Brash v Gower

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:30 am by David Farrar

Enjoy!

Tags: ,

67 Responses to “Brash v Gower”

  1. James Stephenson (2,088 comments) says:

    Good start, completely spoilt by the “I’m sorry but…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Good on Brash for putting this donkey in his place.
    Gower is an atrocious reporter, who should be fired immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. berend (1,673 comments) says:

    Eh, according to TV3 “out came the abuse,” really, telling the truth is now abuse???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    The boy will wear it as a badge of honour even though he’s edging out democratic debate. Fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    lol. I like Brash but I didn’t quite see where he put Patrick in his place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    I’m always hesitant to accuse a journalist of bias, but Patrick Gower has displayed an anti-ACT bias for quite some time. Yesterday, he tried hard to get me to talk about a range of issues which were quite irrelevant to my purpose in being at the Deloitte-BusinessNZ conference, and I declined to do so. He door-stopped me on three separate occasions during the day and I eventually lost my temper and refused to speak to him. I don’t often lose my temper, and I don’t often swear, but yesterday I was pushed too far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    A meticulously polite way to call someone a deceitful bastard.

    But seriously, Don has lost the final iota of the plot now. I cannot imagine how he could do more to trash his brand (although there is always scuttlebutt flying around…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mark (497 comments) says:

    Patrick Gower actually proved Don’s point in all his voice overs after Don Brash refused to speak to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Patric Gower is not a journalist. He’s a dumb asshole that was destined to work flipping burger at McDonald for a living. His deceitful techniques of interview is not what I expect from a real journalist like John Stossel, who’s calm, honest, listens before he jumps, etc,…I now look at all journalists as scums. Their courses shouldn’t be taught at University level, because really, there is nothing intelligent in journalism courses so as to be elevated for University degree program. One can just see how dumb those journalists are. One has to look no further than the Al Thomson interview by that bitch from TV3.

    I would rather elevate homeopathy courses to be taught at University rather than journalism. At least homeopathy followers (not scientific) are genuine in their belief that homeopathy works, rather than deceitful fuctard journalists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    I’d give my right stone to know what Gower said to Brash in the minutes leading up to Don’s observation on Gower’s parentage.

    The intensity of the reaction points to some blunt needling from Gower in the preceding minutes – what a pity TV3 doesn’t have the guts nor Gower the churnalistic integrity to show us that lead-in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lance (2,557 comments) says:

    Gower reminds me of Bill Rolston

    And that’s not necessarily a good thing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Don Brash should have dropped Patrick Gower for door-stopping him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Brash has just never had what it takes to be a politician. He is not articulate enough; he is not quick witted enough. It is embarrassing that he has pursued such an unsuitable career for so long. Where are his real friends?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wreck1080 (3,801 comments) says:

    good on ya brash, shoulda punched him in the nose while you’re at it.

    Shades of Bob Jones ha ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ross12 (1,267 comments) says:

    TV 3 is just kilometers to the left of the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    I don’t know if Patrick Gower is a deceitful bastard or not, but I do know that a certain amount of Brashness in a reporter is necessary if they’re going to succeed.

    Where Gower went wrong, I think, is that he then made the story about him, and then went and blogged about it.

    Gower, though young, is experienced enough, surely, to know that if there is a stoush between a reporter and a public figure, or even between a reporter and a court defendant trying to just get out of the way, public sympathy will never be with the reporter.

    Brash will have had people cheering him from their sofas at home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Gower is the same clown who sang the US national anthem at the Luddites meeting after losing his bet with Norman.

    A true Green fifth-columnist masquerading as TV reporter, and another disgrace to NZ journalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mickrodge (27 comments) says:

    Ahhh, the reference to Sir Bob brought a tear to my eye.

    The thing is today none of these politicians have the kahuna’s to stick it to the journo’s except Winston (and he’s more pensioner than politician).

    I’d love to see someone tear Duncan Garner a new asshole next time he gets all bolshy in an interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. marsman (9 comments) says:

    Patrick Gower seems to be one of the few reporters who is not a NAct poodle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    He is a decietful bastard. Whats the story here? Someone finally told Gower to cram it?

    Good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Brash should have used harsher words. He should have told him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tom hunter (4,563 comments) says:

    I’d give my right stone to know what Gower said to Brash in the minutes leading up to Don’s observation on Gower’s parentage

    In this day and age of micro-electronic devices, right-wing politicians should have someone using such a device at all points of contact with the media. The key mechanism of the MSM in pushing their narrative is not questions but editing. So, put things in context via YouTube.

    Granted that Brash has always been a political and media naif, and also apparently the staff who served him even in the National party; walking the plank in front of photographers and slipping that aging, awkward frame into a dirt sprint racecar – FFS.

    But as useless as he is, Brash should be lesson No. 1 in dealing with the MSM: don’t let them control the narrative. The days of the edited interview are dead. They simply cannot be trusted. Catch it all on your own video and if they don’t like having a second camera present then tough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    A simple boycott of Gower as a journo by ACT will get the whillies up Gower’s bosses. He’s not a credible journo.
    I was quite shocked by his early one-sided camera broadcasts; a kind of Hollywood gossip shock-jock meets
    Norman Gunston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. emmess (1,396 comments) says:

    Granted that Brash has always been a political and media naif, and also apparently the staff who served him even in the National party; walking the plank in front of photographers and slipping that aging, awkward frame into a dirt sprint racecar

    Surely that was Brashs point that TV3 political reporters in particular are a bunch of biased wankers, for showing those clips over and over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Michael (899 comments) says:

    Classic Peters from Peters and Brash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Mark (1,429 comments) says:

    iMP do you seriously think Brash and Act are in a position to pick and choose journalists. At present the do not represent a rounding error in any survey, banks is struggling in Epsom and brash has been a disaster for the party.

    Despite the odium of Gower this does little for Brash at a time he needs to play to his strengths on the economy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. unpcnzcougar (52 comments) says:

    Gower possibly has some dirt that cannot be talked about in the public arena and I suspect he is goading Brash. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Spoon (101 comments) says:

    I called Gower out on Twitter the other day for saying an 18 year old working at McDonalds would be affected by a change in the youth minimum wage, which she wouldn’t. He maintained that yes she would, though eventually agreed that it was only in the exceptional circumstance that she quit, went on the benefit for 6 months, then went back to McDonalds.

    For some reason he didn’t reply when I pointed out McDonalds have a track record of paying their youth staff the adult wage, even when they don’t need to.

    In the same item he kept using the word “will” as in “if you’re 16, you WILL get paid $10 per hour”. Also frustrated me no end – totally misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Gower is not an objective journalist. He is a commenter at a very superficial level. He tries to be smart and make irrelevant and usually irreverent quips about serious issues and in doing so trivialises them. I am not sure that he is clever enough to be devious. He appears biased. I have no idea and do not care if he was born out of wedlock

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Scott Chris (5,974 comments) says:

    Bad sign for ACT if Brash thinks he’s being persecuted.

    Unless Goldsmith has a skeleton in the closet, ACT are fucked.

    Better start muckraking Banksie… oh you already have… silly me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. KevinH (1,152 comments) says:

    Media Training 101.
    All journalists are deceitful and will sh.t on you if you give them half a chance.
    If doorstopped, be polite and tell journo to make an appointment.
    Keep mouth shut at all times when camera’s are present.
    Buy drinks for special journo’s ie Soper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    I was so hoping for more from Brash, but even in ‘losing his temper’ he cannot get his bloody message across.

    It is far too late for Brash now of course but he really does need to stop playing people at their game, if he wanted to have a go a this Gower low life he really should have gone the full hog.

    Can you imagine how somebody like Chris Christie or the great Maggie Thatcher would have dealt with Gower?, it would have been blood sport and something I would pay to watch.

    One other thing strikes me about our political repeaters (Guyon Espiner aside), DPF and all the other acknowledged right wing people have to have disclaimers attached to their articles, why is this not the same for the pinko reporters?.
    Should we not have known that Fran Mould and Kris Fa’afoi were Labour supporters?, should we not be aware that John Campbell is a fully fledged communist bastard?

    I guess it is just another example of there being different rules to this game, one set for the right and one set for the wrong (or pinkos)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Lance (2,557 comments) says:

    Buzz Aldrin shows the way it’s done

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

    Take note Don

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sadu (129 comments) says:

    So we see Brash getting out of the taxi.
    Then the video cuts.
    Then Brash calls him a deceitful bastard.

    So what got cut out then? If TV3 aren’t willing to show what was actually said, then I’m going to have to agree with Brash on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Takes a lot to get that from Brash – isn’t he known for politeness beyond measure?

    Gower comes across as a complete oaf in this piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi (1,298) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 11:57 am


    Patric Gower is not a journalist. He’s a dumb asshole that was destined to work flipping burger at McDonald for a living. His deceitful techniques of interview is not what I expect from a real journalist like John Stossel,

    John Stossel? What a coincidence that your example of a good journalist just so happens to have political opinions you favour. Who would’ve expected it?

    Also, if he was destined to flip burgers at McDonalds why is he a well known reporter for TV3? Something wrong with that theory of yours eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Buzz Aldrin is a role model for all.

    On many levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Weihana, you don’t fucking need a training to be a reporter. Tau Henare can pretty much do a news report without having a formal training when he covered for Paul Holmes some years ago. That’s my point. A council rubbish collector or anyone can be a reporter. You don’t need to have a brain to be one. It doesn’t matter whether Mr Gower is well known or not. The fact is, his job is not unique or something hard. I would rather watch Tau Henare cover for John Campbell on Campbell Live than watching the pathetic Mr Campbell (who’s no different to Mr Gower) presenting his own show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    Brash has simply said it like it is – Gower is a deceitful bastard. And a victim of the grip. So good on Brash for pointing out the obvious.

    Its also no surprise that Gower works for the biggest collection of media hacks in NZ – TV3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (6,734 comments) says:

    Gower is the prick who tried to goad me into dropping my bag and dropping him at
    Wellington airport a year ago….He eventually stood right in the metal detector with his mic up my nose until a security guy manhandled him out of the way so I could pass through…

    There are a couple of reasons I didnt drop him, the main one being that that would have played right into the prick’s hands….and to think we once had real political journalists like Exell, Beatson, Walker even Edwards….what a sad comparison with this bunch of hacks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Falafulu Fisi (1,299) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 3:03 pm


    Weihana, you don’t fucking need a training to be a reporter. Tau Henare can pretty much do a news report without having a formal training when he covered for Paul Holmes some years ago. That’s my point. A council rubbish collector or anyone can be a reporter. You don’t need to have a brain to be one. It doesn’t matter whether Mr Gower is well known or not. The fact is, his job is not unique or something hard. I would rather watch Tau Henare cover for John Campbell on Campbell Live than watching the pathetic Mr Campbell (who’s no different to Mr Gower) presenting his own show.

    But the same could be said for anything. A person can be a physicist without formal training. Tau Henare being a politician and public figure is likely to have the experience and knowledge necessary to host a current affairs show. But there are plenty of people, who lack such experience, who couldn’t.

    Seems you just don’t like journalists who do not share your political preferences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    David Garrett,

    “There are a couple of reasons I didnt drop him, the main one being that that would have played right into the prick’s hands….”

    So the main reason was not that you would have broken the law? Or is it now legal to assault reporters who stick a microphone in your face? Someone needs anger management I feel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. unpcnzcougar (52 comments) says:

    Maybe we’d all like journalists and the media a little better if Noam Chomsky was required reading in journalism school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Someone Else (140 comments) says:

    The worst attempt at Gonzo journalism I’ve seen. We should call Pedro Gonzo from now on – the Muppet variety! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Someone needs anger management I feel.

    Tell exactly that to your mate, the thuggish Trevor Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Black with a Vengeance (1,676 comments) says:

    # Falafulu Fisi (1,299) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    you don’t fucking need a training to be a BLAH BLAH BLAH…

    And whats the minimum qualification to run the rebuild of Christchurch… Failed woodwork teacher anyone ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Manolo,

    My mate? I’ve never met the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Weihana said…
    A person can be a physicist without formal training.

    No, you can’t generally apply that to anything? So, you’re saying that you’re a physicist, engineer, economist, lawyer and all without being formally trained? Being a journalist with no formal training is different with being an engineer/physicist with no formal training?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Falafulu Fisi (1,300) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Weihana said…
    A person can be a physicist without formal training.

    No, you can’t generally apply that to anything? So, you’re saying that you’re a physicist, engineer, economist, lawyer and all without being formally trained? Being a journalist with no formal training is different with being an engineer/physicist with no formal training?

    No I am none of those things. But it is perfectly possible to be a very good physicist without formal training. It isn’t likely which is why, for safety reasons, we generally require formal training. But there is nothing to stop a person from picking up a physics textbook and teaching themselves. Similarly if I was managing a newsmedia organization I would generally demand journalists be trained and have formal qualifications. But I might also consider others who had experience that I thought could substitute for such training.

    Does being a journalist require as much skill as a physicist? Probably not, but it does require some skill and I don’t think it is true to say of any prominent journalist that they could be replaced by any joe bloggs off the street. Tau Henare is certainly not any joe bloggs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    Whilst I am no supporter of Pollies I find the political jurnos mostly legends in their own lunch time. As some above have said those of us who have known Brash for mnay years know that he is gentlemen compared to any of the others. Remember the Clark incident where she played the sex card against him in 2005.

    Gower must have said something bad to Brash before what we saw.. the little pricks and prickesses of the media are wind up merchants.

    Gower looks like he is a big tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    I well remember the incident at the airport with Gower, I watched it on the TV and thought to myself if I were you I would have head butted the prick right then and there

    In fact, had you done so I suspect you would have sailed back into the house on a wave of public support such is the dislike of scum like Gower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Weihana said…
    But there is nothing to stop a person from picking up a physics textbook and teaching themselves.

    That’s different from being formally trained. People these days read about topics that are unfamiliar to them on the net? Does an internet reader who reads about physics know what an oscilloscope looks like or know how to operate it? Those who have had being formally trained in the field, know what they look like, how to turn the knobs and how to operate it. WHY? Because they’ve been there in the lab during their training to use those electronic gadgets/equipments in their experiments. Certainly Mr Gower would have no fucking clue on how to operate an oscilloscope given that’s he’s familiar with Physics theory from his reading of Physics textbooks that he bought at Uni bookshop to self teaching. The oscilloscope is just one of the thousands of examples.

    Some Exceptions:

    I said…
    Being a journalist with no formal training is different than being an engineer/physicist with no formal training?

    Examples?
    - Physics Nobel laureate Paul Dirac (mathematicians, turned theoretical physicist).
    - All round physicist/mathematician/computer-scientist/economist, John von Neumann (a mathematician).
    - NASA Warmist Proponent, Dr Gavin Schmidt ( a mathematician)
    - thousands other examples, that are too many to be listed here.

    Anyone can learn to be a journalist on the job. No one can learn to be a physicist on the job.

    Do you see the difference or not?

    You don’t need a formal training in journalism. All the morons in journalism today are those that have had formal training. Journalism used to be a hobby for people more than 5 decades ago. Today, they have formalized it by running degree programs on journalism, which is unnecessary and a waste of time/money. This kind of formalization of bullshit was what Physics Nobel laureate late Richard Feynman warned about in the 1970s.

    Feynman said
    This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age.

    Journalism was a hobby, but it has now become organized into degree programs. Return Jounalism to being a hobby, then I bet that journalists would come out much better.

    String theorist Michio Kaku never formally trained as a journalist but he does an excellent job in communicating Science to the general public via his many TV shows that he hosted, radio programs, etc…

    The suckers of the society tend to glorify journalists or TV personalities as somehow they’re equivalent to successful business men as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Page/Brin and the likes. Journalists are scums, end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. leftyliberal (642 comments) says:

    @FF: Rubbish. Physics is not hard and becoming a practising physicist can be done on the job just fine. Ofcourse, I don’t expect anyone would hire one without an appropriate degree but the same thing can be said of any other job for which degree level training exists and is expected. The same applies to virtually all jobs – I can’t think of a single one that requires some sort of training that couldn’t be done “on the job”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Leftyliberal said…
    Physics is not hard and becoming a practising physicist can be done on the job just fine.

    And your example is/was? C’mon give me some examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. NX (603 comments) says:

    Nice one Brash.

    Gower has no integrity. 3news in general lacks professionalism – which is reflected in their ratings.

    If anything I feel more inclined to give my party vote to Brash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Steve (4,522 comments) says:

    Gower is another jumped up cock. If he had not been such a jerk in the past then Brash may have given him some time.
    In your ear Gower, time to be a man, not an obnoxious sook

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Falafulu Fisi (1,302) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Weihana said…
    But there is nothing to stop a person from picking up a physics textbook and teaching themselves.

    That’s different from being formally trained. People these days read about topics that are unfamiliar to them on the net? Does an internet reader who reads about physics know what an oscilloscope looks like or know how to operate it?

    Information from the net is of questionable validity or credibility. But any university textbook can be purchased by anyone and a dedicated and reasonably intelligent person can often learn just as much from reading the textbook themselves as if they went to a lecture where the same material was covered.

    Also you should know that oscilloscope’s come in varying models. Being familiar with a particular model is not as important as understanding the fundamental concepts involved. And this is what physics is about, fundamental concepts. In an undergraduate physics course a person will often do experiments on some complicated sets of equipment. But the course doesn’t teach one how to make that equipment. The equipment is primarily a tool to explain (and verify) the underlying concepts. It also gives practical experience in experimental physics but many physics experiments can be replicated with simple equipment at low cost. If you were good enough to become an expert in physics theory it would not be that hard to get used to doing experiments on the job.


    Certainly Mr Gower would have no fucking clue on how to operate an oscilloscope given that’s he’s familiar with Physics theory from his reading of Physics textbooks that he bought at Uni bookshop to self teaching. The oscilloscope is just one of the thousands of examples.

    I don’t believe he’s claimed to have a clue on oscilloscopes. And why would he?


    Anyone can learn to be a journalist on the job. No one can learn to be a physicist on the job.

    Do you see the difference or not?

    I would say physics is harder than journalism for most, but that depends on who you talk to.


    You don’t need a formal training in journalism. All the morons in journalism today are those that have had formal training. Journalism used to be a hobby for people more than 5 decades ago. Today, they have formalized it by running degree programs on journalism, which is unnecessary and a waste of time/money. This kind of formalization of bullshit was what Physics Nobel laureate late Richard Feynman warned about in the 1970s.

    Feynman said…
    This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age.

    Not sure how that quote supports what you just said.


    String theorist Michio Kaku never formally trained as a journalist but he does an excellent job in communicating Science to the general public via his many TV shows that he hosted, radio programs, etc…

    I agree he is very good. But there are many other professors who would be terrible. Kaku appears to have a natural ability for communication so he’s good at talking about what he knows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    Lance (1,005) Says:

    November 2nd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Gower reminds me of Bill Rolston”

    Me too. They both have faces only their mother’s could love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fox (202 comments) says:

    I can’t believe Gower actually thinks he came out of that exchange looking the better man.

    And the fact that he refused to show his viewers exactly what prompted Brash to make that particular remark is all-telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Look the entire TV3 News team is infested with lying lefty scum. Campbell, Gower, Mihi Forbes. They all do it, all the time and they never do it to the lefties, only to the conservatives. Totally breaching their journalistic ethic which is to lay it on the table without comment and let the audience draw their own conclusions. They haven’t even heard of that ethic. It doesn’t exist, to them.

    These scum are happy to be paid to spread propaganda for that’s all it ever is. No news, just lying spin.

    They can’t argue they don’t do it, it’s on tape, duh. They can’t argue it’s not unprofessional and unethical to do it, either. Yet the channel tolerates it nay evidently encourages it, for there are others on staff as well, like these three lefty scum. Ya woulda thought a serious news channel would be more ethical than that but apparently not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Weihana first said…
    A person can be a physicist without formal training. (Proposition A)

    Proposition A entails the consequent that Mr Gower can be one. Can this be true according to positional logic? Nope! There’s no way that Mr Gower can be a physicist just by reading textbooks. (I’ll exclude close cousins of physics, as engineering, mathematics, computing because those disciplines are intertwined with Physics – but Mr Gower had no training in those fields either).

    Then Weihana as a follow up said…
    But any university textbook can be purchased by anyone and a dedicated and reasonably intelligent person (Proposition B)

    Proposition B entails the consequent that Weihana can do so by becoming 1. What’s stopping you from doing that exactly? What’s stopping Mr Gower?

    Weihana first said…
    In an undergraduate physics course a person will often do experiments on some complicated sets of equipment.

    Redundant. You’re stating the obvious. You point is?

    Weihana first said…
    The equipment is primarily a tool to explain (and verify) the underlying concepts.

    Knowing the tools you work with (prior knowledge) is as important as knowing the underlying concepts. Someone who had been self taught in Physics but no experience in instrumentation can be very hard to get him/herself to familiarize with the equipments. Again, reading a physics textbook won’t equip that self-taught reader with the know how of an experimental physicist.

    Weihana first said…
    It also gives practical experience in experimental physics but many physics experiments can be replicated with simple equipment at low cost.

    For example? Cite one.

    Weihana first said…

    If you were good enough to become an expert in physics theory it would not be that hard to get used to doing experiments on the job.

    I’ve asked leftyliberal to give some examples but he simply went quiet. Where do you find all those self taught physicists that they had acquired their knowledge by learning on the job (experimental design). Have you worked with some before? If yes, then what sorts of experiments? Do you mean technicians? Experimental design is not the same thing as technicians. Jobs of technicians are daily routine that they do, while experimental physicists have to invent or improve existing designs (eg, improve the performance of some electronic filter circuits).

    Again, can you cite some examples. It looked like to me that you’re talking about technicians. You can train a year 12 or 13 high school student to do routine tasks as a technicians but they can’t do original experimental R&Ds.

    Weihana said…
    Not sure how that quote supports what you just said.

    What I mean is that journalism has become an organized movement, where they had already made it formal field of study, where in fact, such formalization of it is not necessary. That’s the point Feynman made. It is pseudo-intellectual.

    Now here is something for you to ponder about. What theory in journalism that covers/teaches exactly the door-stopping of someone to harass for an answer as Mr Gower had done to Mr Brash (3 times)? If that technique is not taught at journalism school, then what the fuck are they learning at journalism school then? Can you tell me what the heck are they learning in journalism school? Have you got any tips for me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    FF

    I once had the experience of teaching a lab full of chemists on how to use their spectrograph they had maybe four chemistry degrees among them I do not even have year 10 Difference was I had got bored and read the manual.

    You can teach yourself any knowledge contained in books provided you are capable of understanding it.How to use an oscilloscope or electron microscope or any other type of hardware is in the manual and some could learn from said manual. if its imposable to do this its not science its ART

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Liberty (252 comments) says:

    Good one Don
    Gower is nothing more than a minion of the left.
    The last MP to put a weasel in its place.
    Was Muldoon interviewing Simon Walker
    http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/tonight—robert-muldoon-interview-1976

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Sam A (18 comments) says:

    Yes, Good one Don. I agree that Don doesn’t look too bad out of this. Journalism’s standard operating procedure: deceitful interviewing, deceitful reporting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Sam A (18 comments) says:

    Cutting interviews and juxtaposing statements to create a false impression is standard fare. And, just wondering, are the folk at Fairfax having any pangs of conscience since the phone hacking problems at their ultimate parent company News International came to light?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:


    Weihana first said…
    A person can be a physicist without formal training. (Proposition A)

    Proposition A entails the consequent that Mr Gower can be one.

    No it doesn’t. “A person” is not the same as “all persons”.


    Can this be true according to positional logic?

    Whether Mr. Gower has the mental capacity to be a physicist is an empirical question, it cannot be determined a priori.


    Then Weihana as a follow up said…
    But any university textbook can be purchased by anyone and a dedicated and reasonably intelligent person (Proposition B)

    Proposition B entails the consequent that Weihana can do so by becoming 1. What’s stopping you from doing that exactly? What’s stopping Mr Gower?

    Presumably Mr. Gower has no interest in becoming a physicist and if he did I expect he would attend a University as that is the most sensible option. That something is possible does not imply that one would necessarily want to, or have cause to, do it.


    …reading a physics textbook won’t equip that self-taught reader with the know how of an experimental physicist.

    True, but a competent theoretical physicist would equip themselves with the skills of an experimental physicist relatively easily, just as would a mathematician or an engineer or people from other closely related scientific fields.

    Just as an aside it’s interesting that there is quite a number of amateur astronomers out there, some of which even assist in the collection of data for peer reviewed papers. It’s no different to people who can rip a car’s engine to pieces and put it back together without any formal training but who have been shown by people who know how. Formal training is great but it isn’t absolutely necessary for a person to have formal training in order to be competent in a particular field of knowledge or have particular skills.


    Weihana first said…
    It also gives practical experience in experimental physics but many physics experiments can be replicated with simple equipment at low cost.

    For example? Cite one.

    The double-slit experiment is a pretty standard high-school level experiment. A laser and some slits. Not very expensive.
    Or you can measure the strength of the gravitational field with a mass, a piece of long string, a ruler and a stopwatch. Not every physics experiment requires a multi-billion dollar atom smasher. What do you think the likes of Newton worked with? He didn’t even have a calculator!


    “Where do you find all those self taught physicists that they had acquired their knowledge by learning on the job”

    That it is possible to self-teach does not make it sensible or more efficient.


    What I mean is that journalism has become an organized movement, where they had already made it formal field of study, where in fact, such formalization of it is not necessary. That’s the point Feynman made. It is pseudo-intellectual.

    Now here is something for you to ponder about. What theory in journalism that covers/teaches exactly the door-stopping of someone to harass for an answer as Mr Gower had done to Mr Brash (3 times)? If that technique is not taught at journalism school, then what the fuck are they learning at journalism school then? Can you tell me what the heck are they learning in journalism school? Have you got any tips for me?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere in a course on journalism students became familiar with different types of journalists including those who might seem to harass people. Surely the death of Princess Diana might be a convenient topic for discussion of ethical standards in the industry. But in any case there are certainly subjects covered such as relevant law and industry standards. I don’t know much about it personally because I’m not a journalist.

    But I think what Feynman was saying is that some things are pseudo-scientific. But journalism isn’t pretending to be scientific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Weihana said…
    No it doesn’t. “A person” is not the same as “all persons”.

    Stop weaseling. Your assertion is a propositional logic generalization. You didn’t state that some persons (to the exclusion of of the whole set or others) but you said, a person can be a physicist without formal training. What you’ve stated in your proposition is if an element of a set (singular) can do it, then if follows that all elements in the set (ie, entirety of the set itself – plural) can also do it. Are you evading? If you can’t resolve the propositional logic assertion that you’ve came up with, then explain what I’ve just pointed you above, why your’s is free of contradiction? Explain your premise & consequent in a propositional logic framework.

    Weihana said…
    Presumably Mr. Gower has no interest in becoming a physicist and if he did I expect he would attend a University as that is the most sensible option.

    Arhh, you mean to get a formal training? You’ve just proven my point. Why need to attend University while he can buy textbooks from Uni bookshop and read about it as you had proposed above? Are you contradicting yourself? He will become a physicist just by reading according to you.

    Weihana said…
    True, but a competent theoretical physicist would equip themselves with the skills of an experimental physicist relatively easily, just as would a mathematician or an engineer or people from other closely related scientific fields.

    But a theoretical physicist is a physicist who had studied the subject more deeper than someone who didn’t formally studied the field but just read textbooks. Einstein as an example. But Einstein cannot be equated to someone who has just been reading textbooks. Einstein read peer review publications in Physics to get his head around topics that were interests to him.

    Weihana said…
    Just as an aside it’s interesting that there is quite a number of amateur astronomers out there, some of which even assist in the collection of data for peer reviewed papers.

    Amateur astronomers are not astronomers. Anyone can collect data, even you can train or pay highschool kids to do it on your behalf. Collecting data is not the real thing. Interpreting it (according to theories), devising further new experimental setups is the challenge. Amateur astronomers won’t be able to step up to that challenge, because they lack the mental capability to do that.

    Weihana said…
    Formal training is great but it isn’t absolutely necessary for a person to have formal training in order to be competent in a particular field of knowledge or have particular skills.

    I didn’t argue on absoluteness. You seemed to shift your argument so that you can have a reply. That’s the reason I mentioned Physics Nobel laureate late Paul Dirac. He was a mathematician first and not a trained physicist, but he dedicated his time to do research in Physics thus winning a Nobel Prize.

    Weihana said…
    The double-slit experiment is a pretty standard high-school level experiment.

    That’s not an experience that you find in the real world. Sure, a highschool kid must understand the double-slit, but where on earth in any commercial R&D facilities that you see such setups? None whatsoever. You find that in Stage 1 or highschool lab. A self-taught person in Physics with his simple double-slit setup at home will find in the real world that such apparatuses has no use whatsoever if he’s to apply for a job in the field of opto-electronics designing fibre-optic signal splitter. Concept is the same (although it is much advanced), but his self-taught textbook reading and home made double-slit is nowhere to be found in the real world of commerce and this is exactly what I was asking leftyliberal (and you) to cite one. You’ve just cited an example of a child play setup. Every child can set up a doble-slit at home, but that wasn’t what I meant. You can’t become a physicist by setting up a doble-slit apparatus at home, which is seemed to be your argument here.

    Weihana said…
    Not every physics experiment requires a multi-billion dollar atom smasher. What do you think the likes of Newton worked with? He didn’t even have a calculator!

    Irrelevant. That was the beginning of physics and he invented the foundations. That cannot be equated to the so called self taught physicists who played with pendulums or double-slit at home, since they’re not discovering anything new. Doing pendulums at home is not the same as Newtons inventing gravitational laws.

    Weihana said…
    I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere in a course on journalism students became familiar with different types of journalists including those who might seem to harass people.

    But what exactly do they fuck and teach? Tell me one single notion that I don’t know of what they teach in journalism courses? Can you help me out here? I bet you that journos can be trained on the job without a need for a degree.

    Weihana said…
    But I think what Feynman was saying is that some things are pseudo-scientific. But journalism isn’t pretending to be scientific.

    No, you’ve missed his main point. He used the term scientific as a generalization for anything that has moved into (established as) a formal branch of study these days. His example was the so called “Education Experts”. Education is not science, but his point was, that it is now an established formal branch of study today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.