In his comment "Journalism is changing. ... young people are less and less likely to read the newspaper websites, or watch broadcast news, or listen to RNZ." Campbells confuses delivery with production. Loss of audience used to excuse the lowering of standards is exactly what is wrong with journalism. Journalism hasn't changed; the quality of journalists has.
BTW, thank you, Halfkling, for a balanced, careful analysis possibly a lot more worthy than its subject.
Thanks for your comment Tom especially for the final sentence. I guess I must be an iconoclast because Campbell occupies such an iconic position in Mainstream Media. Karl du Fresne would suggest that is unjustified but hey - it is what it is. My thing is to make sure that we don't uncritically accept what the talking heads in MSM come through with, and on that topic generally there will be more to come
A pontificating, privileged, white man that tells stories - remarkably like the Pope whose raison d’etre, position, role, is founded on the subjective (no disrespect intended).
It does an injustice to the occupation (and objective, conscientious, good journalists past and present) for Campbell to publicly describe himself as a journalist when for the last 10 to 15 years he has been a story teller and pontificator.
For some time now he has been equally suited to standing on a soapbox as to standing in front of a (news or current affairs) camera. Often he combines the two - that might be OK for the Wizard of Christchurch et al but not for someone the general populace has had put in front of them to present information for them to supposedly form a sound foundation to base their opinions and decisions on.
He does tell a nice story thought - on the days I’m feeling more subjective and emotional than objective and critical I’ll grant him that.
I don't & haven't for a while....grant him that, I mean. For me it's very simple...are you, as a writer/journo credibly adding to the sum of my knowledge or tickling my fancy or both? Abandoned the story teller & pontificator that is he long ago, gave him away, kicked him to the curb. As Tom A says below, thanks to David for bothering...I no longer do. Perhaps this means I cannot credibly comment on his stuff anymore, 'not boverred'.
I think your criticisms of Campbell are pretty fair. I never really thought about him as being a bad journalist until the Chch Mosque massacre. There he was at the site of a real tragedy being intrusive and oozing fake emotions and empathy and that in my mind sealed his fate as a subjective rather than an objective journalist forever. Like vomit worthy.
And yet here he is. Defending his smarmy existence. I pray that no one emulates him after his demise.
In his comment "Journalism is changing. ... young people are less and less likely to read the newspaper websites, or watch broadcast news, or listen to RNZ." Campbells confuses delivery with production. Loss of audience used to excuse the lowering of standards is exactly what is wrong with journalism. Journalism hasn't changed; the quality of journalists has.
BTW, thank you, Halfkling, for a balanced, careful analysis possibly a lot more worthy than its subject.
Thanks for your comment Tom especially for the final sentence. I guess I must be an iconoclast because Campbell occupies such an iconic position in Mainstream Media. Karl du Fresne would suggest that is unjustified but hey - it is what it is. My thing is to make sure that we don't uncritically accept what the talking heads in MSM come through with, and on that topic generally there will be more to come
A pontificating, privileged, white man that tells stories - remarkably like the Pope whose raison d’etre, position, role, is founded on the subjective (no disrespect intended).
It does an injustice to the occupation (and objective, conscientious, good journalists past and present) for Campbell to publicly describe himself as a journalist when for the last 10 to 15 years he has been a story teller and pontificator.
For some time now he has been equally suited to standing on a soapbox as to standing in front of a (news or current affairs) camera. Often he combines the two - that might be OK for the Wizard of Christchurch et al but not for someone the general populace has had put in front of them to present information for them to supposedly form a sound foundation to base their opinions and decisions on.
He does tell a nice story thought - on the days I’m feeling more subjective and emotional than objective and critical I’ll grant him that.
Thanks for your comment.
Much appreciated.
I don't & haven't for a while....grant him that, I mean. For me it's very simple...are you, as a writer/journo credibly adding to the sum of my knowledge or tickling my fancy or both? Abandoned the story teller & pontificator that is he long ago, gave him away, kicked him to the curb. As Tom A says below, thanks to David for bothering...I no longer do. Perhaps this means I cannot credibly comment on his stuff anymore, 'not boverred'.
The pale stale male is a straw man.
I think your criticisms of Campbell are pretty fair. I never really thought about him as being a bad journalist until the Chch Mosque massacre. There he was at the site of a real tragedy being intrusive and oozing fake emotions and empathy and that in my mind sealed his fate as a subjective rather than an objective journalist forever. Like vomit worthy.
And yet here he is. Defending his smarmy existence. I pray that no one emulates him after his demise.
Thanks for your comment Pamela
Oh boy you have put your head above the parapet here!
Well done.