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.
I also dislike it, but mostly I think because there seems to be so much focus around simply repeating stuff people have said instead of critically evaluating and reporting on stuff with some domain expertise. (That's also about what this Taxpayer Union thing seems to be -- it seems very easy to get repeated verbatim these days by a media that's seeking out cheap and easy material to churn through with minimal oversight.)
Apart from the lack of soliciting the view, though, are those Twitter embeddings too different from vox pops? Radio and TV mediums have been doing that for ages, pointless as it might be.
Yeah, no worries. I'm also not trying to stand up for the journalist. More just expressing that I think they should be judged more on their work than on Twitter relationships that are largely characteristic for people in their roles.
mmmm twitter is a good fast indicator that there might be a story - but it has zero credibility.
Exception: If your story is that the President-Elect of the USA is continuing to act unprofessionally.
I just don't see how retweeting a popular earthquake photo posted by Jordan Williams should have much bearing on it either way.
Maybe you're right that some people will think that looks bad. But with similar logic they probably also think it's suspicious if a political journalist talks to the PM or the leader of the opposition (depending on their sympathies). Given the work they're doing it's unfair to hold that against them.
Not that this excuses regurgitating easily debunked Taxpayer Union rubbish as if it's newsworthy.
She’d probably come off looking a little better if she wasn’t following both the Taxpayers’ Union and Jordan William’s Twitter accounts and hadn’t retweeted him a couple of months ago.
I don't know much of journalist at all beyond this story, but that doesn't seem fair to me.
Surely many journalists would be following these organisations if they want to stay up-to-date with the crap-fest of statements (opinions may vary) that are being pushed out into the world, whether newsworthy or justified or not. Following someone on twitter doesn't imply agreeing with them or liking them, and of the 1,858 accounts she follows I'd be surprised if that has much to do with sympathy for many of them.
The only retweet I can see from Jordan Williams is this earthquake photo tweet from 14th November 2014 that was retweeted 177 times and favourited 133 times. Is there something else?
Main problems are pressure on often junior journos to file stories fast - and lax, unethical oversight from editors and publishers.
That combined with corporate PR divisions, certain lobby groups and "think tanks" like the TU having basically rearranged themselves for the express purpose of filling the gap and writing "news" for the journalists who are no longer well resourced to investigate and do it themselves. And if media doesn't publish it, just get your likely audience into a Facebook group and ensure they build most of their perspective directly from you.
Sometimes I agree with arguments that purpose-built think tanks produce. From time to time there's useful and robust research that wouldn't ever have been carried out without someone who wanted to prove something. But the fact that so much of it is now merely getting verbosely regurgitated without context or challenge, sometimes by media that's not even well equipped to understand what it's reporting on (besides 'he said she said') is worrying.
That "Ratepayers Report" collaboration between the Taxpayers Union and Fairfax in 2014 (now offline but here's a referencing article on Stuff and a TU press release) was disturbing to see from Fairfax.