Helen Clark is defending plans to televise Parliament as "direct democracy" in action. but it is not the filming that people are objecting to, but who will control the cameras. Currently, Parliament restricts the media to filming or photographing only the MP who is standing to speak. They are not allowed to show the empty benches of those who could not be bothered to show up, they are not allowed to show the yawns and gestures of those supposedly listening, and they would not be allowed to show two MPs brawling in a corner. Even use of stock footage is frowned upon by the Speaker if it casts MPs in a less than dignified light. With the cameras under Parliamentary control, these restrictions are only likely to get worse; if there's one thing most MP's agree on (other than the size of their pensions) its that their "dignity" must be protected - by censorship, if need be.
There is no question that seeing what our representatives are doing every day would be a Good Thing. But let's see what they're actually doing, rather than the carefully sanitised image they wish to present.
6 comments:
Comparing this with oyur post on winston peters
You seem to want to create a circus and then complain when the clowns show up.
Posted by Genius : 3/15/2005 12:12:00 PM
You seem to want to create a circus and then complain when the clowns show up.
No; I want the public to be able to easily see what their representatives are doing. While I would also prefer those representatives to behave with a little dignity, I see the two issues as seperate (except to the extent that more public oversight encourages better behaviour).
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/15/2005 01:22:00 PM
In theory that should be the case but in general it seems the opposite is the case afterall if public oversight encouraged good behaviour then hollywood movie stars would be saints and winston peters would be one of the best behaved people in the house.
Posted by Genius : 3/15/2005 06:38:00 PM
In theory that should be the case but in general it seems the opposite is the case afterall if public oversight encouraged good behaviour then hollywood movie stars would be saints and winston peters would be one of the best behaved people in the house.
So who is overseeing Winston these days?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/15/2005 07:00:00 PM
Genius: you are confusing media attention with oversight. The former is necessary for the latter, but they are not the smae thing.
(Or, to put it another way: generally speaking, noone gives a shit what movies stars do. We do however give a shit if Ministers sleep in the chamber - but in order to do anything about it, we first need to know that it is happening...)
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/16/2005 11:45:00 PM
Haha you are out of touch with the common man I'm afraid.
Anway, an interesting question is if he can sleep in parliment and it goes unnoticed maybe there was indeed no reason for him to be present, let alone awake.
We are paying various members quite a bit of money jsut so that they can say "here here" every time one of their guys makes a good point.
Posted by Genius : 3/17/2005 09:03:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).