Commonsense prevails

On Friday night there was a boxing event in Melbourne, Australia, which had been heavily promoted as a "pay to view" programme by Sky Channel in New Zealand. In one corner was Shane Cameron, a New Zealand heavyweight of some note, apparently, in boxing circles. In the other corner was one John Hopoate, a former ARL rugby league player-come-boxer who is best known in Australasian sporting circles for his suspension-earning practice of inserting his finger up (rugby league) opponents' bums. Following all the promotional brouhaha, it was reasonable to assume there would have been, at the very least, a report in the sports pages of the daily newspaper on Saturday. But nope, not a mention. Googling revealed a very short report  on a sports website, to the effect that Hopoate had been disqualified in the second round. No, not for digital penetration, but for "continual holding". For the benefit of those who, like the writer, are uninitiated in pugilistic matters, I take it this means hugging one's opponent in order that he cannot punch. If that's the case I don't blame him. I would do the same. My point is not the boxer's tactics or the result of the fight, but the complete failure of Sky Channel's attempts to generate public interest in what the newspapers seem to confirm, by their lack of reporting, as being a non-event. Which affirms my contention that media promotion sets out to create news, rather than report it. In this instance, Sky Channel's efforts failed miserably, which suggests that in some cases at least, the public are not as gullible as media folk think.

Tsunami Alert

New Zealand has been on tsunami-alert for the last 24 hours. There were some unusual tidal patterns during that time, but nothing to cause any damage or panic. I should think it served as a good test run for the Civil Defence organisation, which seemed to perform efficiently in monitoring the situation, disseminating information and giving appropriate warnings to the public.

New Zealand has a very long coastline, a half of it east-facing with no land barriers between it and the west coast of South America. The public here are well informed about the risk of tsunami following earthquakes in (or off) South America. Yet, incredibly, there were still those who ignored yesterday's warnings and blithely continued with their Sunday beach-walking, surfing and swimming. One fellow facing a television camera was asked why he was there. "Just having a look at what's going on. If anything happens, I'll run like hell!" he said, then laughed maniacally. Then there was the blonde bimbo in a bikini. "Well, there's so many warnings, y'know, an' nothin' ever happens, does it?" So many warnings? Well, in 60-odd years, I don't recall more than perhaps three or four tsunami warnings.

A couple of worrying things occur to me. First, how many more lame-brains are going to ignore warnings next time, knowing that no life-threatening tidal event eventuated on this occasion? Second, what sort of a message is being delivered by television crews on the beaches, themselves disregarding Civil Defence warnings for no other reason than to film non-essential interviews?

The Tiger-watchers

Boy, am I getting fed up to the back teeth by the news media's fixation with Tiger Woods's private life. I cannot see one good reason for any person on this Earth, other than those individuals directly affected, to have any interest in what this person does (or has done) anywhere except between the first tee and the eighteenth hole of a golf course.

Media folk would argue that there is huge public interest and that they are simply catering to that interest. My view is that there is huge public interest only because the news media generated it in their own pecuniary interest. Unfortunately that says as much about the intellect of the media's audience as it says about the media's greed.

What is important news and what is not?

The importance placed by the news media on some news items in preference to others is, in my estimation, a disgrace.

Today, the Otago Daily Times , a major New Zealand daily newspaper, featured as its front page lead story a news item about the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) toughening up on its checking of  long term claimants' continued eligibility to receive benefits. The support stories on the front page were about a local winemaker being nominated for an international award and the possibility that some ornamental trees in the Dunedin CBD may have fallen victim to a fatal fungal disease.

Meanwhile, news of an Ethiopian airliner crashing into the Mediterranean with 90 people on board was deemed important enough to warrant only a brief mention at the foot of page 6, which is the world news page.

Is the loss of 90 human lives not more important than a possible tree disease, a nomination for a winemaking award or an insurer's claim verification practices?