Thoughts on post-pageant storms in teacups
Samantha Powell (Miss Universe New Zealand 2008), Rebecca Connor (Miss Wellington), Rhonda Grant (second runner-up, Miss Universe New Zealand 2008), Kylie Anderson (second runner-up, Miss Universe New Zealand 2006).
Why is it that they stem from Christchurch? Are there more anti-pageant types down there?
Last year, The Press ran a piece on how Laural Barrett, the winner of Miss New Zealand 2007, had allegedly stolen shoes along with her sister, when anyone reading between the lines of journalistic double-talk could tell the writer had used enough ‘seems’ and ‘allegedly’ in an ill-researched story based on a leaked rumour. It would have been fitting on a gossip blog, not a metropolitan newspaper.
But hey, it sells newspapers in a land where tabloids can successfully masquerade as broadsheets. I had to go on the warpath that time and accuse Fairfax of tall-poppy syndrome with unpatriotic journalists appeasing foreign owners. However you looked at it, that Press story was poor, poor journalism, which only fed blogs, rumours and envious teenage girls.
Now we had that liberal professor down at the University of Canterbury attacking 2008 second runner-up Rhonda Grant for being good-looking and effectively sending a message that her degree is valueless and that she should not be fêted for her success. Shame.
I’m just glad that Samantha Powell has managed to steer clear of controversy this year, but then, she didn’t go to university—which obviously means that she escaped the liberal pen of an American Studies professor.
But given that beauty pageant winners’ academic successes should not be celebrated according to the Association of University Staff—since the release was sent under its banner then I take it to be policy—it’s just as well Sam received on-the-job vocational training rather than have a worthless degree from a New Zealand tertiary institution.
I sure hope I never joined the Association unwittingly when I was a lecturer, since I cannot agree with its position.
I believe in individual excellence, working hard and being treated fairly.
Unless Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery’s aim was to send out a nothing story—when I first read it I had no idea anyone cared and nearly advised Val Lott, pageant director, to ignore it, and a contact at a TV network actually agreed with me—and see how trivialities can propagate in the New Zealand media.
Because that made a fascinating study. I held off sending out a release till the morning because I had no idea anyone—from Paul Holmes on the wireless to TV1’s Close-up—would be interested.
All Dr Montgomery needed was a willing conspirator in the form of the New Zealand Press Association, with the weight of the Association of University Staff behind her, and the publication of the wire story by The New Zealand Herald.
From there, the story suddenly had legitimacy, even if I think the Irish-owned Herald should have sought comment from the pageant or Massey University side before publication of a clearly biased article.
Perhaps Dr Montgomery’s Irish roots and the Herald’s part-Irish ownership just went hand in hand and there’s some unwritten rule to help your own inside the newspaper.
I shall send my future releases to the Herald under the name O’Malley.
If this was a study of the lowering of media standards and their (and the public’s) obsession with trivia, then I actually applaud Dr Montgomery, with a standing ovation.
Being London-born, Dr Montgomery will have seen the lowering of standards in her lifetime before she left Thatcher’s Britain (she said ‘escaped’, which shows her thoughts on Thatcherism) with the Australian takeovers of two tabloids and The Times. And, perhaps out of interest, this was an experiment to see how far these tendencies went in New Zealand, a protest against the technocratic injustice that has been emerging over the last quarter-century—again something she has witnessed after her arrival here.
I don’t know. If that were her aim then I thought it rather cruel to target a young woman who has never done anything against her.
But as I said, there was a part of me that enjoyed it because it was darned good profile for the pageant and for Rhonda.
Rhonda spoke well on TV for someone with no media training, and I think she did better on the live interview with Mark Sainsbury on Close-up than the recorded piece with John Campbell on Campbell Live.
The other good thing was that Rhonda was one of two contestants who identifies with the Christian faith, which allowed her to put this into perspective of a greater plan.
I shall be interested to see what happens next—or possibly next year. Will Christchurch go for the hat-trick?
