Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Do these people even talk?

198 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • A S,

    I guess that would depend on how many business/tourism opportunities or jobs for Maori TVNZ is proposing on generating from their additional funding.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 269 posts Report

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    And here we are again - NZ getting rooted up the anal passage by international Rugby. Again!

    This is, of course, veering scarily close to the literal truth.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report

  • Richard Wain,

    I guess my confusion over this is: how come anyone still cares about people who don't have Sky watching any sport?

    Face it: Sky owns ALL the sport here, apart from some minor, minor motorsport, some of the netball and delayed NZ basketball (Breakers being live only on the Te Reo channel, in a massive case of dropping the ball from the otherwise excellent MTS).

    So why all the fuss? Bit late really surely...

    Since Nov 2006 • 155 posts Report

  • Paul Campbell,

    well we the taxpayers are fronting up $300m - you don't think we should get something for it? after spending that sort of dosh you think we should have to pay to see it on TV as well?

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report

  • johnno,

    I guess that would depend on how many business/tourism opportunities or jobs for Maori TVNZ is proposing on generating from their additional funding.

    Apparently that was one of the factors that influenced the Government's actions, according to Patrick Gower in today's Herald.

    TVNZ's involvement is necessary because it has the reach and numbers to hype up the tournament over the next two years and get people through the gates, with ticketing the only way the Government and Rugby Union can make money and stem losses.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 111 posts Report

  • Russell Brown,

    When TVNZ comes out and says thanks, but no thanks to the proposed additional cash to put their revised bid in, I'll happily agree with you.

    Why on earth should it? TVNZ has had to walk away from one major sporting event after another -- most recently the Commonwealth Games -- because it not only has to pay its way, but pay the government a dividend every year.

    It was MTS that brought public money into the bidding war, in a questionable way, and MTS CEO Jim Mather who refused to discuss a joint bid.

    All the news this morning seems to be running with Sharples, saying he's been shafted -- which he has. It might be useful to also look at his own woeful behaviour.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Why on earth should it?

    I've got to agree with Russell, here. Sure, ping TVNZ for their long and rather squalid history of citing "commercial confidentiality" when it comes to their use of tax-payer funds -- anyone remember the NZ Idol rort? But if the public purse is being (ab)used for people to indulge Murdoch wannabes, it's only fair everyone gets to play. :)

    All the news this morning seems to be running with Sharples, saying he's been shafted -- which he has. It might be useful to also look at his own woeful behaviour.

    Too fucking right. And with all due disrespect to Geoff Robinson, perhaps the media could stop letting Sharples get away with dog whistling racism. Sure, he's a little more subtle about it than Turia or Harawira, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    I know English and McCully don't exactly have fan clubs around here, but is it within the real of possibility that they (alone with Coleman and Te Heu Heu) are entitled to feel like they've had foreign objects jammed up their arses too? I think so, and Sharples shouldn't be allowed to walk away from that.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report

  • Russell Brown,

    Too fucking right. And with all due disrespect to Geoff Robinson, perhaps the media could stop letting Sharples get away with dog whistling racism. Sure, he's a little more subtle about it than Turia or Harawira, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    Robinson did really feed him lines rather than ask questions, I thought.

    Dare I say it, I know English and McCully don't exactly have fan clubs around here, but is it within the real of possibility that they (alone with Coleman and Te Heu Heu) are entitled to feel like they've had foreign objects jammed up their arses too?

    No so much Te Heuheu and Coleman. She's delegated Maori broadcasting, and she really needs to explain why she failed for so long to talk to English, who is (and this has gone missing from the reports) the other shareholding minister for Maori Television. And Coleman has been all over the place.

    But ... yes. I ... feel ... sorry ... for ...Murray McCully.

    I'm just going to have a lie-down now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Craig Ranapia,

    but pay the government a dividend every year.

    And on that score, do you think Coleman and Trevor Mallard would front up to Media 7 and give a straight answer to this straight question:

    If you're forcing TVNZ to fork over a hefty dividend, isn't it a wee bit disingenuous to be outraged when it acts in a commercial manner?

    I suspect the answer is "no, not really", but it might be worth the effort.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen,

    When I heard about TPK funding Maori TV to bid for the Rugby I wasn't impressed. It seemed a weird way to go about handing tax money to the IRB. As the story came out it was clear that some pretty shonky politics was involved but what can you expect from politicians.

    But at that point I think it should have ended, after a suitable dressing down of the politicians involved (Mr Sharples has demonstrated just what kind of a person he is).

    Instead now we have more tax money being handed to the IRB via TVNZ/TV3 and the excuses for doing it are pathetic. Given the watching of Rugby has declined dramatically over the past 10 years the fact that 10-15% of people can't get Maori TV is irrelevant. If you take into account the fraction of folks who even want to watch it then only may 3-4% of kiwis will be missing out on something they wanted. In short it was more political shonkery.

    So for my money (and it is my money) the only thing worse than using tax dollars to fund Maori TV to pay the IRB is to use my tax dollars (and yours) to fund TVNZ/TV3 to pay the IRB.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen,

    pay the government a dividend every year

    Does anyone else think this dividend stuff is a complete waste of money?

    Isn't National meant to be all about cutting back on wasted bureaucracy? Surely going through the accounting needed to take a dividend from a Government owned institute the gets most of it's money from the Government is a total waste of money.

    Of course it does keep more accountants employed - sigh.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • Tom Semmens,

    Just as an aside, I am increasingly finding that Morning Report is not really worth listening to.

    Geoff Robinson has been really, really poor lately, and seems to be getting worse. Memo to to Geoff: Ralda Familton style advertorials are twenty-five years out of date, and were only used for selling cosmetics on the morning ZB show anyway (which isn't a criticism of Ralda, her marvellous voice takes me instantly back to my early childhood).

    Sean Plukett's blustering and bullying is ever more frequently on display, with less and less lucid moments - his shouting down of Karl Anderson this morning but one example.

    I think Morning Report is well past its due by date in its current format and interviewers, and needs a good shake up.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report

  • Richard Aston,

    I think Morning Report is well past its due by date in its current format and interviewers, and needs a good shake up

    You could be right Tom but why don't Radio NZ have listener feedback on their site? The nat radio site has no interactive channel.
    If they did you could then express you dissatisfaction direct.
    I see Radio Live's site at least has a forum.

    Northland • Since Nov 2006 • 510 posts Report

  • Russell Brown,

    Isn't National meant to be all about cutting back on wasted bureaucracy? Surely going through the accounting needed to take a dividend from a Government owned institute the gets most of it's money from the Government is a total waste of money.

    Must correct you there. According to Treasury, government appropriations amount to about 5% of TVNZ's income.

    With the Charter removed, almost all of that in the current year is the $18 million to run and produce programming for the two digital channels, which stops in just over two years.

    TVNZ will get some of the contestable funding, but most of that goes to independent producers.

    By comparison, Maori TV gets $51 million in public funding. Which I don't have a problem with -- but it does show the vastly different situation of our two national broadcasters.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Kyle Matthews,

    And here we are again - NZ getting rooted up the anal passage by international Rugby. Again!

    I don't buy this. Any major sporting event will try and get as much money as possible out of broadcasting rights, sponsorship, etc. The fact that our two government owned broadcasters have decided to both reach into the public purse to outbid each other, probably ratcheting up the price as a result, is good for the IRB, but down to our incompetence rather than anything on the IRB's part.

    What else would you have them do? Give broadcast rights to NZ for free?

    But ... yes. I ... feel ... sorry ... for ...Murray McCully.

    Look on it as him owing us for fifteen things that he's done in the past. This doesn't come close to making up for it, you can drop the sympathy.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Tom Semmens,

    @Richard Aston: I don't think there is that much wrong with the format, and I am not a supporter of relying on a web feed of opinion for "news" as a substitute for journalists investigating stories, which is what such feeds inevitably become.

    I think the incessant repetition of the same stories is probably an outward sign of their lack of budget, but I would rather see the demise of, say, Concert FM than a further degredation of the only island of in depth news and current affairs left in our fair land.

    But maybe it is time for them to have a good look at both of their presenters. Mary Wilson and Brent Edwards would make a brilliant team on Morning Report IMHO.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report

  • Bart Janssen,

    Must correct you there. According to Treasury, government appropriations amount to about 5% of TVNZ's income.

    Wow I didn't realise they were so close to actually running in the black. And they definitely don't get most of their money from the government then.

    I'm still not happy about giving 19 million from one group of accountants and then taking back 1.47 million with another group of accountants. That seems pointless.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report

  • ScottY,

    Sean Plukett's blustering and bullying is ever more frequently on display, with less and less lucid moments - his shouting down of Karl Anderson this morning but one example.

    He was pretty rude to the woman from the teachers union this morning too, although she handled him pretty well. He is good when he is eviscerating two-faced politicians and their weasel words, but sometimes he comes across as a bully.

    I like Checkpoint's Mary Wilson. She's persistent without being rude.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Oliver Sealy,

    According to the Herald the government can only make money from this event from ticket sales. And given that MTS is non commercial, it's not that surprising that a national government would choose to back TVNZ who could/should be able to turn a profit from these free-to-air rights that would then be repaid to the government in their end of year dividend (possibly).

    I think the issue of public access has very little to do with ensuring tax payers rights, and is more about minimising the loss they're going to take from hosting this event.

    Auckland • Since Oct 2009 • 3 posts Report

  • Sacha,

    Plausible speculation about govt motivation:

    The Herald understands the Government's concern about Maori TV's coverage relates to fears about small crowds at the tournament, already expected to make a $40 million loss.

    The Government and Rugby Union can make money only from ticket sales, and are worried about how these would be affected without the hype TVNZ can generate.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Sacha,

    Snap. All about the money with these guys.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • simon g,

    Current All Hacks selections:

    First-five and goal-kicker: Audrey Young.

    Try-scorer on the left-wing: Gordon Campbell.

    Front row enforcer: Derek Fox.

    Keep it up, team!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1333 posts Report

  • Mark Graham,

    the fact that our two government owned broadcasters have decided to both reach into the public purse to outbid each other, probably ratcheting up the price as a result, is good for the IRB, but down to our incompetence rather than anything on the IRB's part.

    Quite right. I didn't mean to imply that the IRB was doing the rooting, so to speak, but it's really as if NZ is doing it to itself...sort of...not really... (the analogy is starting to fall apart but I hope you're following the line of thought).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 218 posts Report

  • Sacha,

    Something about an enema of the people..

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Gareth Ward,

    That ticket thing is out of their hands though - it's the IRB who's making the call here, based on competing commercial offers. That seems to get a bit lost in all this fuss really - for all the cries of "national interest" this and "coverage in Paihia" that, the IRB is going to choose based on who gives them the most moolahs and presumedly "maintains and encourages the brand" or some shit. It ain't our call.

    Although that is based on the fact that NZ has put up competing offers - a single MTS/TV3 bid would have taken the ball out of the IRB's court somewhat. Would they really have played hardball and said "no FTA coverage in the hosting country"?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.