The current state of the media in NZ in 2016

Forums › Off topic › The current state of the media in NZ in 2016

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660785 30-Oct-2016 09:03

MikeB4: We see many complaints here about the media so this site I don't believe is representative of the wider community. It is very easy to assume that ones own likes and dislikes are the same as the wider community. It could well be that the media is delivering what their audience what. These organisations spend a lot of time market researching and using the readership viewer data from the likes of AC Neilsons Mcnairs.

Never underestimate the dull mind of the average..

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660788 30-Oct-2016 09:36

TV 'news and current affairs' has become so abysmal that I have simply stopped watching. I miss the days of Paul Holmes and John Campbell, for all the faults that went with those. There was a moment of hope with TV 7, but then it was killed because the government (not me) didn't want to stump up $5 million to keep it going. Just think of all the pointless government-funded things that cost way more than $5 million that have come and gone since then (are you listening, flag referendum?).

Like others, I now get my NZ news from RNZ, which is the last bastion of publically available serious journalism in this country. But it is chronically underfunded and that limits what it can do. For the rest of my programming needs, I go overseas. I just can't stand the overcommercialised drek that is broadcast here.

I don't watch the pathetic drivel on either channel at 7 pm, but of course I looked at it in the beginning before turning away in disgust and I still catch glimpses from time to time. I loathe the brainless, boy-girl format where they ignore the viewers and turn to each other to spew their uninformed opinions on the matter at hand. I don't want to hear their opinions on anything. I want to know the facts. From other programmes I believe Duncan Garner, at least, is a capable, intelligent journalist, but he certainly isn't in this moronic role. It is shameful but I guess he has to feed his family.

On Friday I happened to see something about an upcoming item on Story in regard to the police action against the the euthansia supporters. This is a very serious, important issue that interests me a great deal, so I tuned in to see what they had to say about it. They spent about 30 seconds on the subject, mainly devoted to one brain-dead individual gabbling on about how much he loved the police, then they all dissolved into giggles and moved on to Max Key.

What a despicable display. This is giving the finger to everyone in the country. The morons responsible for this kind of crap should be taken out and shot, preferably after first being extensively tortured. There are no acceptable words to describe how this kind of utter sh!t makes me feel. Ashamed, maybe. Soiled.

In surprising contrast to that, our regional newspaper, which is another Herald product, has actually improved a lot, and the local election coverage in particular was very good, with lots of background information on all the candidates. It was like a breath of fresh air in the current media climate. I give the editor and staff full credit for this. The paper is Hawkes Bay Today.

[multiple edits for weird line break problem]

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

alasta

6703 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1660790 30-Oct-2016 09:39

I don't read Stuff because it is utter trash, but I often see friends sharing Stuff articles on Facebook and people reading it on the bus. There is clearly a captive audience for this low quality material, whereas I have reluctantly accepted that decent journalism is no longer commercially viable.

The other thing I have noticed a lot of lately is media outlets producing articles in which they have a go at their competitors. NZME seem to quite frequently publish material which attacks Mediaworks' personalities and products.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1660802 30-Oct-2016 10:14

Rikkitic, do you subscribe to the HBT or just read it online?

I like to read Stuff and Herald for some of the regional content. There are a few good articles in between all the celebrity type trash they wallow in.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660805 30-Oct-2016 10:32

We are subscribers. The on-line version is fairly generous, but of course it doesn't include everything that is in the print edition.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660814 30-Oct-2016 11:02

MikeB4: We see many complaints here about the media so this site I don't believe is representative of the wider community. It is very easy to assume that ones own likes and dislikes are the same as the wider community. It could well be that the media is delivering what their audience want. These organisations spend a lot of time market researching and using the readership viewer data from the likes of AC Neilsons Mcnairs.

I think that is very true. Factor in that there was generally one main newspaper, now the revenue from sales is zero, and the revenue from advertising is spread around a few newspaper websites. There are non newspaper websites such as MSN and Yahoo that offer news.

Everywhere we look there is infotainment. News sites are also infotainment.

If we had to pay $2-50 per day, or whatever a newspaper costs these days, then the online newspaper could well be on online newspaper and not an infotainment website.

But if we had to pay $2-50 per day to access the news website, the world will end. Everyone wants everything for free, people are too tight to pay $2-50 for a tablet or phone game. Too tight to pay a one off $2-95 for the MetService app. To pay $2-50 to access a real, news website each day will never happen. So, the technology that gives us so much is also responsible for the news service having to adapt.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660825 30-Oct-2016 11:43

We already pay for decent media, in a lot of different ways. This government just chooses to squander its revenues on irrelevancies.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660827 30-Oct-2016 11:57

Rikkitic:

We already pay for decent media, in a lot of different ways. This government just chooses to squander its revenues on irrelevancies.

What decent media are you referring to? And how do we pay?

What has the Govt got to do with it, they don't own all media outlets, and how they spend our money is up to them, which is up to us

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660829 30-Oct-2016 12:10

DarthKermit:

Rikkitic, do you subscribe to the HBT or just read it online?

I like to read Stuff and Herald for some of the regional content. There are a few good articles in between all the celebrity type trash they wallow in.

Thats the thing, the clickbait isn't news. So I ignore it, and read the news. Plus, there is a wealth of availability of news outlets, go to the ones that each of us prefer.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660842 30-Oct-2016 12:22

My phrasing may not have been clear enough. I meant we are giving money in the form of taxes that could and should be used to provide decent media, but is not. An example, and it is only one, is TV 7. That could have provided the basis for an excellent public broadcasting system for not much money. Even TV One fulfilled this role to some extent until the government freed it of any obligation to do anything other than generate revenue. We have NZ on Air funding, Maori TV, and other examples of subsidised broadcasting, so the principle is not unknown, it just isn't applied very well. My argument would be that public service broadcasting is one of the core values that government ought to be required to provide in a healthy democracy, as is done in Britain and Australia and elsewhere. Here commercialism rules, and we are the poorer for it.

Should everything be 'free'? Of course not, but public broadcasting is an essential good, like public transport. It is something I passionately believe in. The question asked in this thread is what we think of the current state of media here. My answer is I think it stinks. I think part of the reason it stinks is because our government has abrogated its responsibility to enable the populace to be well informed and to make informed decisions. And I do think that is a responsibility of good government.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660846 30-Oct-2016 12:37

Rikkitic:

My phrasing may not have been clear enough. I meant we are giving money in the form of taxes that could and should be used to provide decent media, but is not. An example, and it is only one, is TV 7. That could have provided the basis for an excellent public broadcasting system for not much money. Even TV One fulfilled this role to some extent until the government freed it of any obligation to do anything other than generate revenue. We have NZ on Air funding, Maori TV, and other examples of subsidised broadcasting, so the principle is not unknown, it just isn't applied very well. My argument would be that public service broadcasting is one of the core values that government ought to be required to provide in a healthy democracy, as is done in Britain and Australia and elsewhere. Here commercialism rules, and we are the poorer for it.

Should everything be 'free'? Of course not, but public broadcasting is an essential good, like public transport. It is something I passionately believe in. The question asked in this thread is what we think of the current state of media here. My answer is I think it stinks. I think part of the reason it stinks is because our government has abrogated its responsibility to enable the populace to be well informed and to make informed decisions. And I do think that is a responsibility of good government.

Very fair points. In the past, all TV and a lot of radio was Govt provided, so it certainly did have the responsibility to inform us. These days, the Govt funded TV and radio is a very small part of the overall coverage. NZ On Air, is really there to support local offerings, not the news. With so many news outlets, and the availability of overseas outlets, there doesnt seem to be a need to act in that space. Its already in place. yes, many say its crapola, but thats probably more a case of competition, and the internet ending pay options as in newspapers, so that shortfall is now taken up by infotainment. A newspaper page has ads, a webpage has ads and various dumber than dumb articles, but the website has many many categories, so IMO the news is there, it just needs filtering. or go to another service. I find CNN very good. Someone mentioned Fox. Fox? Fox is a political infotainment channel, its shocking. But thats comparing a serious well covered service with a fun, lighthearted, infotainment service, that clearly has many viewers.

End of the day, there is a lot of choice, so we need to seek out what suits us best. I don't see its the taxpayers role to add to that. Say they did, and created a really good news service. The taxpayers should not share that cost, it should be user pays. Few would use it IMHO. As everyone wants everything for free. (not referring to you, a general overview of how many act these days)

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660853 30-Oct-2016 13:12

I subscribe to the Times which is about $25 per month.

I want to know what is actually happening in the world rather than which Rugby player did what, which cat was up what tree in which two horse town no one cares about, or which person is winning a reality TV show...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660865 30-Oct-2016 13:25

I also look to overseas sites for real news, and fortunately there are several to choose from. The problem is the lack of good, critical, informative, investigative journalism here in NZ that is directly relevant to our lives. There is a huge vacuum that no-one is stepping up to fill. The best we have is RNZ, and they make a valiant effort, but much more is needed for a functioning democracy with an informed electorate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1660867 30-Oct-2016 13:26

There is some nz on air funding for news. There is a local news initiative underway:

http://www.nzonair.govt.nz/news/articles/new-regional-media-initiatives-a-new-outlet-for-quality-local-video-journalism/

It is spread thinly but may kickstart a few things and create lasting value perhaps.

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660874 30-Oct-2016 13:37

Rikkitic:

I also look to overseas sites for real news, and fortunately there are several to choose from. The problem is the lack of good, critical, informative, investigative journalism here in NZ that is directly relevant to our lives. There is a huge vacuum that no-one is stepping up to fill. The best we have is RNZ, and they make a valiant effort, but much more is needed for a functioning democracy with an informed electorate.

Not meaning to derail RNZ, but I had a quick gander at the website, took News option, the main headline is Mike Hoskings, another secondary headline is a fireman hurt rescuing a cat. Having said that, yes it does look quite good, no need to filter out who the worst dressed celebs are today. All news. I expect the other news sites have the same news, but riddled with "sponsored" content.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6