Editorial: Paul Holmes
By Media Matters President, JOHN TERRIS
Thursday, 14 February 2013
Paul Holmes
Paul Holmes' passing has unleashed a media led flood of grief, those he has worked with over the years being anxious to honour and praise their own, in a profession which could do with a bit of affirmation when it rates consistently below real estate agents in public respect.
No one would deny him the credit which is his due. However, Holmes chose to give an interview to Sunday's Janet MacIntyre, shortly before his passing, and in this and in other interviews before his death, to say about himself the things for which he hoped he would be remembered – that is, as a good writer, a good journalist and a good bloke.
There would be plenty of people who would agree and plenty who would differ. The fact is that he has used his extensive knowledge of the media, ownership of parts of it and myriad contacts within it, privileges available to few, to, in a sense, write his own obituary. This privileged position means that we are entitled to seek some sort of balance to the record of how he is to be remembered.
Paul Holmes was not, as his admirers might want to have it, some sort of secular saint. He pioneered a style of television journalism which essentially preyed on people's vulnerabilities, a style perpetuated by his acolyte Mark Sainsbury. He admits to being a predator in his personal life too – "Too much booze, too many beautiful women" he said in his last interview, making him seem quite romantic. His dark side is something he admitted himself when he essentially, in that last interview, begs for God's forgiveness. He used his media celebrity position to air petty personal grudges and as a journalist chose to make no distinction between his opinion and the facts, which is a major failing in any journalist. There was no subject he was not willing to exploit for ratings, too, regardless of that subject's right to privacy.
This was surely a vain man. He clearly broke all the rules by personally lobbying politicians for a Queen's Honour, a practice which automatically disqualifies lesser mortals. On line polls make it clear this accolade was not popular with many.
There will no doubt, when the media hype has spent itself, be a serious attempt (one hopes) to assess his real contribution to media in NZ, and one suspects that when that happens, the claims of his friends and associates that he was the greatest figure in modern journalism will no doubt be tested and found wanting.
To his credit, he has used the opportunity of his knowledge of his own health status, to try to make some amends for shortcomings, and to make peace with those he has hurt in his personal dealings, (his first wife among them), he has reviewed his effect on others in the course of his long media career (accepting that he was not universally admired), he has assessed the contribution he has made to broadcasting (and while history will be the final judge of that, it is only right he should celebrate, and others with him, the positive contribution he has made).
As a piece of self-revelation, his interview, like all his media, certainly made good television. Whether it was entirely honest, in the sense of being consistent with the critical assessment of those he has hurt both personally and in his media role, remains to be seen. That call will be for historians to make after a couple of years have added the necessary perspective.
John Terris is National President for Media Matters in NZ, is a former TV producer and also former Labour (Opposition) spokesperson on Broadcasting.
