Good point, Banquo's Ghost, but I believe that the distrust of the "respect" given to a political office is based on the very real fears of allowing an individual to become too powerful for the good of the people.
The influence of the mass media with politics is a complex one worthy of a long discussion in itself. The article in the opening post (admittedly from the same media that would have a very vested interest in the issue) however portrays this decision in a much less benign light. Stuff like "In 2005, TV3 had its cameras banned for a week after it showed then associate education minister David Benson-Pope sleeping" can arguably contribute to the public disillusionment with politicians in general; but surely the temporary ban they placed on something so petty is far worse in principle than the joke in it?
I agree that we like our media to grow up: a common sentiment among many org members, apart from an almost universal disillusionment and lowered expectations with our politicians that you pointed out, is a disillusionment of the media's meandering and sensationalized nature. However, the change will not come from giving Parliament power of the censors, it will only come if the majority of the news consumers decide that they want something else. The audience -- the people -- is a major influence on the media.
And of course, the media is a major influence on the people. It's a little bit of a tug-o-war.
It is also my opinion that there really never was a system where a truly effective meritocracy is in place. In a dictatorship the man with the toughest iron fist wins; in a democracy it is the most persuasive man who wins. It has always been up to Fortune to decide if the leaders in power are statesmen or total idiots. From that light, one could consider the cause of "finding smarter leaders" to be a futile one, and therefore concentrates himself on opposing said leaders from gaining too much power...power like having a stick to beat on the media. At least in a modern democracy we can laugh at the caricatures of King George without having to fight a war for that freedom to do so.
Bookmarks