Interviews

Interviewer: Tonight we’re speaking with Broadcasting Minister, Tele Tubby.
Tubby: Thank you.
Interviewer: Tonight’s discussion is about the freezing of funding for Radio New Zealand.
Tubby: There needs to be more competition.
Interviewer:  Like a Stuff and Herald merger.
Tubby: Yes, the Commerce Commission is a real problem.
Interview: Some people think there’s a conspiracy to dumb down the news.
Tubby: We need to make the news accessible to the least common denominator.
Interviewer: And analysis of policy in New Zealand?
Tubby:  We don’t think it’s the place of publicly funded broadcasters to comment on government policy.
Interview: Do you think it’s anyone’s place to comment on government policy.
Tubby: That’s why we have corporate lobbyists and Mike Hoskings who happens to be a  very informed commentator on what’s happening in New Zealand..
Interviewer: So the open, impartial debate is…
Tubby: Not very good for our chances at the next election.
Interviewer: That’s hardly news, Ms Tubby.
Tubby: We’d prefer that there was no news at all.

Photo by Renée Johnson on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

Interviewer: Tonight we’re speaking with Prime Minister. John Coy.
Coy: Thank you.
Interviewer: Tonight’s discussion is on your election promise on roading.
Coy: Well, I had a bit of a close shave recently, and I realized that I need to fix the roads.
Interviewer: In 2008 you committed $12 billion to its urban motorway projects without having done the most basic analysis; and several of them turned out to be very poor value for money.
Coy: I drove on those roads and I can tell you that they need fixing.
Interviewer: So that was the extent of your analysis?
Coy: As a driver I’m completely informed about what needs fixing.
Interviewer: How come you need to divert money from assets, when New Zealanders have seen a 40 percent rise in petrol tax.
Coy: I was hoping kiwis would blame the oil companies.
Interviewer: So where did you get the money from to pay for the road upgrades?
Coy: We sold off a few things.
Interviewer: What did you sell?
Coy: We sold a few shares.
Interviewer: In what?
Coy: Relatively minor things that have no profit potential for New Zealanders.
Interviewer: Like what, prime minister?
Coy: Like Air New Zealand.
Interviewer: So you traded Air New Zealand to put some extra tar seal on roads. Isn’t that a bit like selling my superannuation to put new tires on my car?
Coy: It’s only 225 million. Just a small bit of superannuation.
Interviewer: So how much road does 225 million buy, given that you needed to spend 12 billion on the urban motorway projects?
Coy: About fourteen feet.
Interviewer: So that’s about two feet each on Otago, Canterbury, Northland, Gisborne, Taranaki and a foot on the rest.
Coy: New Zealand has more road per head than any other country. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Or a foot of road in our case.
Interviewer: Shouldn’t this funding having come from the petrol tax anyway, after all isn’t that what it’s for?
Coy: We have other uses for the petrol tax, our plan is to achieve a government surplus. We have to get the money from somewhere.
Interviewer: By adding 15c per litre onto the price of petrol.
Coy: People with cars can afford it.
Interviewer: There are many people on the minimum wage with cars.
Coy: They should be using public transport.
Interviewer: So you’re strategy behind the roads is in fact a con.
Coy: That’s not entirely fair. Our whole strategy behind the roads is to make people feel as if they’re getting something back, while actually taking it from them with the other hand.
Interviewer: Kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Coy: That’s why we’re in ministerial positions, because we understand these things. We call it the Peter Principle.
Interviewer: Rising to your level of competence. Thank you prime minister.
Coy: No. Thank you for driving.

Interviewer: Tonight we’re speaking with an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dr Justin Toogood. Good evening. Dr Toogood, it’s a pleasure to have you on the show.
Toogood: Thank you. Please just call me Just. Just Toogood.
Interviewer: Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs allowed a mid-level diplomat to return to Malaysia despite allegations of sexual assault. Why was this, Dr Toogood?
Toogood: It is important to preserve diplomatic relations with friendly nations, which is why we have the concept of diplomatic immunity.
Interviewer: Even if they get too friendly? Or even break into someone’s house with the intention of sexual assault.
Toogood: Diplomats must be free to perform their duties without threat of arrest, and have immunity from civil or criminal prosecution.
Interviewer: So sex crimes are all good.
Toogood: Yes, but we can’t fart in public. Diplomats do have their little foibles.
Interviewer: It seems they do. Here’s some recent foibles. In 2006 a diplomat was caught smoking on a plane and invoked diplomatic immunity. In 2008 a Mexican diplomat stole phones from the White House and invoked diplomatic immunity. Or the Libyan diplomat in London who opened fire on a crowd in London and killed a police officer, again with diplomatic immunity.
Toogood: He was kicked out of the country.
Interviewer: Are you a law unto yourselves.
Toogood: Well… Yes.
Interviewer: So back to New Zealand. It seems your intention was that this guy get off Scot free.
Toogood: We kicked him out of the country. In our world that’s like life in prison. Even so, it is possible however for the official’s home country to waive immunity, which is what happened here.
Interviewer: But this is an international incident, and we’re lead to believe that this is not the first time. You let the guy in despite his background
Toogood: Diplomatic affairs are difficult and complex. And good diplomatic officials are difficult to find. Diplomats need to support each other.
Interviewer: But does that mean you have to compromise principles of morality.
Toogood: The principle we serve is the good of the nation.
Interviewer: How is a matter like this good for the nation?
Toogood: It would have been good for the nation if no one had found out.
Interviewer: How can you honestly say that?
Toogood: Malaysia’s been having a difficult time with MH 307, and it was going to be a case of them owing us one.
Interviewer: Yet you failed to pass the information on to your superior.
Toogood: John Allen is not a diplomat. He’s a postman. What do postmen know about diplomacy?
Interviewer: So really it’s a case of professional elitism.
Toogood: I wouldn’t say we were elite, just better than other professions. We can’t have diplomatic affairs run by postmen, lawyers and bankers.
Interviewer: So, even the prime minister.
Toogood: Even the prime minister.
Interviewer: Well, now the diplomat is coming back to face trial.
Toogood: Given that it’s plastered all over the media. It is unlikely that he will go to trial. So it has all worked out for the best.
Interviewer: You people really are immune.

Interviewer: Tonight we have the rare privilege of interviewing Mr Sugarburger, founder of the popular social media site Disgrace Book. Good evening, Mr Sugarburger. Welcome to the show.
Sugarburger: Good evening. We’ll make sure it’s a pleasure to have watched me.
Interviewer: Tonight we’d like to discuss the psychological tests you performed on 700,000 users to manipulate their emotions.
Sugarburger: Oh, that was fun. There’s nothing wrong with research. We’re particularly in favour of all kinds of research.
Interviewer: Like animal research?
Sugarburger: Any kind of research as long as people keep joining DisgraceBook
Interviewer: Even research that deliberately cultivates anger in DisgraceBook users?
Sugarburger: We were not actually controlling what people feel. We don’t believe that’s possible. We’re just finding out how they respond to different kinds of content.
Interviewer: But you deliberately manipulated people’s newsfeeds to elicit positive and negative emotional responses.
Sugarburger: What people feel is their own business. We were just looking for what they posted on their friends news feeds.
Interviewer: So really what you’re trying to do is control people’s behavior by changing what they see.
Sugarburger: That’s not so unusual. All advertisers are trying to do that. We’re just a media company after all. Kind of like Fox. Tobacco companies used to try and make you feel cool by smoking their cigarettes. What’s the difference?
Interviewer: What about the criticism that you “failed to follow standard ethical protocols for human subject research.”
Sugarburger: We didn’t call it Ethics Book, did we? If media companies had to have ethics, what kind of a world would that be?
Interviewer: Perhaps you should have called it TwoFaceBook.
Sugarburger: We see ourselves as the tobacco company of online media. Just like tobacco companies use sugar to speed up the delivery of nicotine, we’re finding ways to speed improve the delivery of advertising messages.
Interviewer: Clay Johnson, the co-founder of Blue State Digital, the firm that built and managed Barack Obama’s online campaign for the presidency in 2008, wrote on Twitter: “Could the CIA incite revolution in Sudan by pressuring Facebook to promote discontent? Should that be legal? Could Mark Zuckerberg swing an election by promoting Upworthy posts two weeks beforehand? Should that be legal?”
Sugarburger: Honestly, we hadn’t thought of that, but now that you mention it. Hmmm. I wonder if we could create the next president.
Interviewer: Perhaps you could be next president.
Sugarburger: The president has too much power for my liking. I prefer to be a small player behind the scenes.
Interviewer: It’s been said that you’re the CIA’s puppet.
Sugarburger: Actually, we have no control over the people that the CIA are monitoring on Facebook. None at all. (laughter)
Interviewer: So are you going to continue your testing?
Sugarburger: Well, we have learned from Google.
Interviewer: What have you learned from Google
Sugarburger: The US Court of Appeals ruled that it’s illegal for a company to sniff out and collect private information from the Wi-Fi networks that provide Internet service to people at home.
Interviewer: So what’s different?
Sugarburger: We tell people that we’re collecting their data and they still use our site. (laughs)
Interviewer: Don’t you think what you’re doing is like the propaganda machine of Nazi Germany?
Sugarburger: Oh, Hitler had it completely wrong.
Interview: In what way?
Sugarburger: Hitler said “Tell a lie so collosal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
Interviewer: So how do you do it?
Sugarburger: All we have to do is re-arrange what people are saying in such a way that the people closest to them think they’re saying something different from what they truly are.
Interviewer: Small truths rearranged.
Sugarburger: Precisely.
Interviwer: Isn’t that tantamount to lying?
Sugarburger: Only little white lies. Harmless lies. Memes.

Interviewer: tonight we’ll be interviewing the Minister for the Environment, the Honorable Morticia Addams. Welcome to the show, Ms Addam
Morticia: It truly is a pleasure to be here.
Interviewer: Surely, the environment is one of the most important things facing any government today.
Morticia: It’s all a matter of perspective, dear. We have an election that’s much closer.
Interviewer: President Obama calls climate change one of the most significant challenges we face.
Morticia: Well it is. But we don’t have to face it as such.
Interviewer: What would you propose we do?
Morticia: What any Minister worth her salt would do.
Interviewer: And what’s that.
Morticia: Talk about the importance of it, but completely ignore and and set about winning an election.
Interviewer: What about the loss of homes, and livelihood? Millions of people around the world will be displaced?
Morticia: To our knowledge, no one in New Zealand has been displaced.
Interviewer: So the Kiribati man who’d lost his home due to rising sea levels had no effect on you?
Morticia: Honestly, my dear, we could see no damage being done to his human rights.
Interviewer: Surely being able to have somewhere to live is a basic human right.
Morticia: Homes are a vehicle for capital appreciation. Surely everyone knows that. If the Kiritbati man had invested wisely he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in today. It’s his fault really.
Interviewer: What about New Zealand’s marketing position as Pure New Zealand?
Morticia: That’s just marketing. Nothing the government actually takes seriously.
Interviewer: But won’t the government’s attitude to the environment actually affect New Zealand’s international image and consequently tourism?
Morticia: People don’t come here because they care about the environment. They come here to see Hobbiton.
Interviewer: Fair point. Climate scientists on the other hand say that we need to have to have moved to a low carbon economy by 2050.
Morticia: You seem to forget the most important point.
Interviewer: Which is?
Morticia: I’m a politician with an election to win.
Interviewer: According to the UN report in March this year, New Zealand is unprepared for sea level rises of half a metre by the end of the century that could turn 1-in-100 year flooding events into annual occurrences
Morticia: Well of course, we shall be putting new emphasis on the importance of adapting to climate change.
Interviewer: What emphasis might that be.
Morticia: Well, emphasis of course. We won’t actually be doing anything, just emphasizing the importance of it. We have more pressing economic issues right now that require actually doing something
Interviewer: And what might those be?
Morticia: Winning an election, silly.