Domestic violence
It appears that, according to Paul Holmes and Brendan Telfer (“Game of two halves”, July 26), it is okay to lash out at a woman if you say sorry and show genuine contrition afterwards (not to mention pay them a substantial amount of money).
Although it is admirable that these two men support their friend, they would have been better served to have said they cannot condone what Tony Veitch has allegedly done, but would continue to support their friend no matter what happens.
Their attack on the media does neither of them credit. One wonders what their attitude to this sorry saga would be if you swapped Veitch for Joe Public.
Ian Milnes (Pakuranga, Manukau)
It is true that the “It’s not OK” slogan can be seen as mild (Editorial, July 26). But that is one of its more arresting points. What else can be said when the harm is so great, the damage so extensive and frequent? What else can be said when it’s the father, mother or relative that you know and love who is doing the hurting?
It is the perpetrator who has lost his/her dignity in that moment of drug or anger-fuelled attack. The perpetrator is the one going berserk. And what remains for victims to do when they can’t defend themselves or leave? Wait for an apology? Get linguistically violent back?
No. When I see or hear that slogan, I hear the voice of the survivors of abuse saying quietly to themselves, with conviction and glistening autonomy, that what happened to them is not something that simply needs to be swallowed and accepted. I hear them preserving their rights to a life not lived in fear, by calmly and irreproachably saying: “That was not OK. Neither I nor anyone else should expect to put up with it. Even if it was my dad. Even if it was my partner – even if it was me.”
I validate that sentiment, that family violence is not OK. And I believe as we stand together in a united and assertive way we can stem the tide of human failing run amok. I think that the campaign has it right. I hope the government agencies who can will back this ad campaign with the resources to make a difference to New Zealanders living with violence in their homes.
Tania Mitchell (West Harbour, Auckland)
On Morning Report, Brendan Telfer expressed his concern at the treatment of Tony Veitch in the media, objecting to what he described as trial by media. One can but say amen. However, what he and the rather overawed interviewer failed to make clear is that the issue here is not about Veitch but about media style and standards in general.
If one was being malicious, one could say that this is a case of the biter bit. Veitch got no more or less than fallen celebrities get from the media.
What is unacceptable about Telfer and other apologists for Veitch’s right to privacy and a fair trial is they are proposing a double standard – one for media stars and one for you and me.
The media need to look inward at their style – long on sensationalism, catastrophe, adulation, gossip, vitriol, innuendo and grubbiness and short on research, fact and restraint.
John Werry (Mt Eden, Auckland)
RADIO NZ
Bill Ralston has hit the nail on the head with his comments about Radio New Zealand National (Life, July 12). As a dedicated listener for over 20 years, I used to organise my weekend around listening to Radio NZ National. Unfortunately, I have been driven screaming into commercial radioland to liven up my weekend listening.
The predictable presenters, guests and programmes of Radio NZ National have left this “target audience” – female, 50+, professional – wondering who could be left who enjoys them?
Despite Noelle McCarthy’s spirited argument to the contrary, her presentation is as conformist and soporific as the rest of the main fare on Radio NZ National. Worthy? Yes. Humorous, thought provoking and stimulating? No. Radio Live, here I come!
Mary-Ann Graham (Wanganui)
Sarah Smith (Letters, July 26) had some valid points about bringing in some international stories to make Radio New Zealand National a bit more interesting, but please don’t take away the only old-time music slot left on the radio on Saturday night.
Quite a few listeners are over 50, so how about giving us a break. What’s wrong with music of the 1920s and 30s? People still enjoy Beethoven and Mozart – good music does not deteriorate with age.
I was born in 1938 and clearly remember my mother humming the dance songs of her youth by Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Glenn Miller and even Gilbert and Sullivan. We never hear them now in the weekday programmes; they’re a diet of interviews all morning and afternoon, with an occasional bit of music reluctantly played by Jim Mora.
I cannot be the only person who would like some catchy music with a good tune, and sentimental songs, as we used to have when Wayne Mowat was on air in the afternoons.
Commercial radio bangs out modern popular music interrupted by talkback and screaming commercials. Mana FM advertises itself as “no boring talk, just music”, but if I hear Kenny Rogers singing The Gambler once more I will scream. Mana FM seems to play about three tapes in an ever-repeating sequence.
I grew up with Rodgers and Hammerstein, the Beatles and skiffle groups, but still enjoy music of the tuneful 20s, 30s and 40s. Youth has the monopoly on most entertainment, but there must be a place for those who like something between “pop” and classical music. Please don’t begrudge us a few hours once or twice a week.
Eileen Guise (Pauatahanui, Porirua)
I listen occasionally to Radio New Zealand National, mainly because it is non-commercial, but I have to agree with Bill Ralston and Sarah Smith that it is “irritatingly insular” and “no fun at all”.
There just don’t seem to be enough talented and/or interesting people within our small nation to make it exciting. Smith’s request that we ease the monotony by buying in some international programmes leads me to ask Radio NZ to please tell us why it discontinued Just a Minute or Desert Island Discs with its range of gifted people from around the world.
An exception to the above comments is Saturday Morning with Kim Hill. In discussion with experts on any topic, Hill shows truly exceptional versatility and intelligence. Moreover, I am impressed by her ability, when saddled with a boring person, to actually lift the style of the interview by dint of her own wit and enthusiasm.
What brought a smile to my face in her recent meeting with comedian Lenny Henry was not his spiel or his repartee, but her success in keeping him under control. That’s entertainment!
Joyce Fleming (Halswell, Christchurch)
NATIONAL LIBRARY
Hamish Keith (The cultural curmudgeon, June 28) comments on the recent announcement by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage of the proposed $67 million rebuild of the National Library building. The image on that page of the proposed National Library rebuild is shocking, because it shows the Minister and the National Librarian are set to destroy a significant piece of New Zealand cultural heritage, the National Library building itself. These are the people who are supposed to be looking after our things.
On the National Library website, you can see more images and a short video of the proposed rebuild. Following a series of poignant words that ends with “protected here” and “forever” is an animated sequence showing how the building (New Zealand’s first permanent National Library building) will be destroyed. The irony could not be more pronounced.
Think again, Minister and National Librarian. Continue to build our national heritage. There are better ways to make more space than to destroy what we have. Use the $67 million to make another significant place.
Duncan Joiner, Architect (Khandallah, Wellington)
BILL SUTCH
Lawyer John Edwards, on behalf of the Sutch family (“The Sutch files”, July 19), suggests the best place to search for the truth as to whether Bill Sutch was a spy would be to look at the transcript of Sutch’s trial. Given the number of retrials, hung juries, verdicts quashed by higher courts and general misgivings over jury verdicts, I would have thought that about the last place to look for “the truth” would be the trial transcript.
Lest readers think I am just making a general observation on the case, I was a detective in the Wellington CIB in September 1974 and worked on the investigation on the very night Sutch was apprehended.
Apologists for Sutch should reflect on this: if he was of no interest to the Russians, and there was nothing sinister regarding his relationship and meetings with Russian Embassy spy Dimitri Razgovorov, why did the KGB deem Sutch so vital to its operations that it had to give him a code name?
Trevor Morley (Wellington South)
URBAN DESIGN
I see where John Coop is going with his urban design solution (Ecologic, July 19), but I think he’s stumbled on the journey. The aggregated farmyard, while appealing to aesthetic sensibilities, can produce neither the numbers nor more particularly the densities to sustain local demand for a butcher, baker, etc.
At only 12.5 residential units per hectare, the density and therefore texture of the proposal are exactly the same as for existing dysfunctional suburban developments.
To qualify for any consideration as a model or seed for a self-sufficient, walkable town or village, residential unit densities would have to be about four times what was suggested – that is, a minimum density of 50 residential units or 125 people per hectare. The proposed 8ha development would provide for 400 residential units. Then the resulting population of 1000 might just support a dairy but, alas, no butcher or baker.
If this particular reality is incompatible with the aggregated barnyard sentiments of Coop and Scott et al, perhaps they could make a gesture towards green marketing by replacing the depicted deciduous planting with native flora.
Tim De Roles, Architectural and urban design consultant (Huia, Waitakere)
TELEMARKETING
The 19th-century telephone invention was the forerunner of modern telecommunications.
Unfortunately, the telephone is often the medium by which multi-surveys are conducted, many donations requested, and a multitude of cold-selling practices employed in a bid by organisations, companies and local community-inspired groups to bolster support or increase clientele.
And so many citizens are contacted either mid-evening or in the weekend, thereby enforcing the views held by majority of the populace about the lack of integrity of most telemarketers.
Recipients’ names are often randomly selected through scanning of local directories. But if people are contacted via mailing listings, surely this is a breach of the Privacy Act.
The only possible recourse for the people who get these untimely and unrequested calls is a formal application to the Direct Marketing Association to put them on a do-not-contact list.
This is an inconvenient and unnecessary procedure for those people who want their privacy to remain intact, free from electronic invasion.
How would telemarketers respond to a request for their names and phone numbers to allow them to be called at equally inopportune times?
Gary Knight (Hoon Hay, Christchurch)
