did not The Post publish his name in the overline, as it does with Sharon Murdoch?
I firmly believe that a political cartoon on the opinion page must carry the name of its creator. It is not not the same as an unsigned editorial, which is the opinion of the newspaper – irrespective of who wrote it – and for which its editor takes responsibility. A cartoon is the opinion of one person. That person must be prepared to stand publicly by what they draw.
I am supported in that view by internationally recognised political cartoonist Rod Emmerson of the New Zealand Herald. He believes that the creator of political/social commentary cartoons in a major publication “absolutely” should put their name to their work. He has challenged fellow cartoonists in Australia and North America who fail to do so.
“I’ve always thought that was wrong,” he told me.
Rod Emmerson puts his name to his Herald cartoons. So, too, does Sharon Murdoch in Stuff newspapers, and Shaun Yeo in the Otago Daily Times. There should be no exceptions.