What factors led to your decision to run that story?
What factors led to your decision to use a headline which emphasized
that the Law Society was being attacked, rather than headlining
the nature of its dress-code? For example, your headline could
have been: “NZ Law Society’s dress code, in comparison
with barristers’ dress code and TVNZ’s dress code.”
The reason that you ran the story was apparently that one individual,
Mark Ford, put it on social media. How many other individual people
had you seen on social media complaining about separate issues
on that day, without you bothering to run stories about them?
How many times have you reported the views of Men’s Rights
Activists on Feminist issues as a headline? (The above is obviously
a Feminist issue, which therefore is also a Men’s Rights
How many times have you asked me to comment on a Feminist issue?
(I note that you are very well aware of my existence, since you
have interviewed me – but never as a commentator on Feminist
issues which you reported the views of Feminists about).
How many times have you asked other Men’s Rights Activists
to comment on a Feminist issue? (Never, as far as I am aware).
Does your treatment of this issue indicate that you agree with
the criticism of the Law Society’s dress code?
As a Government-owned organization, is it a proper function
of TVNZ to censor views that it disagrees with and to proactively
push certain socio-political agendas?
Is the newsworthiness issue involved in this story the fact
that female lawyers would be wearing party dresses, or that men
might have some part in deciding what they would be wearing?
In the view of your staff who created the news item, has the
issue been resolved by your story’s final sentence, which
“As for the Law Society's anniversary dinner, attendees
are now being told to wear whatever they like”?
In other words, is it alright if women wear sexy clothing –
as long as they decide individually to do so? Your news item did
not discuss that issue.
Your news story features a photograph of your reporter talking
to a woman (presumably from TVNZ’s own costume department)
who is holding what presumably is a cocktail dress and the two
women are looking archly and knowingly at each other. Can you
please confirm that what is special about cocktail dresses, in
your view, is that they expose a lot of skin – specifically
Can you confirm that you think that men generally like looking
at women’s skin – especially cleavage?
Can you confirm that you think that it was wrong of the Law
Society to ask women to wear cocktail dresses, because that would
attract men and give them pleasure?
Judging by your article’s final sentence, TVNZ thinks
that it is alright for women to choose to wear clothing that attracts
men and give them pleasure – but not for men to play any
part in the decision whether they wear that clothing. Is that
Are men’s “everyday business suits” less sexy
than more formal attire, such as dinner-jackets? If so, why?
Why does TVNZ think that it is alright for women to expose more
skin (especially in the chest area) than men do when working as
newsreaders, or in other office or work or formal situations?
Do female TVNZ presenters who show their cleavage, or even more
of their breasts, get some exhibitionist pleasure out of doing
Why is it that female presenters on the 6:00 PM News are generally
well covered-up, but female presenters on Breakfast often show
their cleavages, or even more of their breasts. Part of the reason
may be that the main weekday female presenter has an unattractive
chest, which is seldom exposed. For example, I have noticed exhibitionist
behaviour on the part of Melissa Stokes, when she appears on Breakfast,
whereas she is usually very conservative in her dress and behaviour
when presenting the 6:00 PM News at weekends. For example, on
Breakfast, I once saw her bounce hard onto her chair, when sitting,
down, which made her breasts bounce visibly.
The TVNZ attitude to cocktail dresses makes it clear that the
purpose of cocktail dresses is to attract men, who are then forced
(in most cases) to make the first move. I myself experienced this
traumatically as a young adolescent, when I was rejected by a
girl purely for failing to make a move when she clearly (in retrospect)
expected me to make a move. And now the #MeToo movement is treated
by TVNZ as Gospel. TVNZ has never allowed any Men’s Rights
Activist to comment on the #MeToo movement on-screen. The #MeToo
movement treats any overt move by a man as a potential sexual
assault – even though the woman might have provoked that
move by her dress or behavior.
Is TVNZ deliberately pursuing a policy of enslaving men?