I blogged a week or so back about my reactions to the news that 95bFM was reinstating Mikey Havoc in breakfast. I was subsequently quoted in the New Zealand Herald, who lifted the phrase “alarming and deeply disappointing”.
Though I did use those words, what I like to think of as ‘my slightly more nuanced analysis’ was kind of glossed over. That can happen in journalism.
Interestingly, they also thought I said it highlighted a lack of talent, which was the exact inverse of the intended message. My apologies for any obscurity in the language.
What I was trying to communicate was: “For God’s sake people, open your eyes: look at all the talent!”
At any rate, reading the Herald article, one might think I had declared an Orwellian ‘Wallace good, Mikey bad’. Which is neither what I said, nor what I meant. Thought I should clear that up.
Incidentally, I’d like to link straight to that Herald article, but it’s one of those absurd ‘premium’ articles they want you to pay for, because it’s older than a week or so.
Weird. I remember when old newspaper was considered good for wrapping fish and chips and scrunching up to clean windows. Still, it’s up at the Save Wallace website until the Herald get antsy enough to send a nastygram.
Anyway, in the week since I last looked at the internet, a Bring Back Wallace campaign has been started, and at that website, a petition to the bFM board has been launched in an attempt to, well, bring Wallace back.
Only I’m not signing. Here’s why:
1. bFM’s not a democracy
This is not something I particularly want to be able to have a say in. Thin end of the wedge and all that. I think bFM management should be free to make mistakes like this.It’s fine to communicate to an organisation that you don’t like its product. Writing letters, starting petitions and boycotting companies to send a message as the constituency has a fine and noble tradition. If bFM started using sweatshop labour, dumping toxic waste or testing its commercials on animals, then I’d probably grab a pitchfork and burning torch and jump right in there with you.
This is a line-up reshuffle decided upon by radio station management. I’m not 100% sure what say we should have in that process other than to vote with our feet. Or ears.
2. I’m not convinced I want Wallace back
Wallace is a good broadcaster. He’s a smart man and an engaging one. But the reason I don’t want Mikey back has nothing to do with my preference for Wallace. My problem is with the kind of conservatism that wants to recapture the past.Wallace’s departure is a cue for new talent – not a struggle over which of the same old talent should triumph.
As I understand it, 95bFM has an educational brief written right into the Broadcasting Act. They’re supposed to be nurturing new talent – not making sure that media workers in their late 30s and early 40s can hang onto the glory days of bFM circa Graeme, Marcus or Hughever.
Demanding that bFM puts things back the way it was is the same kind of nostalgia that the board is banking on with the Mikey reshuffle, and if bFM ever becomes a nostalgia station, then I’ll be signing petitions.
3. Chris Hocquard is smarter than me
Actually, to be honest, I don’t even know who else is on the board, but I’m not convinced it’s made up of people that do this sort of thing lightly. While I don’t particularly agree with their decision, nor do I spend much time looking at the financial reports of the station and trying to reconcile that with all the various stakeholders – audience included.My experience of Chris (the board chairman as I understand it) is that he’s a smart man who would consider all the angles. As much as it pains me to say this, just because he’s a lawyer, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s evil and wrong.
4. It’s all a bit yucky
Some of the comments on the petition — quite a few, in fact — are personal, nasty and vitriolic. The kind of stuff that’s being said about a professional broadcaster, his personal life and his ability to do his job is not the kind of speech I want to sign my name to. These are not my people.Mikey is not my favourite broadcaster, but I sure as hell don’t hate him (and in fact, he’s a loooong way from being my least favourite).
5. It’s a shame, not an outrage
Let’s get some perspective here. Nobody’s killing Wallace. And if he’s as smart and savvy as we all think he is, he’ll be making media we can all consume whether in traditional broadcast form, or in new ways. If he’s as talented and well-supported as I suspect he is, he’ll also make decent money at it.
And this was entirely the point of my previous post on this issue (Herald journalists, begin cut-and-paste here): bFM needs Wallaces more than Wallaces need bFM.
