Ian Baugh: Media failing to ask the hard questions

It's a watershed election, don't you think? Finally - finally - we're well enough off for both the main parties to promote themselves as big spenders.

But one thing isn't new, and that's the disgraceful standard of much that passes for coverage.

Admittedly, I felt better last weekend. First, the minor party leaders' debate on National Radio, or what I heard of it, was refreshingly civilised, maybe because Winston didn't show.

Then I caught Agenda on TV One in the evening, and was impressed by Simon Dallow's constructive interview with Don Brash. Well, I was impressed until he laid an ambush for Brash that was so blatantly unfair that Bob Harvey (one of his panel of experts, our mayor, Labour's ex-president) said that if Dallow had sprung a stunt like that on him he'd have walked out.

What Dallow did was ask Brash to pronounce the name of Fepulea'i Ulua'ipou-O-Malo Aiono, his Samoan candidate for Manurewa. I'd be lucky if one New Zealander in four could pronounce my own name (which is a little simpler, but for the record isn't Ian Bow).

But I draw no political conclusions from that, or from the fact that most Americans manage "Baugh" remarkably well but can't pronounce "Ian".

Anyway, I understand why, according to Brash, the lady calls herself Pou Aiono, and I reckon you could cut us some slack too, Simon.

My grumpiness started well before the election, in fact - during Readers and Writers Week. We readers had to tolerate the easy assumption of moderators like Finlay MacDonald that their author guests shared their political point of view.

The worst offender was the wineglass-toting Kim Hill, so recklessly presumptuous that she started a rebellion from both Caryl Phillips, the West Indian Englishman who refused to be typecast, and the audience, who pointed out in no uncertain terms that they were there to hear the authors' views, not hers.

There was more, but that's enough to be going on with. I think you're a national resource, Kim, but I think your audience had a point.

Then there's Tim Watkin's implicitly anti-National article in the latest Listener, which concludes, on the basis of irrelevancies and interviews with a few returning Kiwis, that Australia will soon be the Unlucky Country.

Personally, I have no desire to go and live in Sydney. I even feel a bond with the guy who came back for the whitebait and old-fashioned courtesy - I just hope we get to keep our hospitals and schools. Because Watkin does include the statistics necessary to confirm Brash's two main points: that the Aussies are a damn sight better off than us, and that (depending on which year you look at) up to five more of us go and live there than come back.

So, wouldn't you like it if the electronic media, particularly, gave the parties time and space to answer some serious questions in an adult way?

Labour first: Why do so many working people fall between the cracks of your targeted giveaways (at our West Auckland establishment, we reckon at least three-quarters)?

And how well does an interest-free student loan stack up against tax deductibility and a tax cut?

And what about this? According to Herald figures relating to people aged between 18 and 64, non-Maori employment is up by 9 per cent and unemployment down by 3.6 per cent.

So how come there's only been a 3 per cent drop in the overall number of non-Maori dependent on benefits? (I know, many people have just moved to other benefits, but I want to hear you say it.)

Or, how meaningful can the 6.6 per cent drop in Maori unemployment be when Maori employment has increased by only 5.7 per cent?

Or, how come Maori have an educational problem when the number in education has increased from 13.2 per cent to 20.4 per cent.

Let's be fair on Kim: questions like those make me pleased that Tariana Turia got a fair hearing from her last week.

And let's hear it from the Nats: Don't you think doing away with the Maori seats with white votes is a bit rich?

Sure they're meaningless, but Maori don't trust you, and they still get just the one vote each.

How can you honestly ask us to believe that dramatic cuts in tax won't lead to structural deficits?

And tell us, exactly how will cutting public expenditure as a percentage of GDP be good for working people? Or those of us who are forced to live on benefits?

And why can't you at least sound honest about nuclear energy or foreign policy?

Your policy might not be a winner, but being straight up about it might be worth a few votes.

And why can't you throw Act a bone? Or at least sound like you have things in common?

If the media concentrated on generating light rather than heat we might get some answers.

Not that all the blame goes to the media. Like a rugby front row, the politicians get away with what they can.

My personal nominee for worst performance goes to Michael Cullen. To end a Close Up interview with John Key on taxes, our Minister of Finance, red-faced and determined, hunched his shoulders, scrunched his eyes and hammered out, "Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts!"

Key rolled his eyes. Susan Wood, technician in her ear, tried vainly to interrupt so she could wrap up the programme. But there was no stopping our Michael.

On the rugby field he'd have copped a two-week suspension at least. At home his Mum would have given him time out.

* Ian Baugh's family-owned business operates from Glen Eden.