OK, I know I just blogged this morning, but I felt this was deserving of a post rather than just a tweet. (ATTN Non NZ readers, feel free to switch off right about now!) Thanks to some friends on twitter (Thanks @ColeyTangerina!! you rock as always!) I found this clip of the Paul Henry Show from last night (perhaps read the rest of the post before clicking on the link for clarity sake). The reason I didn’t know about it, is that I choose not to watch this kind of thing. I see why now.
So at about 12minutes in a segment entitled “Who Even Is That” Henry starts to rip into some person sitting to the side in some Parliament TV footage. It seems that this person’s job had somehow offended him to the point that he will take 5 minutes of a public broadcast to literally rip her to shreds. Is this person a killer? Someone who does nasty things to people? No, this poor person is a Parliamentary Services Staff Member, basically someone hired to help the Parliamentarians do things, like admin help.
Not only does he spend time basically mocking what she does, he introduces her as “woman” with some kind of weird tone, like he is drawing attention to her appearance, and that her appearance doesn’t fit what he thinks should be a “woman”.
ARGH
Ok, I’m not one for ranting and not doing anything about it, so here is a link to MediaWorks Complaint Page, and if you scroll down, you can even paraphrase me!
Broadcaster: TV3
Programme: The Paul Henry Show
Date of Broadcast: 15/05/2014
Time of Broadcast: 10:30 p.m.
The Programme Standards I believe were breached are as follows (you must choose at least one)*
- Good Taste & Decency
- Law & Order
- Privacy
- Discrimination & Denigration
The reasons that I found this broadcast breached the standards I checked above are as follows (use specific examples of content from the broadcast & explain your complaint fully)
This is in regards to the footage approximately 12minutes in where he denigrates a member of the Parliamentary Team
I believe it breaches the following:
Good Taste & Decency = There seemed to be no reason at all for this part of the broadcast. Henry seemed to just be having fun at the expense of a person who was just doing her job.
Law & Order = the footage was from Parliament TV. According to Parliamentary Standing Orders, Appendix D, Part B, Number 2, you cannot use the coverage in any medium for satire, ridicule or denigration.
Privacy = Yes the lady in question had been caught on public broadcast TV. However, Henry gives her full job title and then drew attention to what she looks like on the screen several times. Someone that is in the background of a shot, even on broadcast TV would probably never get noticed by the general public.
Discrimination & Denigration = Apart from the entire clip being made in a derogatory tone, the first time he points her out, he uses the phrase “woman” with added emphasis. I believe he is drawing attention to her appearance in a derogatory manner, possibly insinuating that the person doesn’t fall under his “societal” expectation of what a woman should look like. As this point is based on an assumption, I have left it till last.
If the standards committee upholds my complaint I would like the following as a remedy for the breach of broadcast standards
Even if we ignore all the other points, by breaching Parliamentary Standing Orders, it can be treated as a contempt of the House of Representatives. This is not the first time that Henry has been controversial or derogatory for what seems like no reason, and I really hope MediaWorks will reconsider having him on TV at all.
Vivian Chandra 