Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: NZ On Air and the bill that does bugger-all

29 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Dylan Reeve,

    It's fairly disingenuous (but entirely unsurprising) for Hosking to say of The Spinoff TV "they had never made TV before" - most of the people actually making the TV show had plenty of experience.

    It's a type and style of show that NZ has never really mastered, but we keep trying. Maybe next time?

    My biggest issue, especially in light of recent viewer behavior studies, with NZ On Air is that they're limited to free to air broadcasting only. If the goal is to help get NZ stories in front of NZ viewers, they're going to need to figure out how to champion our content on other platforms - some of which may not be free to the viewer.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Deep Blue,

    Mike Hosking offering his opinion on something thats pretty much insignificant, now that’s something you don’t see everyday.
    I’ll crawl back under my rock...

    Te Awamutu • Since Sep 2014 • 10 posts Report Reply

  • steve black,

    I've just landed in Queensland for a month and am getting back up to speed with media and politics here. Thank you for letting me know what mischief is going on at home. As soon as I turned on the tellie I was amused to see that the ABC is running a series of ads (well, promotions sensu stricto) on the value of public broadcasting including Sam Neill who waxes lyrical about the ABC.

    And a tiny typo: your show met its end, not met its and.

    sunny mt albert • Since Jan 2007 • 115 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Dylan Reeve,

    My biggest issue, especially in light of recent viewer behavior studies, with NZ On Air is that they’re limited to free to air broadcasting only. If the goal is to help get NZ stories in front of NZ viewers, they’re going to need to figure out how to champion our content on other platforms – some of which may not be free to the viewer.

    Yeah, that constraint needs to be examined. NZ On Air's strategy for new platforms has improved a lot in recent years (I think Brenda Leeuwenberg deserves a lot of credit), but that's a roadblock right there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22537 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    We've said it before, but the TPU has consistently refused to disclose its donors, while insisting on accountability for everyone else. Not unlike the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute on Planet Brexit.

    https://www.transparify.org/blog/2017/2/28/thinktanks-evidence-policy

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5385 posts Report Reply

  • LanceWiggs,

    Ahh - the "why are we funding Jono and Ben?" line.
    My normal response (and I am absolutely not a J&B fan) is to say should we have funded Billy T James? or (Nice one) Stu? The people throwing rocks will almost always remember these entertainers.

    NZ • Since Nov 2010 • 5 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Long before she became an obscure National MP, Melissa Lee was the presenter and producer of Asia Dynamic, and later Asia Down Under.

    In the 1990’s Asians were invisible on NZ television. Raybon Kan used to do a comedy routine complaining that he had to be a doctor because his one and only role model was Grace on Shortland St. But there was that one allocated slot for Melissa Lee’s programmes, on a Saturday or Sunday morning, when Asian communities could see themselves (and “Asian” was not just lazy shorthand for Chinese or Korean, but a range of ethnicities from across the continent, whether long-standing NZ families or recent arrivals). They had a few scoops too: once they featured an up-and-coming singer called Bic Runga.

    The programme had a small audience, certainly failing the Hosking Test. But its value was incalculable. Somebody had to be doing this first, and Melissa Lee was. It was, of course, funded by New Zealand on Air*.

    (the name has changed over time, but in short: by the taxpayers and broadcasting fee-payers)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1254 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Oh, this is timely: Duncan Greive has written a long and nerdy column on changing online metrics – basically, trusting Facebook was a mistake everyone made – and at the end offered some commentary on the fortunes of The Spinoff TV:

    There’s another set of numbers which it would be remiss of me to ignore, even though explaining is losing and all that: The Spinoff TV debuted on Three in mid-June, to some extremely excellent numbers: the highest in the timeslot in ages. Then it basically halved over a couple of weeks. Knowing why is a fool’s game, but a combination of intuition and focus groups suggests that it might be because it was very much a work-in-progress in its first few episodes.

    After four episodes it was moved an hour later, to 10.45pm, which is quite late. At which point, its ratings did what all shows do when they’re moved from 9.45pm to 10.45pm on a Friday – they tanked. This was extensively reported on by competing media, which is all in the game. (Four Mike’s Minutes is a lot though – maybe a record?)

    Since then we have bounced around in low numbers, not disastrous, fairly normal for late on a Friday.

    We know the show hasn’t been a smash on linear TV. Our forever antagonists The Taxpayer’s Union (to show just how excited they are about targeting a private organisation, check out exactly who they follow on Twitter) just put out yet another press release assailing the show, praising a National MP’s bill for greater accountability for NZ on Air under the admittedly pretty good headline “Spinoff TV Memorial Bill”. For what it’s worth, I would be heartily in favour of more metrics for publicly funded shows.

    That is, so long as it’s all the relevant metrics: The Spinoff TV was pitched as an internet-first show, with a compile for TV on a Friday. That we would place the clips ad free online as soon as they were done, with more made than we could put on the TV.

    The big idea was that we valued an online viewer as much as a TV viewer, and the proposal was adamant that a screen was a screen was a screen. The internet is the dominant media distribution channel for many under 40s, traditional media for most over 40s; yet the majority of government funding goes to shows that are first and foremost for linear television.

    And it does appear that their online metrics aren't too bad.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22537 posts Report Reply

  • peter payne,

    Who the fecking hell are the Taxpayers Union? I pay Tax, am I a member? I don't remember signing anything, or agreeing to their representing me - as a Taxpayer - on my behalf.

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Oh, this is timely

    Yes, damned good. Some of it's a mystery to me, since I don't rely on Facebook for anything at all. My social media is Twitter, and there ain't no algorithm deciding what news I read, apart from perhaps the way they fuxored the chronology of the timeline.

    I strongly resist the idea of letting an algorithm decide what news I get, without really being able to articulate why. I don't feel this way about other algorithmic recommendations, indeed they're pretty much the only way to usefully search TradeMe (their own engine is ridiculously bad), and obviously Google searches are, and have always been, algorithmic. But I my understanding of the world is very much through the prism of a social experience of it, shared discussion about what's going on and what it means, and passively having that curated by a bot puts me off. Not just in theory, but also in practice. Left to blind statistics, I'm just bombarded with stupid clickbait, probably because it works. So I don't seek it out, I seek to avoid it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10559 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to peter payne,

    are the Taxpayers Union

    it's a bunch of people who hate unions, hate taxes, and believe that government should be primarily accountable to right wing trolls. Oh, and they have no sense of humour which makes their name all the funnier. These days they're been rendered irrelevant by Trump, who satirises far right iggorence better than they could ever hope to.

    Politically they seem to be the less successful version of TOP, possibly because their funder isn't willing to stand up and defend their ideas in person.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1118 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    I really like Spinoff TV - particularly that it is fronted by two smart women and does actually mention the news. Unfortunately, when it began it clashed with Coronation Street (and there are many of us who need that on a Friday night) and is now on too late for me. I try and catch up with it later. But then I'm from a demographic that no one cares about so it doesn't matter what I watch or when.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3142 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    it's a bunch of people who hate unions, hate taxes,

    And likely taxpayers too, since their main modus operandi seems to be putting their words in our mouths

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2586 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    By the way I mentioned the Taxpayer's Union in my submission to a parliamentary select committee hearing on the Election Access Fund Bill. This Bill, developed by Mojo Mathers and taken on by Chloe Swarbrick, provides a specialised fund to support disabled people as candidates for general elections. It could fund essential support like NZSL interpreters or transport.

    But you can imagine how the Taxpayers Union would dig up information about individuals or organisations and make a trolling fuss. They once publicly objected to Mojo travelling to Masterton to talk on community radio. So the Bill needs to have safeguards against such attacks.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3142 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    They once publicly objected to Mojo travelling to Masterton to talk on community radio. So the Bill needs to have safeguards against such attacks.

    That was one of their earliest outings, from which they rapidly retreated with their trousers on fire.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4585 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Worth noting that NZ on Air helps with funds for Attitude TV - 11am on Sundays on TV1 and on Demand
    plus they have a website with many more stories and information.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7704 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    We don’t know all of it for sure, because NZ on Air only publish the numbers for their 10 most popular shows.

    I'm sure NZME - Mike's bosses or their ad agency - would have access to this Nielsen info so they can place tv ads - and I have to say I find that the closing shot of Mike Hosking in their tv ad is just quietly, quite disquieting...
    ...but Mike isn't a 'jounalist' is he definitely not an 'investigative anything!

    Given I am not a journalist I can, like most people, say what I like.

    (warning: Link contains Mike Hosking!)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7704 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    But then I’m from a demographic that no one cares about so it doesn’t matter what I watch or when.

    In commercial TV terms, this is certainly true. If you're not buying whiteware, they're not interested in you.

    That was real shame of the closure of TVNZ 7 – it disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of viewers outside commercial TV's narrow target demographics.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22537 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace, in reply to Russell Brown,

    But I do occasionally buy whiteware and am looking forward to having a regular income in the form of the National Superannuation Universal Basic Income (after years of irregularity of income), so will likely become more of a consumer.

    I do miss TVNZ7 - there were so many good programmes on it such as the democratisation of understanding of the justice system via the Court Report.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3142 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    warning: Link contains Mike

    I did not heed the warning. That is depressing reading. He cast's himself as some kind of eternal optimist in a world of snobs and elitist lefties. And does it all in a sneering tone the irony of which, would be totally lost on him it seems.
    He cant sink to new low's in the realm of self delusion because they have all been laid bare, for all to see, by the Prez of the USA.
    I dont want to draw to much inference from that, but such delusion seems to be clustered mainly in one demographic of the global population.

    Russell's well reasoned blog I'm certain will, in Hoskings case, fall on deaf ears

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1715 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to peter payne,

    Who the fecking hell are the Taxpayers Union?

    David Farrar, Jordan Williams and the usual suspects of dirty politics. They exist to raise phantom causes that National MPs can then cite and say "Look! There is Real Concern(tm) out there!"

    Quite why the media gives them the time of day is beyond me, though, although the political editor at the Herald, Audrey "my father was a National MP and so's my brother" Young's angle is easy to see from the dross that gets printed there.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2897 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    It's almost enough to make you doubt the good faith of the Taxpayers' Union.

    Comedy gold right there. You should try for that slot.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2897 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    The TPU is the official propaganda and net troll arm of the National Party of NZ.

    As in, set up by the people who do propaganda and net trolling for the National Party, run by relatives of National Party MPs, funded by the same people who fund the National Party, and constantly ranting and trolling about how things the National Party plans to cut in future budgets are terribly wasteful, along with of course, random personal attacks on anyone who opposes National Party policy, including troll-stalking people to get a reaction and then complaining to their boss about said reaction to try to get them fired.

    They get on Hosking because he votes National every day of the week.

    Since Nov 2006 • 597 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    In commercial TV terms, this is certainly true. If you're not buying whiteware, they're not interested in you.

    But even with commercial TV rating don't mean as much as people think. Very recent case in point -- The Big Bang Theory being cancelled while even re-runs are still absurdly popular. Very basically, everyone's contracts are up (and they'd be mad not to demand big bucks to re-up) while Jim Parsons has been hinting he wants to walk regardless.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12369 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    I am astonished anyone takes Mike Hosking seriously enough to make a post about anything he says.

    Mad Mike's Minute is aimed at a radio audience whose average age would be well north of 60 (much the same demographic range as the ill informed idiots who watch Fox News, whose average audience age is 65). No one takes him seriously except a bunch of angry pensioners and right wing trolls.

    His splenetic outbursts these days amount to little more than an extended sulk at the election result and a a never ending paean to privilege, all presented with a cringe worthy lack of self-awareness.

    He is a joke.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2197 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.