Instant Gratification

Reflections after Watching Q & A

We want the world and we want it (we want the world and we want it!)

Now

Now?

Now!

The Doors “When the Music’s Over” Written by John Densmore, Robby Krieger, Ray Manzarek & Jim Morrison.

I don’t normally watch Q & A but have done so over the last couple of weeks. And no, I haven’t parked myself in front of the One-Eyed God on a Sunday Morning at 9:00 am. Rather I have watched it on TVNZ+.

Two observations about that.

There was a time when in-depth interviews were part of prime-time viewing. Those were the days of deep and meaningful coverage of politics rather than the superficial once-over-lightly that we get today as mourned by Chris Trotter in an excellent article on interest.co.nz on 2 December 2024. Now the serious stuff gets buried at 9:00 am on a Sunday when the audience would have to be really keen to watch it live although I suspect that most of the viewer figures arise from watching a stream of the show on TVNZ+ - as I did.

The content remains on TVNZ+ for a limited period of time – I think it is about three weeks. Then it vanishes into the digital ether. Now I imagine that TVNZ in these days of cost cutting have concluded that paying for server space to store content indefinitely cannot be justified. But by the same token I would have thought that TVNZ as the audio-visual medium of record should hold an archive of content, if only for the benefit of researchers and particularly of students of media and politics.

Fortunately YouTube has come to the rescue and the content is available on their servers. Perhaps another example of Mainstream Media’s (MSM) failure to properly serve and inform the public. And of course MSM grizzles about the way that the Platforms intrude upon their space.

The episodes that I watched featured an interview with David Seymour followed by an interview with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer on the first occasion and on the second occasion, an interview with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Both interviews were conducted by Jack Tame who has become the poster-boy for Q & A.

The Seymour interview was unremarkable. Although Mr. Tame has a habit of controlling the interview rather than eliciting information from the interviewee, Seymour is smart enough to manage his way around this problem. There is no doubt that his Treaty Principles Bill is contentious. That of itself should not be a reason for not introducing it and not making an issue of it. The status and meaning of the Treaty has moved into sharp focus over the years and in a liberal democracy we should not be afraid of discussing it and debating its place in a 21^st Century society

The problem is that we are afraid. We are afraid of that discussion because we are afraid to put our heads above the parapet. We are afraid of being described as racist, of being anti-Maori, of being “white supremacists” and all the other veto words that are employed rather than engaging in a mature and meaningful discussion. And of course when the debate gets really hot there is resort to being haka’ed at, as occurred in Parliament recently.

And so those who would like to discuss alternative views of the Treaty don’t and remain silent. And the loudest voices in the room dominate the debate.

On the other hand Ms. Ngarewa-Packer’s interview was a free pass by Jack Tame. There were a number of issues that he should have challenged the interviewee on and didn’t. One was the fiction that Maori didn’t cede sovereignty. Te Pati Maori insists upon this piece of imagination as an essential part of its raison d’etre and its claim for a separate Maori governance system.

But perhaps the most obvious absence of challenge was Ms. Packer’s repeated references to the association between the ACT Party and the Atlas Network. Clearly in Packer’s fevered imagination there is a conspiracy afoot here involving a shadowy “deep state” type of organisation that, once the Treaty principles have been consigned to the dust-bin, will move in and undertake a corporate takeover of the country.

Not once did Mr. Tame challenge Ms. Packer on who or what the Atlas Network was and why we should be fearful of them. In my mind that was a significant shortcoming.

The Atlas Network has been mentioned from time to time in various media. When I heard the name I wondered if they were named after Ayn Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged” – her clarion call to freedom from Government interference and the sanctity of individual effort and creativity. But no.

The Atlas Network partners with over 500 think tanks worldwide to drive change in ideas, culture, and policy; remove barriers to opportunities; and empower individuals to live a life of choice and seeks to increase global prosperity by strengthening a network of independent partner organizations that promote individual freedom and are committed to identifying and removing barriers to human flourishing.

The Atlas Network vision is of a free, prosperous, and peaceful world where the principles of individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and free markets are secured by the rule of law.

Clearly it is an organisation that leans towards libertarianism.

Q & A seems to have recognised Jack Tame’s default and on its show for 1 December did a 6 minute “once-overt-lightly” on the Atlas Network.

I say “once-over-lightly” because in terms of content it was that. In addition it was badly researched even although the reporter Whena Owen made reference to the fact that Atlas had an on-line presence

The Atlas representative interview was Debby Gibbs, described as the Global Chair of Atlas. She isn’t. She might have been but she is not now.

Nor is she a member of the Atlas Board; nor a member of the Global Council of CEOs. The CEO of Atlas is Brad Lips and the President is Matt Warner.

Debby Gibbs is a member of the Advisory Council. She is described as the owner of Just Managing, a music agency, and has worked as an executive director in the broadcasting and entertainment industry for many years. In addition to her own business, Debby serves on the board of two national nonprofits and a corporation that produces high-speed amphibious vehicles. She holds a degree in architecture, collects contemporary art, and lives in New York with her son. She is the daughter of New Zealand businessman Alan Gibbs and art connoisseur Jenny Gibbs.

On the other hand as early as 12 February 2024, Chris Trotter wrote an excellent and objective piece on the Atlas Network placing it in its historical, philosophical and political context. It can be found here and is recommended.

What a pity the “investigative “ people at Q & A were unable to come across this piece.

The interview with Prime Minister Luxon was a confrontational one. It is the first time that Mr. Luxon had appeared on Q & A and probably he should have continued to avoid the opportunity.

Sadly, our PM is not the best communicator in the room. He has been criticised for being formulaic, resorting to management jargon and being endlessly repetitive. Media commentators with nothing better to do have found 26 instances of Mr Luxon’s use of the phrase “Let me say this…” or a variation on that theme. Not a phrase I would recommend when one is being interviewed and has ample opportunity to “say this”. But one thing that Mr. Luxon does is to stay on message – but again with repetition after repetition. It can become tedious.

Jack Tame was argumentative during the interview. The interviewer seeks information. He should not try to get the answers he thinks the interviewee should give. It was clear that from time to time Mr. Tame was trying to set Mr. Luxon up for a “gotcha” moment which again should not be the object of an interview unless it is clear that the interviewee is lying.

The overall theme of the interview was to look at the first full year of the coalition government. There is no doubt that there are some aspects of life in New Zealand that have not improved. Mr. Tame was critical of Mr. Luxon’s agreement to letting Mr. Seymour’s Principles Bill be introduced. It was divisive and because Mr. Luxon did that he must be responsible for the current state of New Zealand’s race relations.

Mr. Luxon fudged that badly. As I have stated earlier this is a debate that we need to have from time to time. We should not be afraid of having it. And there will be differences of opinion and they will be deeply, viscerally held. And there will be arguments. And voices will be raised. And we should not be afraid of that. But Mr. Luxon ducked the opportunity to advance the value of free and open discussion about contentious issues in a liberal democracy.

Arising out of the examination of the first full year and the fact that things had not become measurably better, Mr. Luxon was able to point to incidents and examples of improvement. But he did not explain properly (if he had been given the opportunity to do so) what the improvements meant in a wider context.

It seemed to me that Mr. Tame’s expectation was that within the space of a year the coalition government would have fixed everything.

And this caused me to reflect upon the trend that has been developing for some time for immediate results and instant gratification.

In recent decades, the phenomenon of instant gratification has become a defining characteristic of modern life. Rooted in human psychology, the desire for immediate fulfilment has always existed, but technological advancements and cultural shifts have amplified and normalized this tendency. From the way we shop and communicate to how we consume information and entertainment, the expectation of instant results now permeates nearly every aspect of daily life.

Historically, patience and delayed gratification were often seen as virtues. Societies that relied on agricultural cycles or manual craftsmanship required individuals to wait for results, whether it was the harvest of crops, the crafting of tools, or the preparation of meals. The Industrial Revolution began to shift these dynamics by speeding up production and creating the first inklings of on-demand goods and services.

The acceleration of life gained further momentum in the mid-20th century with the rise of consumer culture and mass media. Advertising began to promote convenience and speed as desirable traits, introducing products like fast food and instant coffee. These developments planted the seeds for a society increasingly geared toward immediacy.

Consumer culture, driven by marketing and advertising, has further amplified the desire for instant gratification. Advertisements often emphasize immediate satisfaction, creating a sense of urgency and promoting the idea that happiness and success can be quickly attained through the acquisition of products and experiences. This culture of consumption encourages impulsive behaviors and diminishes the value placed on patience and delayed gratification.

This desire to experience pleasure or fulfill a need without delay has been further magnified by the Digital Paradigm, where the rapid pace of technological innovation has conditioned individuals to expect immediate results. The advent of the internet, smartphones, and social media platforms has played a pivotal role in this transformation. Information, entertainment, and social interaction are now available at the touch of a button, eliminating the need for prolonged effort or waiting.

The evolution of technology has revolutionized every aspect of daily life, from communication to commerce. E-commerce giants like Amazon offer same-day delivery services, while streaming platforms like Netflix provide instant access to a vast array of movies and TV shows. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X and Bluesky enable users to receive real-time updates and feedback, fostering an environment where immediate responses are the norm. These conveniences have ingrained a sense of immediacy in modern culture, where waiting has become an increasingly foreign concept.

As the trend towards instant gratification has gained momentum, the quality of patience – which I have referred to above - has correspondingly declined. Patience, defined as the capacity to endure delay, difficulty, or suffering without becoming agitated or upset, is an essential trait for personal growth, interpersonal relationships, and professional success. However, the increasing prevalence of instant gratification has eroded this virtue in several ways.

In personal life, the decline of patience manifests in various forms. Relationships, for instance, are often affected by unrealistic expectations for immediate emotional fulfillment. The ease of online dating and social media interactions has created a paradox where connections are easily formed but quickly abandoned at the first sign of discomfort or dissatisfaction. Additionally, the pursuit of quick fixes for personal issues, such as fad diets or get-rich-quick schemes, highlights a reluctance to invest time and effort in long-term solutions.

Arising from this sense are shortened attention spans. With so much content available at any given moment, attention spans have diminished. Many people now expect immediate engagement and lose interest quickly when faced with delays or complexity. Reduced patience and the availability of instant solutions fosters a culture that struggles with waiting or working through long-term challenges. This mindset can seep into personal and professional relationships, diminishing the value of perseverance and commitment.

The pressure to always be connected and respond instantly can lead to burnout. The demand for immediacy, whether in work or social settings, creates an ever-present sense of urgency, increasing stress and anxiety.

While instant solutions are convenient, they may hinder deep thinking and creativity. True innovation often requires time, reflection, and the willingness to embrace uncertainty and delayed rewards.

And these problems are not going to be solved overnight. To arrive at a solution it is essential to cultivate a balanced approach that recognizes the value of patience and encourages the development of resilience and long-term thinking. By fostering an environment that values delayed gratification and mindful consumption, society can mitigate the negative consequences of this trend and promote a more sustainable and fulfilling way of life.

Perhaps Jack Tame could have given this problem some thought in his quest for instant solutions to the highly complex problems that society and Mr. Luxon’s Government face. The solution is not going to happen overnight. It is not going to happen - to take a word from the Doors’ song at the beginning of this article - NOW.