But it is a serious business. And should be taken seriously. And in the US the major networks do just that. Watching election night results on US TV – say CNN, ABC or NBC – is a joy. Excellent reporting. Deep and well articulated analysis. Informative and eye-catching graphics to illustrate what is going on and finally that very important element essential to a broadcast about an electoral outcome – gravitas.
Gravitas is present in those US network election broadcasts. Politics and the People’s Choice of the shape and composition of their Government is a serious business and it needs to be taken seriously and broadcast in a serious manner.
Compare that with the presentation of election results on TVNZ and TV3. This was anything but serious television although it pretended to be and occasionally some of the participants understood what they were meant to be doing.
On TVNZ Andrew Little occupied a neutral role. We all know where he came from and his history. But into the presentation he injected a much-needed element of realpolitik that was absent from the remarks of some of the other commentators. One of the stand-outs.
Jack Tame, the lead presenter, is an excellent interviewer who does his homework. But in the election night broadcast he seemed to be unsure of his role. Was he the lead anchor or a serious presenter as he is on Q & A? Or was he an entertainer-in-chief of what essentially was seen as an entertainment show.
His assistant in this presentation was Tova O’Brien whose approach was fevered and over-excited. She really needed to take a chill pill because her shrill interjections and arm waving seemed to have developed from Chloe Swarbrick’s playbook rather than from that of a serious election night broadcast moderator.
And did some of her expressions betray her as the Left seemed to surge. Difficult to tell but she should have been more guarded in her delivery and manner. Her approach may be satisfactory on Breakfast TV (where perhaps she should remain) but it was not for an election broadcast.
Other participants in the TVNZ lineup played varying roles. I only identified Liam Hehir from earlier encounters and sadly, positioned at the end of the line-up he had to be shrill to allow himself to be heard. At the other end of the line-up was Guyon Espiner who seemed to be decidedly uncomfortable and perhaps could have brought the necessary gravitas to the presentation – but didn’t. Paul Henry in my view should not have been there. He is a List candidate for ACT who, on the election night count will take a seat in Parliament. Whether he will be in Government has yet to be decided.
As for the other two – I think I saw one labelled as Stacey Morrison but I can’t be sure. The other who was beside Hehir is a mystery.
But there were times when the who presentation got out of control – shouting, over-talking, cacophony and results that were put up that were so fleeting it was difficult to consider and understand them.
Jason Walls with his analysis of results was good, but once again the gravitas that he brings to his business reports was lacking. Had he been instructed to keep it light? Very possibly.
And then there were the cuts to election night parties and photos of groups and the like. Sure, let’s be inclusive but not on something as serious as an election night broadcast.
A similar critique could apply to TV3. Jenny Lynch and Andrea Vance are hardly going to be unbiased commentator and Mathew Hooton was unable to disguise his contempt and disdain for National and Luxon. As far as the latter is concerned that view has some justification.
And did I see a convicted shoplifter as one of the TV3/Stuff lineup? Surely not
But once again the presentation was more in the line of entertainment than serious public interest television and let’s face it – gravitas and Paddy Gower are unknown to one another.
Gone are the days of serious commentary on election night – the quality of content and discussion from the likes of Brian Edwards, Ian Fraser, Lindsay Perigo and Ian Johnstone. Such a pity that their approach seems to have been consigned to the “old, male, stale” bin because it was articu/ate, erudite, informative and delivered with gravitas.
To further complicate the matter, in the midst of all the entertainment a clear result was not present. The overhang is what saved National and the Party votes for Labour and National were very close yet so low that questions are going to have be asked. Labour list members get in because their electorate votes were so low and the opposite applies to National. No Nicola Willis. No Chris Bishop. No Paul Goldsmith and no Gerry Brownlee. Those are losses that National can ill afford.
So what happens next? Who can tell. Will Luxon and NZ First swallow a dead rat and talk to Opportunity to hold on to the Treasury benches. Or will they negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with Opportunity.
Luxon’s ham-handed approach to possible coalition partners suggests an uncompromising approach to politics that does National no favours. It would be better if he were gone and the sooner the better.
The sad performance by Labour suggests that the shining schoolboy Hipkins has had his day and perhaps should go out and find a real job which may be a new experience for him.
And I really don’t want to do this but there has been an “I told you so” moment in all of this.
I said in “Vox Populi” posted on Saturday
Compare that with the presentation of election results on TVNZ and TV3. This was anything but serious television although it pretended to be and occasionally some of the participants understood what they were meant to be doing.
On TVNZ Andrew Little occupied a neutral role. We all know where he came from and his history. But into the presentation he injected a much-needed element of realpolitik that was absent from the remarks of some of the other commentators. One of the stand-outs.
Jack Tame, the lead presenter, is an excellent interviewer who does his homework. But in the election night broadcast he seemed to be unsure of his role. Was he the lead anchor or a serious presenter as he is on Q & A? Or was he an entertainer-in-chief of what essentially was seen as an entertainment show.
His assistant in this presentation was Tova O’Brien whose approach was fevered and over-excited. She really needed to take a chill pill because her shrill interjections and arm waving seemed to have developed from Chloe Swarbrick’s playbook rather than from that of a serious election night broadcast moderator.
And did some of her expressions betray her as the Left seemed to surge. Difficult to tell but she should have been more guarded in her delivery and manner. Her approach may be satisfactory on Breakfast TV (where perhaps she should remain) but it was not for an election broadcast.
Other participants in the TVNZ lineup played varying roles. I only identified Liam Hehir from earlier encounters and sadly, positioned at the end of the line-up he had to be shrill to allow himself to be heard. At the other end of the line-up was Guyon Espiner who seemed to be decidedly uncomfortable and perhaps could have brought the necessary gravitas to the presentation – but didn’t. Paul Henry in my view should not have been there. He is a List candidate for ACT who, on the election night count will take a seat in Parliament. Whether he will be in Government has yet to be decided.
As for the other two – I think I saw one labelled as Stacey Morrison but I can’t be sure. The other who was beside Hehir is a mystery.
But there were times when the who presentation got out of control – shouting, over-talking, cacophony and results that were put up that were so fleeting it was difficult to consider and understand them.
Jason Walls with his analysis of results was good, but once again the gravitas that he brings to his business reports was lacking. Had he been instructed to keep it light? Very possibly.
And then there were the cuts to election night parties and photos of groups and the like. Sure, let’s be inclusive but not on something as serious as an election night broadcast.
A similar critique could apply to TV3. Jenny Lynch and Andrea Vance are hardly going to be unbiased commentator and Mathew Hooton was unable to disguise his contempt and disdain for National and Luxon. As far as the latter is concerned that view has some justification.
And did I see a convicted shoplifter as one of the TV3/Stuff lineup? Surely not
But once again the presentation was more in the line of entertainment than serious public interest television and let’s face it – gravitas and Paddy Gower are unknown to one another.
Gone are the days of serious commentary on election night – the quality of content and discussion from the likes of Brian Edwards, Ian Fraser, Lindsay Perigo and Ian Johnstone. Such a pity that their approach seems to have been consigned to the “old, male, stale” bin because it was articu/ate, erudite, informative and delivered with gravitas.
To further complicate the matter, in the midst of all the entertainment a clear result was not present. The overhang is what saved National and the Party votes for Labour and National were very close yet so low that questions are going to have be asked. Labour list members get in because their electorate votes were so low and the opposite applies to National. No Nicola Willis. No Chris Bishop. No Paul Goldsmith and no Gerry Brownlee. Those are losses that National can ill afford.
So what happens next? Who can tell. Will Luxon and NZ First swallow a dead rat and talk to Opportunity to hold on to the Treasury benches. Or will they negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with Opportunity.
Luxon’s ham-handed approach to possible coalition partners suggests an uncompromising approach to politics that does National no favours. It would be better if he were gone and the sooner the better.
The sad performance by Labour suggests that the shining schoolboy Hipkins has had his day and perhaps should go out and find a real job which may be a new experience for him.
And I really don’t want to do this but there has been an “I told you so” moment in all of this.
I said in “Vox Populi” posted on Saturday
“Indeed, if a coalition overhang takes place I imagine that the commentariat will take a leaf from the Trump playbook and question the validity of the election altogether.”
I expected the likes of Campbell or Benedict (fizzing at the bung) Collins to chime in. But from the depths of Mt Eden emerged the eminence grise of the Labour Party – another ex-politician who doesn’t know how to let go. The following appeared in the Herald live-blog for Sunday 8 November
Disturbing aspects’: Helen Clark calls for in-depth election review
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark says this year’s election campaign should be the “subject of a full review”, citing “disturbing aspects” that she thinks throw the legitimacy of the results into question.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Clark outlined various concerns over how the election unfolded.
Clark criticised the influence of political donors, the “huge imbalance in party funding”, new enrolment restrictions and the vote-splitting strategy.
Preliminary results recorded an 11-seat overhang – the largest in New Zealand’s MMP history – with National gaining six more seats in Parliament than it otherwise would have with its party vote.
But what we really need is a vision for New Zealand a future plan that transcends party ideologies and looks ahead not just for a three year cycle but for decades ahead.
“These disturbing aspects suggest a need for an in-depth inquiry into the functioning of the electoral system,” Clark said.
“Overhang distorting proportionality, a loose electoral funding regime - including for 3rd parties, & enrolment periods which exclude many should all be addressed.”
Clark served as the 37th Prime Minister of New Zealand for three terms (1993-2008), and as leader of the Labour Party between 1993 and 2008.
If that is the best she can do perhaps she should place a call to the White House for some lessons on how to challenge the legitimacy of the People’s Voice. The arrogance that underlies Clark’s comments is breathtaking.
But for the future, and how we can hopefully avoid the debacle of the 2026 election. Apart from charismatic and relatable leaders (which are absent) we need a vision.
It is the vision that is lacking and it is that which is needed. Bruce Cotterill made the case in this article New Zealand needs a long-term vision, not more political tinkering .I recommend it.
David Harvey is a former District Court Judge and Mastermind champion, as well as an award winning writer who blogs at the substack site A Halflings View - Where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.