The only gripe I would have with RNZ is that while the likes of The Panel do at least feature opinions stretching the length and breadth of New Zealand
It that what The Panel is meant to be for? I thought it was just a space for Jim Mora's friends to express opinions on topics they often know nothing about.
Granted they've made some changes, like the One Quick Question bit, where someone who can actually explain something is often called in.
But it seems also intransigent and unable to provide such an ‘elegant solution’ as creating a left party outside Labour that could express its own personality, yet work so closely with it when required.
It causes me to think plenty about how the likes of Douglas and Prebble infiltrated NZ Labour in the 80s, despite having polar opposite ideologies from typical Labour policies. They weren't exactly going to get anywhere under Muldoon, and joining Labour was the only realistic option for getting into parliament at all. Never say never, I suppose, but under MMP things seem to have completely changed. It's no longer a two party system and so it's feasible to get into parliament without joining the only other party that has any hope whatsoever of replacing the government.
Does the UK have any realistic appetite for reviewing its electoral system? Or is it highly content with what it has?
It’s an odd thing to do because it takes more work. You have to estimate how many women are going to attend, in order to work out how many pink (not even kidding) loos you’re going to need.
I guess it's a diversion, but this clip from Upstart Crow made me laugh (from 10m:59s). :)
Do you think he helps Labour get elected, though? Unless Labour's actually forming a government, having someone who'd be an excellent Speaker doesn't seem like a priority to me. Voters seem to care about who might be PM, or in charge of the Finance portfolio, but as far as I can tell from the last few years, they don't seem to care much about the person who's controlling the House. There must be a plan for him not being available unexpectedly anyway, and in a room full of politicians is there really nobody who'd make a good substitute?
Also what's the advantage in being elected himself in order to mentor other new MPs? The Labour Party could presumably still keep him on a payroll somehow if that were needed, couldn't it?
I was really just meaning to use him as an example, and perhaps his continued candidacy is well worthwhile, but I'm struggling to see what the benefit is of keeping him on the list if it's going to deny the ability of someone else to establish themselves, and who'd be far more likely to be part of Labour's long term future.
Annette King has just resigned and Ardern the blessed successor..
I'll be interested to see how far Labour takes this.
I guess there are arguments on both sides around this around the value of experience, but especially after the last election with such a low Party vote, it really seemed as if some great potential young candidates were locked out while people such as Annette King and Trevor Mallard stuck around.
Even with Mallard retiring from his electorate, I see he's still planning to stay on the Labour List. Unless he's content with a low ranking, what would he hope to accomplish there besides taking up space that someone else might make better use of? It sounds as if he really likes being the Speaker, but if Labour were to actually form a government, surely it could find any number of adequate people for that.
I have noticed that English appears to be clumsily but probably successfully using some Trump techniques - today he dropped in some baseless comment about drug testing... the other day it was half a billion dollars for more coppers (because crime must be, like, out of control man). I recall that such methods are especially effective on older brains.
If he is then he's not pioneering the technique in his government. Key and several of his Ministers were doing plenty of that previously. The way he utterly spoke directly a the public through the centre of media during the 2014 election, when there were a series of highly critical (yet non-simple) questions about his conduct, is a prime example. So far many of those questions about him and his government have still gone unanswered, and they'll probably now be ignored because at the time when it mattered, enough people were convinced that everything was fine.
Politicians have probably been doing this to some degree for ages, but it's intensified. People don't need to rely on traditional media for their info any more, because they can so easily subscribe to politicians and their apologists directly. Are your views challenged? No problem -- just fund someone to explain to you why you're right. Hell, find a support group of like-minded people and you'll never need to challenge your views again. Concerned about water? Fed Farmers will agree with you that dairy farming's environmentally okay. Forest & Bird will agree with you that it isn't. To get the reasoning of either is trivial.
Conway was rightfully mocked when she justified Spicer's lies in January by calling them "alternative facts", but to appreciate the mocking it's necessary to realise that the entire concept of an "alternative fact" is stupid. Not everyone realises that, so for many people, as long as they're hearing the term "alternative fact", it creates an excuse to believe something which they might desperately want to believe, even though it's an outright lie.
Territorial content licensing restrictions could be a big part of that, I imagine.
Yes, I guess so. RNZ tends to produce much of its own content whereas TVNZ, except maybe for journalism, seems to sub-contract production of much of its content to other parties... or simply buy things.
It's really getting back towards my final sentence of that comment though, regarding comparison between TVNZ and RNZ.
They used to be clearly distinctive by the presence of pictures (or not), but if Radio New Zealand starts producing lots of local video content in line with its adaptation to new mediums, as it seems to be leaning towards doing, then what's the real difference between Radio New Zealand and what so many people seem to want TVNZ to be?
Maybe there is some sense in ditching TVNZ, and instead focusing on funding RNZ to expand what it's already doing to make even more of its locally focused content, and to make it more accessible and available to people regardless of how they want to access it.
The meta-ness of prison rape jokes being funded by a Government entity and broadcast on a Government owned TV channel
I agree. I cringe every time I see or hear people joking about prison rape. In this day and age it shouldn't be normalised as acceptable, and it's worrying that that type of tone could make it into such a recently produced show, let alone one that's targeted at a young audience.
*Put hand up*. Same here. The change of media landscape driven by technology needs to be factored in when it comes to what to do with TVNZ.
Me too. I get that broadcast TV is still a thing for many people, but with respect I wonder if Dylan's assessment skipped around that there are apparently increasing portions of society who simply don't tune into the traditional format of television. What's the role of public broadcasting when large numbers of people don't access it, nor necessarily even realise it's there? ...not necessarily because they actively choose to watch alternatives, but because it doesn't fit with how they live their lives.
I still do watch broadcast TV, and I want good and high quality programmes to be made which are relevant to New Zealand, but I'm finding that sitting down at specific times to stare at a screen works less and less. I know TVNZ OnDemand is there, but (unlike RNZ where I often catch up on stuff I missed) I've noticed I'm also almost never going there to catch up on what was broadcast previously.
Only introspectively, the reasons for that often seem to be little things. For example, despite now having an unlimited internet plan (which was previously a barrier), we'd probably watch much more of TVNZ OnDemand if it actually offered good support for Chromecasting. But, aside from a really clunky generic method which most devices we have aren't powerful enough to handle nicely, it doesn't. For reasons I can't totally place, there also just doesn't seem to be an obvious way I've found to actually keep it in front of me where I see stuff and know it's there to watch.
RNZ is an interesting case IMO, because they have evolved with technology, and they have a wide variety of programmes. Not glossy TV programme with fancy graphics.
RNZ's awesome. I listen to it a lot, almost entirely streaming. I also very rarely go specifically to RNZ to listen to it, and yet I don't think I miss out, which for me seems to be a big difference between how I consume RNZ versus TVNZ. Maybe I'll go to the app or the website if I missed the news bulletin and want to hear it 15 minutes later (RNZ makes it really easy to do this... which is good because its news gets straight to the point without being so strung out and sensationalist!), or want to look up a programme I missed or saw referenced & recommended. Maybe I'll open YouTube if Checkpoint's talking about some video content that sounds interesting. Most of the time in my case, though, I just don't go directly to RNZ to listen to it. It sits alongside a bunch of other streaming radio stations which I organise through a third party tunein.com service.
TVNZ just doesn't seem to make its visible and available the way RNZ does. It's probably arrogant to assume that exactly what suits me would suit the whole demographic of people who don't watch broadcast TV, but more generally I wonder if accessibility is a big thing that needs to be worked on. Also, these days what's the distinction between a public TV broadcaster and a public radio broadcaster?
I wouldn't say this index is "stupid", but I always thought TI's report is pretty much a PR exercise because it is a PERCEPTION index, not a measure of actual corruption.
From past surveys I was sure I'd read somewhere that it was built from journalists' input and perceptions, which must be a false memory or maybe a different survey. Reading down Graeme's list, it (NZ's rating at least) seems to be far more weighted by perceptions of business leaders and executives, economists and other consulting firms whose primary clients are businesses.
This doesn't make it meaningless and ability to do business in a country isn't a useless metric for transparency, but it does (to me) seem more consistent with how the index might reach conclusions which seem at odds with a government's general conduct towards its people. eg. All the Dirty Politics stuff wasn't necessarily 'bad for business' as long as you were on the right side of it, and this current government and its senior Ministers have a strong emphasis on meeting with and listening to business lobbyists.