Eating Media Lunch
Just watching the My Sky recording of Eating Media Lunch last Friday. One of the best ever – the annual awards. I just can’t believe Jeremy Wells gets away with this. The scene where one award was presented by Britney Spears’ [insert slang term for cat here] was hilarious. Even the Pope was a presenter!
Award winners were:
Outstanding Performance (Dance): Pete Hodgson and Trevor Mallard
Dover Samuel Awards for Services to Urination: Lisa from America’s Next Top Model
Outstanding Sporting Moment: The groin incident on Monday Night Dodgeball
Perv of the Year: Hayden Jones of 20/20 for his interview asking if breasts were real
Outstanding Moment in a Reality Show: Piha Rescue as a water birth goes wrong
Inappropriate Laughing Award: Paul Henry and Kay Gregory on Breakfast about blind singers
Twangered in the Line of Duty Award: Pete Cronshaw of 20/20 for taking drugs
Best Cancelled Show: Glory Hole on Sky One
Cheeky Darkie Award: Michael Laws for calling the Tongan King a brown slug
Outstanding Performance in an Infomercial: Martin Crowe for Advanced Hair
Best Sex Scene (including rooting, oral or dry humping): Pugsly in It’s Me or the Dog as he humps the sound recordist
Most Slippery Politician: John Key on religion, on Agenda
Outstanding Moment in a Chat Show: The guy who plays Kramer on Dave Letterman
Best Regional TV: talking about having sexual feelings for your pets on Taranaki TV
Outstanding Moment in a Live Broadcast: Nicky Watson on Alt TV
Fluff of the Year: Brendon Pongia on Good Morning
New Zealander of the Year Nominees:
* Colin Smith the armless driver caught at 121 km/hr
* The women who burnt a cat fur rug on the steps of Parliament
* The guy who got shot trying to hold up a gun shop with a machete
* Gin the Otter
And the winner was Colin Raymond Smith.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I’ve been looking for a transcript for that Agenda interview – its appalling to ask someone about their religious beliefs, and worse to keep pressing it in that way. Key’s religious beliefs are between him and his conscience, and no-one else’s business at all – and he should have said so. The insistence on pushing the question smacks of a US-style religious test (though one based on secularism rather than religiousity, which is just as bad).
December 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Seeing he is a politician I can see why he would be tempted to conceal his beliefs to avoid alienating voters, but really, how many people are going to denounce simply because he believes in this or that. If he stands up and does a bloody good job without trying to run his government like a theocracy then he really has nothing to worry about, and nothing to deny.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I thought the best one was the Inappropriate Laughing Award. Classic stuff!
And also the Who Would You Rather Shag poll between Mark Lundy and David Bain. Eurgh!!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Fortunately in NZ we care rather less than the religious freaks over in the US – but the implication of the question is that we should care. No matter what his beliefs, that’s a deeply disturbing attitude.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Full episode online – http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tv2_shows_four_column_skin/eml_video_group
December 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Surely you’re not saying that a politician’s religious beliefs are of no concern to voters, though? Why should we not care to know one part of what is informing a politician’s decision-making?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
John Keys answer to ANY question seems to be “Ive allways believed in it”.
Hes a politician so reality has nothing to do with it.
Don of course ‘used’ to be a Christian Socialist, but doesnt seemn to have any of that left at all
December 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
matty: yes, I am – because I think that such things should be irrelevant to how we treat other people. But clearly, I differ from you (and the Exclusive Brethren) in that regard.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I/S – I agree it shouldn’t matter what someone believes, only what they do.
But um, why couldn’t he just have said what he believed?
Agenda – “Do you like Rugby or League?”
John Key – “They are both great sporting codes and I enjoy watching them both.”
A – “But do you have a preference, do you believe League is more interesting in terms of attacking patterns and defensive lines, or that Rugby has more depth and flow?”
JK – “Um, no, I mean yes. Well kind of.”
Viewer – “Hmmmmm.”
Clark is probably NZ’s most famous agnostic and people respect her for saying what she is, even though it might not be popular.
It just seemed to me that Key seemed, again, like a wet finger in the wind politician.
He didn’t obfuscate because he rejected the right of the question to be asked, nor because of principle. He did because he could see the political problems he would have if he gave a straight answer.
Didn’t he learn anything from reading the Hollow Men and the Exclusive Brethren.
Just tell the truth.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I/S – I agree it shouldn’t matter what someone believes, only what they do.
But um, why couldn’t he just have said what he believed?
Agenda – “Do you like Rugby or League?”
John Key – “They are both great sporting codes and I enjoy watching them both.”
A – “But do you have a preference, do you believe League is more interesting in terms of attacking patterns and defensive lines, or that Rugby has more depth and flow?”
JK – “Um, no, I mean yes. Well kind of.”
Viewer – “Hmmmmm.”
Clark is probably NZ’s most famous agnostic and people respect her for saying what she is, even though it might not be popular.
It just seemed to me that Key seemed, again, like a wet finger in the wind politician.
He didn’t obfuscate because he rejected the right of the question to be asked, nor because of principle. He did because he could see the political problems he would have if he gave a straight answer.
Didn’t he learn anything from reading the Hollow Men and the Exclusive Brethren.
Just tell the truth.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I did not say we should necessarily treat him differently for confessing his beliefs. On the other hand, it does help to know whether a politician has tangible grounds for the stances he pushes, or if he is just declaring a fatwa without even a nod to secular realities.
I’m not trying to imply that Key is a fundie, of course, just that asking a politician for their religious beliefs is a valid line of inquiry on a public show. Key, supposing he is not a fundie nut-job, need not be anything less than straight up when answering.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I think it’s obvious Key is not a fundie. Didn’t he deny a belief in the afterlife?
His problem is that at the last election National decided to destroy the other right wing parties and grab their votes. United future was getting the christian conservative vote and was handing it to labour in coalition. This made UF voters unhappy and Maxim ran around officially ‘not saying’ vote National. And the same time Don was flimflamming about with his civil unions and ‘gays aren’t mainstream’ dog-and-pony show.
I’d guess John Key is an atheist but he’s too scared to say that because 2-4 % of the electorate thinks atheists are evil god hating monsters who want to destroy society. And thanks to the awesome Nat strategy, John needs those guys votes. All I can say is, how’s the view from the petard?
December 19th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Idiot – I agree. And it occured to me that one reason John may have been not wanting to answer that question is that his kids go to church and seeing Daddy on TV answer “no” to the question “Do you believe in God” could result in some problems.
I think it’s fine to ask if religion is important to someone, or helps them make political decisions, but beyond that it is intrusive.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
The liberal clobbering machine can’t stand the fact that Key answered a question about the existance of God with anything less than shouting “God Exists” or “God is Dead”.
Liberal tolerance has become an oxymoron.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I think that the rights embrace of fundamentalist religion in the US, and their strategy of swapping the Laffer Curve for the Book of Revelations – with predictably disasterous results – has made people in more secular countries like New Zealand wary of religious politicians. It seems reasonable to me to ask politicians about their religious beliefs, just as it seems reasonable to ask left-wing politicians about their attitudes to Marxist-Leninism, say.
I don’t really want a Prime Minister who secretly dreams of the proleteriat rising up and smashing the state, and I don’t want a Prime Minister who fantasises about his dead God coming back to life and destroying the world. It seems pretty reasonable for journalists to ask potential leaders about their views on these matters.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Conor wrote:
Clark is probably NZ’s most famous agnostic and people respect her for saying what she is, even though it might not be popular.
Hum… funny how many politicians and media folks who are agnostic in public are atheists behind closed doors, or waaaay the fuck off the record.
I’m with I/S on this one. Perhaps DPF would care to cue up the sixth season West Wing episode ‘In God We Trust’ and commit to memory this speech:
I don’t see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won’t all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I’ll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please go to church.
As someone who is a politically active Catholic – and one who attends mass three or four times a week – I wish Arnold Vinick was a real politician or at least hosting Agenda, which pretty much made the shift from ‘must see’ to ‘must flee’ television with Lisa Owen at the helm.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am
I’m glad he didn’t lie. Both Key and English are looking good. Michael C is looking very tense. This bodes well for the voter. I’m beginning to sense that Key is genuine (could be wrong, but hey, he’s a pollie, what do you expect) and I know English is (stayed on and did good things with Education and makes Cullen look very uptight).
A good opposition is the first marker, then we see from there.