I don’t understand why a body like NZ On Air can’t replace the work that these public broadcasters do by funding appropriate shows.
A potential problem with piecemeal, show by show funding, is that it’s hard for talent to develop and expertise to build up. Such funding is inherently insecure and short term. It’s an issue in many sectors where the product is complex and cultural and improves with practice (see for example science funding).
The much greater problem, as Sacha notes above, is getting the programmes broadcast. Nothing can be funded without a broadcast commitment, and broadcasters won't commit to screening something, especially in prime time, that doesn't suit their commercial needs.
One effect of this is the shutting out of older viewers, who are of little interest to advertisers. They were the people most disenfranchised when TVNZ 7 closed down.
There actually is no substitute for a public broadcaster.
This just in from Mediaworks:
CLARIFICATION – Jono and Ben and Campbell Live
There is on-going speculation that the Jono and Ben show is being considered as a possible replacement for Campbell Live. This seems to be based on a fabrication by the Herald and has unfairly led to significant negativity towards Jono Pryor, Ben Boyce and the rest of the Jono and Ben team.
For the avoidance of doubt, MediaWorks Corporate Counsel, Alex Nicholson makes the following statement:
"The statement in John Drinnan’s articles in relation to the Jono and Ben show, which is attributed to “TV3 bosses”, is a complete fabrication and is not based on fact. Jono and Ben has never once been mentioned in any MediaWorks management forum, discussion or document as a possible replacement for Campbell Live. ”
You will note that statement comes from Mediaworks' corporate counsel .
Sounds like things are getting legal up in there.
Either it’s too far down the commercial path to fix, as opposed to starting from scratch.
Huge parts of that organisation are irrelevant to public broadcasting. Sell it, start from scratch.
How TV news used to be. Imagine sticking an ad break or sponsor’s message into this. From the day after the 10 April 1968 storm.
Let's be fair here. When the February earthquake struck, TV3's decision to just broadcast Hamish Clark unedited as he did the journalistic basics amid the shock and chaos was extraordinary – and Clark thoroughly deserved the Canon Media Award he won for his work that day.
By contrast, TVNZ decided to send down young, inexperienced "stars" who were completely overwhelmed.
I thought it was both. “What are the legitimate stories of genuine broad public inerest the other bastards aren’t telling, or telling well and in-depth?” Not only sounds like a good editorial imperative, but identifying a gap in the market you can fill.
The rest of the country had lost interest in Christchurch's problems. Campbell used to actually get complaints about doing so much on Christchurch.
I thought only live watching got counted in the stats they are quoting? Not delayed or on demand.
Nielsen measures live viewing (with a sample of 600 Peoplemeter households) and also time-shifted viewing, via a smaller panel.
On-demand viewing over the internet is measured separately by the broadcasters and third-party companies. But it's still typically a fraction of the broadcast audience.
Of course at its current value it would be relatively cheap to buy Mediaworks and turn TV3 into a state broadcaster, but maybe we should wait ’till it is really in the shit.
It would make more sense to sell TVNZ and use the money to set up a new public television service connected to Radio New Zealand.
TV3 do have a new nightly soap to fit in their schedule..
I think they're looking at that as a lead-in the the news. Losing Home & Away to TVNZ had a significant impact on 3 News.
I'd been wondering what the hell went on with those two terrible ratings nights in Campbell Live's 10th anniversary week.
Cricket World Cup semi-finals is what. Ah.
Without Campbell, who would know about the suffering and the struggles of people in post-eqnz Christchurch?
How can we quantify what it did for Chch people to be told “We haven’t forgotten you”?
That's probably CL's great example of putting editorial imperatives ahead of market sense. And good on them for that.