Cracker: A Whale of a Tale
348 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
We're still pitifully served by the state television broadcaster, to say nothing of the only available newspapers, and that hurts us.
Giovanni is absolutely right. The state of "public discourse" in New Zealand is abysmal, and it hurts New Zealanders on every level. We're very much used to it by now, so it's like water for fish, but that doesn't make it any better.
-
It's not about indulding in crap in front of the telly - that's what Coronation Street is for.
Hey!
-
Sorry, you're right Martin. I meant crap in a good way. Should have referred to some crap I watch. How's ice hockey?
-
I don't friggin watch it. DC can think as he likes about PH. RB can too.It's a democracy isn't it?
You can't watch what isn't there.
Television and papers aren't a democracy. They exist not for the pleasure of their watchers, but for the pleasure of their advertisers.
-
Actually, until such time as everybody gets it, no.
But, but, but, choose to go elsewhere. Don't support it. Yes, small, young country with many boundaries to push, just a little slow maybe. I like to think that the digital channels are the beginnings of this, with the likes of RB and Damians "Backbenches" is also a first, with bringing politicians to the public.
I liken it to the days of the small selection of free range eggs. I paid more. I asked for them if they weren't in store and kept asking, then we saw more free range eggs hit the market and voila no longer have to ask.
Patience is a virtue,
possess it, if you can,
always in the women
seldom in the man
except for shopping eh? ;) -
How's ice hockey?
Not enough of it on TV. Funny you should mention hockey, though. I was just checking out the upcoming Flyers vs Blackhawks game on NHL Ice Time. Best iPhone app eva!.
-
Sorry George, I meant we people are supposed to be a democracy. Trying to understand all levels of humaness, of which no body is wrong in my book on here at this point. Yes about the advertisers too. :)
-
@Sofie.
Thank you. Thank you for saying these things. They resonate with my own thoughts, and prejudices.
-
I don't think this is the fault of individual journalists. I know journalists, and they work hard within the very considerable constraints they are given. The problem is structural.
And if there is one person in this country who I blame, it is Michael Cullen, who made the Government's decision that TVNZ's profits were more important than the public interest
Agree on both counts. And what frustrates me about media discussions in NZ - at least the one's I've had - is that they are underlied by this idea that it's the way things are and nothing can be done. As if deregulation was a naturally occurring phenomenon or something. There have been in fact precise political decisions made by actual politicians and it's not outlandish to think that the next Labour government - if enough pressure is put on it by the likes of, you know, us - could decide that the system needs changing. And it wouldn't actually make the world stop turning, or send the nation to the poorhouse because suddenly the news programmes produced by TVNZ produced less of a dividend. It's what happens in most countries.
-
to be honest we are probably ten election cycles away from the news being taken back to the state because the present system is set up for failure.
-
Patience is a virtue,
I admire in other people.
-
@Jeremy
How is the present system set up for failure? And how is success/failure measured, in this view?
-
I was just checking out the upcoming Flyers vs Blackhawks game on NHL Ice Time.
Er... upcoming? I think you may have been misinformed!
-
it's not outlandish to think that the next Labour government - if enough pressure is put on it by the likes of, you know, us - could decide
That's plenty outlandish. I don't think there is a single member of Parliament who wears red with the guts to stand up in a caucus meeting and fight that against whatever toads have risen to the top by the next time they form a Government. The membership of the NZLP would support it, but the NZLP is not a democracy.
Any change will be minimal. And that in turn will be in part because the public discourse on what are policies worth discussing and considering is so limited.
-
It assumes increasing revenues from advertising which isn't going to happen, in fact when broadband explodes here it will decimate the local t.v spend.
-
That's plenty outlandish.
Okay, you got me there. But it doesn't/shouldn't have to be.
-
It assumes increasing revenues from advertising which isn't going to happen, in fact when broadband explodes here it will decimate the local t.v spend.
Couldn't that mean we finally get RNZ but with pictures?
-
And what frustrates me about media discussions in NZ - at least the one's I've had - is that they are underlied by this idea that it's the way things are and nothing can be done. As if deregulation was a naturally occurring phenomenon or something.
Quite. Things are the way they are because of specific political choices that were made. Sure, the current state may be an unintended side-effect but it's certainly not an effect of
small, young country with many boundaries to push, just a little slow maybe
ETA:
Er... upcoming? I think you may have been misinformed!
Lol! This iPhone NHL Ice Time sucks!
-
That's not such an outrageous suggestion on a discussion thread.
Bullying? Depends on who you ask see.You can suggest all you like. Go for it. I don't sweat the small shit. My life depends on that.My curious mind however.....:)
Shit this moves along at a pace eh?
@ Marcus, jump on in, fresh ideas an' all. :) -
Yes Russell you pointed out how bad some of Paul Henry's behaviour was, inexcusable even. But then you did something very typical in New Zealand and in respect of workplace bullies. You said that sometimes he can be fun and you and Damian complimented his technical ability. Both of those things are commonly used to defend a bully's behaviour. It becomes OK to do the bad thing because the bully is somehow good in other ways.
But how on earth can you get "it's okay" from what we said?
Oddly enough, we were talking about this in at the radio show (I got Damian to re-enact the "cat's wee" sequence -- it really does not appear to have been bullying or anything like it) and Michelle A'Court, who takes no crap, volunteered that she found Henry a pleasant man to work with, as did I.
This wouldn't even be relevant, except that you seem determined to imagine an unalloyed monster. I've been very forthright in criticising him more than once -- the Media7 Dick-o-Meter was my idea -- but the idiot you see on screen is actually a person.
-
Taxpayers built the organisation. Whatever happens now would've been impossible without that.
How do you explain TV3 news successfully challenging TVNZ without a taxpayer funded monolith behind it?
-
but the idiot you see on screen is actually a person.
But why should we care? I mean I care when Damian says that he actually likes his work and his programme. But I neither have any difficulty believing that Paul Henry is a very affable person and fun to be around, nor do I find it relevant at all in relation to what he's allowed to get away with on the telly. Which I think is nothing short of scandalous.
"He's a talented broadcaster" and "he's fun to be around" seem to me to be red herrings. And do speak to the very, very low expectations that we seem to have with regard to his ilk. As if he wasn't getting paid gazillions and didn't occupy a very privileged position.
-
TV3 has a chequered history as market player.
from wiki,
TV3 failed to gain ground against a recently revitalised TVNZ and was placed into receivership on 2 May 1990.
TV3 badly needed investment during a climate of economic recession, the Government liberalised the rules on foreign ownership of television stations (lifting the 15 percent cap to 49 percent and later removing all restrictions), allowing TV3 to search for an investor overseas. In December 1991, CanWest took a 20 percent shareholding in TV3 and secured a management agreement allowing it full control to operate the station.
TV3’s audience share and advertising revenue steadily increased, leading to significant profits. TV3 also steadily increased its coverage of New Zealand, adding dozens of transmitters and translators, often with the assistance of New Zealand On Air.
-
Couldn't that mean we finally get RNZ but with pictures?
I think that's a more reasonable suggestion, and one that might be worth seeding in the minds of progressive politicians. Fund RNZ to allow them to provide a greater spectrum of formats, including "television". It already happens, to an extent, as all outlets try to increase their presence on the internet through sound, pictures, and words, no matter what they bill themselves as.
Thoughts?
-
3410,
How do you explain TV3 news successfully challenging TVNZ without a taxpayer funded monolith behind it?
Good point. Mainly, it's by having a much smaller budget.
Still, I think it's a fair call to say that today's TVNZ news operation stands on the shoulders of what came before. It's a hell of a lot easier to preserve momentum than it is to create it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.