Cracker: A Whale of a Tale
348 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Could it be because there is no other outlet than the entirely misguided one of losing your rag at the first available journalist?
Other than the phone calls, emails, letters etc that we get on a daily basis?
-
In the sense the govt is seriously considering ways to cut RNZ's budget. They are critics with big teeth.
Yup, I know about that. It just seemed a stretch to characterise that as media criticism, still less the only criticism received by any media organisation.
-
Wow. You're actually getting quite offensive now.
So, does the fact that it's such a small industry not factor in at all? Could you, if you were so minded, go all out on Media7 in the manner that, say, Jon Stewart did on Crossfire? Or is the industry simply too closely knit for anyone to be able to do that? I wonder about that sometimes. I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.
-
Amen. Even when I check in at Air New Zealand, the woman behind the counter decides it's appropriate to tell me what bugs her (in this case it was someone calling the PM by his first name).
If we're going to get back to basics - I think TV news and current affairs could be improved in any number of ways. Adding a hundred million people to our population wouldn't hurt. If you want a service like the BBC offers it's going to cost about $10 billion per year, give or take.
And never ever tell a taxi driver.
Like I say. I'm never going to argue we are perfect. But there are a number of reasons the industry is the way it is.
-
Other than the phone calls, emails, letters etc that we get on a daily basis?
What good are those? Seriously.
-
To bring things back, I still one's judgment on the suckiness of Paul Henry or The Media might make the prank more satisfying, it doesn't give it a point.
Hm. Possible prank-rating criteria:
- audacity
- cleverness
- spectacle
- message
- target'Target' to maybe include hatedness but probably require an otherwise high status (technical term) individual to be embarrassed.
-
It just seemed a stretch to characterise that as media criticism, still less the only criticism received by any media organisation.
It's not criticism, it's an attack. That's why I called it an attack.
-
I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.
This is the first time I've ever talked about being a journalist here on PAS. But if you think for a second I am sitting at my desk quietly every day at work, and not questioning the powers that be? Well, Giovanni, you've met me. You can't possibly think that.
The path between my desk and the editors' is well-worn.
What good are those? Seriously.
Many of them? None at all. The ones that are telling us we got something wrong, are articulate and well-reasoned, are incredibly useful and do get noticed.
-
This is the first time I've ever talked about being a journalist here on PAS. But if you think for a second I am sitting at my desk quietly every day at work, and not questioning the powers that be? Well, Giovanni, you've met me. You can't possibly think that.
I meant publicly. I know for a fact that there are a lot of journalists who question their editors and their ownership, and who take personal professional risks doing so.
-
Yeah? I'm not very familiar with this criticism. I do know some people who work there are lefties. But I know a few of those at TVNZ too...
You obviously don't spend much time with righties, it's a favoured topic. And it was a few years ago now, but remember Deborah Coddington's 'report' into RNZ? My point is, no-one ever criticises any other organisation for being 'left wing', so it's not surprising that it's held up in PAS as being the 'only good one'.
See, I question that it's a budget issue. Does the TVNZ news arm have more or less money than the RNZ news arm? Okay, I get it has to produce pictures and that it's more expensive, but it also pays much higher salaries to its newsreaders
One is commercial. One isn't. Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.
but it does have , has had , large government assistence.We built it, trained its broadcasters and funded its programmes.
I don't understand this argument. Historically yes. These days the news and current affairs department is self-funding, that is, commercially funded. Not one of the broadcasters I see on TV these days other than Peter Williams received any training when it was Government funded. I'm not being deliberately vague here, I really don't see what your point is. You as a taxpayer do not pay for the news on TVNZ. Which, by all accounts, you should be pleased about.
...Anyway, I'm outta here, Russ and I have a radio show to do.
Last fucking time I blog about the media :)
-
One is commercial. One isn't. Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.
So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter of budget.
-
I meant publicly.
Right, so rather than doing what Megan suggests, and recognising vaid criticism, taking it on board and adapting to it - essentially bettering the medium - you'd just rather it was read out on air.
Why not just bring back the stocks?
-
Right, so rather than doing what Megan suggests, and recognising vaid criticism, taking it on board and adapting to it - essentially bettering the medium - you'd just rather it was read out on air.
Yes, uhm... that must be what I meant.
-
...Anyway, I'm outta here, Russ and I have a radio show to do.
Leave me all on my own why don't you??
Actually, I am off too. I'm done for the day and am gonna go and find a banker and ask him to go on public record explaining everything that is wrong with his industry.
It's how I like to spend my leisure time.
-
So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter of budget.
It's a matter of what would happen to the advertising budget it has if it broadcast stories the same way RNZ does. PAS people would love it, no doubt, but would it rate? How does RNZ rate against commercial radio? How does the ABC in Aussie rate against the other networks? Not well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_ratings_in_Australia
If it's commercial, then that's its driving force. Which is why the charter never worked properly, because it was trying to pull in another direction without sufficient carrot involved.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have an ABC, or an RNZ, but I'm saying this should be a criticism of Govt broadcasting policy, not the reporters who work for TVNZ.
-
3410,
Stop expecting TVNZ to be the BBC, until it receives $10b in funding, rather than returning a dividend to the taxpayer.
We - well, most of us - don't. As you say, the financials preclude it.
That said, news editors choose what international stories (from partner networks) make the cut. Is there any reason why an article about the resignation of Germany's president costs more than one about a goat up a tree in Lancashire?
You as a taxpayer do not pay for the news on TVNZ.
Taxpayers built the organisation. Whatever happens now would've been impossible without that.
-
I'm saying this should be a criticism of Govt broadcasting policy, not the reporters who work for TVNZ.
My criticism is not aimed at the reporters. But just to be clear, are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars and aim its bulletins at twelve year olds, and started to produce something closer to RNZ news and commentary but with pictures, it would be eaten alive by TV3 and produce a loss? Would not spending a lot less money help them make up for that loss in viewers? And are we sure that given that choice, people wouldn't in fact stay with TVNZ?
-
So, does the fact that it's such a small industry not factor in at all? Could you, if you were so minded, go all out on Media7 in the manner that, say, Jon Stewart did on Crossfire?
Which he did, like, once, and not on his own programme.
Tell me, Gio, do you go public with every thought, complaint or criticism you've ever had about the organisations you work within? Do you appreciate unfavourable generalisations about universities and people who work in them?
Many things about the modern news media drive me nuts. But I'm not going to waste every interview with an editor telling them how evil they are. It wouldn't be very useful. I wouldn't find out anything.
Or is the industry simply too closely knit for anyone to be able to do that? I wonder about that sometimes. I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.
Have you considered the further possibility that not everyone agrees with you on everything?
-
3410,
Would not spending a lot less money help them make up for that loss in viewers?
Sadly not. Advertising revenue rules.
-
3410,
I worry that there simply aren't enough employers available for anybody to meaningfully criticise anything and still get work.
I think that's true. When I worked at 3, no one bagged TVNZ much because they knew that, sooner or later, they'd probably end up there.
-
Tell me, Gio, do you go public with every thought, complaint or criticism you've ever had about the organisations you work within? Do you appreciate unfavourable generalisations about universities and people who work in them?
Are you kidding me? I'd LOVE for somebody to start to seriously criticise how universities are run in New Zealand. And one of the big issues about doing that historically has been the lack of independence of academics and humanities organisations with said universities.
Have you considered the further possibility that not everyone agrees with you on everything?
I have. But I don't think you do on this one. I think you don't think it would be useful telling an editor to his face that he's evil, and I get that.
-
Which he did, like, once, and not on his own programme.
Actually, on his programme he does it all the time, but I get that it's different.
-
My criticism is not aimed at the reporters. But just to be clear, are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars and aim its bulletins at twelve year olds, and started to produce something closer to RNZ news and commentary but with pictures, it would be eaten alive by TV3 and produce a loss?
There's something a little closer to that model -- which sounds like TVNZ, pre-deregulation -- in their 8pm bulletin if you have Freeview. A single newsreader who presents like a grown-up, less bells and whistles. For me, the glaring omission is the long-form, one-on-one interview that has been practised on TVNZ by the likes of Kim Hill, Ian Fraser and Brian Edwards historically.
-
Last fucking time I blog about the media :)
It was a good post, and a good discussion, for what it's worth.
Almost better than pay-per-view UFC.
-
A single newsreader who presents like a grown-up, less bells and whistles. For me, the glaring omission is the long-form, one-on-one interview that has been practised on TVNZ by the likes of Kim Hill, Ian Fraser and Brian Edwards historically.
Give me that on Channel One, one hour Media7s and we can start talking.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.