Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 58230	2005-05-25 11:46:00	kim hill should retire	mark c (247)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
358363	2005-05-25 11:46:00	She's been great. Witty, incisive, revoutionary what ever you want but now it's time to retire. She must've made enough loot ( in that aspect of it ). Now it's time to give it a rest and not start being a media [deleted and subsituted with " opportunist worker"] lilke so many of them. Hacking about with the Lions Tour just confirms it. Time to go Kim, always love your fridge food handle........HTH............m	mark c (247)
358364	2005-05-25 12:19:00	When you say "She's been great. Witty, incisive, revoutionary" if you mean old, ugly and stupid, I would aggree it is time to get out of the media, even the radio, she is the dumbest interviewer I have seen since Paul Homes.	Rob99 (151)
358365	2005-05-25 20:50:00	Somehow I have difficulty with people like Kim and Paul, when a simple TV presenter becomes a "personality" by critisizing others, and in their own eyes are a bigger "personality" than the people they interview, and being paid megabucks for it, then there is something really wrong with society. What did these people really contribute to society? What did they achieve in life to earmark them for greatness? Nothing, but they dare to know better than the real people out there who do make a difference in our daily life. OK, someone has to ask the questions and probe into certain matters concerning us, but the way it is done all in a selfindulgent way gets to me. These highly paid "personalities" can easily be replaced by anyone who can read a teleprompter at a 10th of the salary (our tax money), and the same questions will be asked, without all the melodrama and personal crusades we have to endure.	BoboTheClown (5652)
358366	2005-05-25 22:36:00	When you say "She's been great. Witty, incisive, revoutionary" if you mean old, ugly and stupid, I would aggree it is time to get out of the media, even the radio, she is the dumbest interviewer I have seen since Paul Homes. Exactly! TV1's big mistake was to take this abrasive ugly sad discontented woman and put her on a prime interview spot. I just could not bear to watch her make a mess of the interviews! She was great 5 - 10 years ago on radio where we did not have to look at her sour unhappy wrinkled face. 'Long live' Linda Clarke, who took over from Kim Hill on National Radio. It is time for the likes of Susan Wood and Wendy Petri to take over. Hell, Paul Holmes isn't exactly pleasing to the eye but at least he has a cheeky grin and a few sparkles in his eyes, and John Campbell (in spite of the Corngate-Helen-screwup) is terrific. We are lucky here in NZ to have professional journalists who appear to also be decent human beings; I cannot recall their names, but we have some super men and women who front docs such as 20-20, Sunday and 60 Minutes.	Strommer (42)
358367	2005-05-25 22:44:00	These highly paid "personalities" can easily be replaced by anyone who can read a teleprompter at a 10th of the salary (our tax money), and the same questions will be asked, without all the melodrama and personal crusades we have to endure . Fair enough Bobo but I strongly disagree . I like and enjoy Kim Hill very much . IMHO she is the most intelligent and incisive interviewer we have in New Zealand . She has been described as a pirranah which is a little unkind but gives a sense of her ability to ask uncomfortable questions . However I guess most people only know Kim from TV . Unfortunately I don't think that is the right medium for her . Kim is far better on radio and I'd love to hear her back on Morning Report . I also doubt that she has made much money - a few years ago she was being paid $48,000 by Radio NZ, when TV people such as Holmes, Judy Bailey et al were earning $200,000+ . She is a very minor "personality" - because she doesn't look like a real estate agent or a model . Not a fan of Paul Holmes but his intelligence is undeniable . And his attraction is that he has flashes of brilliance with stories . As to the questions - these come from the interviewers and require strength of character to persist . I watched Simon Dallow last week beaten into embarrassed silence by Winston Peters . Kim would have ripped Peters to shreds .	Winston001 (3612)
358368	2005-05-25 22:49:00	Just on the subject of Paul Holmes, I started to watch him on Prime, just to see if he attended any Prime-financed interviewing classes. Guess not. Did anyone see his "interview" with Suzanne Paul? That was disgusting television. He was all over her when she was preparing that Maori venture, giving him a full tour of the premises; following behind her like a lost puppy, gushing about what a great idea it is & wishing her every success. When it failed, he tore her to shreds on Prime. It was obvious that his aim was to make her cry on TV, which she did only when she heard the messages of support from viewers. He just went on & on & on about her bankruptcy. Wouldn't leave the girl alone for a minute. I haven't watched him since.	Peterj116 (6762)
358369	2005-05-25 22:50:00	Exactly! TV1's big mistake was to take this abrasive ugly sad discontented woman and put her on a prime interview spot. I just could not bear to watch her make a mess of the interviews! She was great 5 - 10 years ago on radio where we did not have to look at her sour unhappy wrinkled face. A bit rough Steve :D but basically I agree. Linda Clarke has made a fair fist of Good Morning NZ but I still think Kim and Maggie Barrie were better.	Winston001 (3612)
358370	2005-05-25 23:00:00	Kim would have ripped Peters to shreds. Good point. We do in fact need pirranahs like Kim Hill, to take care of those ever so slippery slickers like Winston Peters (and Rob :eek: Muldoon). If she really only made a 'small' salary on Radio NZ, it is a shame. Morning Report presenters deserve more.	Strommer (42)
358371	2005-05-25 23:50:00	It is time for the likes of Susan Wood and Wendy Petri to take over. Hell, Paul Holmes isn't exactly pleasing to the eye but at least he has a cheeky grin and a few sparkles in his eyes, and John Campbell (in spite of the Corngate-Helen-screwup) is terrific. The best thing about Campbell Live is the fact Helen Clark will never be on it :thumbs: After all, she can't stand anyone not agreeing with her. :annoyed:	MartynC (5610)
358372	2005-05-25 23:57:00	How can you even compare Kim to Paul? Paul is a weak whiney toady using tearjerk senarios as his only method of gaining viewer attention. Kim is awesome, her interviews when she was on weekdays were fun to listen to. When she came out with Yerrrrssss..... it was like a lion stalking prey, you knew the victim in the other seat was in for a mauling. However that was her domain, ripping presumption and bloated egos to shreds. Now on the saturday slot she is more encouraged to massage egos to draw stories, its just not her. Take her back to her hunting ground, weekdays on Nat radio. (BTW does anyone else think that the "keep the bird" was nothing more than a publicity gaining exercise?)	netchicken (4843)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7