Fluff and journalism

Forums › Off topic › Fluff and journalism

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1610143 11-Aug-2016 14:37

networkn:

Well if you aren't a lemming you will need to bear greater costs to have what the masses aren't interested in. Not only is proper investigative journalism more expensive, there are less people to share the cost (less popular) and therefore expect to be paying a LOT for it.

NBR for example is like $100 a month I think?

That is precisely why it needs to be publicly funded. See my other posts on the subject.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1610148 11-Aug-2016 14:51

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Well if you aren't a lemming you will need to bear greater costs to have what the masses aren't interested in. Not only is proper investigative journalism more expensive, there are less people to share the cost (less popular) and therefore expect to be paying a LOT for it.

NBR for example is like $100 a month I think?

That is precisely why it needs to be publicly funded. See my other posts on the subject.

The Government should not be involved, it is not a function of government to provide news services and it should never be the function of a government, news services should always be independent of central and local government.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610149 11-Aug-2016 14:52

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Well if you aren't a lemming you will need to bear greater costs to have what the masses aren't interested in. Not only is proper investigative journalism more expensive, there are less people to share the cost (less popular) and therefore expect to be paying a LOT for it.

NBR for example is like $100 a month I think?

That is precisely why it needs to be publicly funded. See my other posts on the subject.

The Government should not be involved, it is not a function of government to provide news services and it should never be the function of a government, news services should always be independent of central and local government.

Entirely ENTIRELY agree.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610150 11-Aug-2016 14:53

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Well if you aren't a lemming you will need to bear greater costs to have what the masses aren't interested in. Not only is proper investigative journalism more expensive, there are less people to share the cost (less popular) and therefore expect to be paying a LOT for it.

NBR for example is like $100 a month I think?

That is precisely why it needs to be publicly funded. See my other posts on the subject.

Given your obvious and loudly stated distrust of large organizations and Government, I am literally jaw open you'd suggest that :)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1610152 11-Aug-2016 14:55

I don't see why. Even our current government is capable of setting up a funding organisation that is beyond the reach of politics. Isn't that how they keep claiming they can't prevent the remuneration authority from raising their salaries?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610153 11-Aug-2016 14:58

Rikkitic:

I don't see why. Even our current government is capable of setting up a funding organisation that is beyond the reach of politics. Isn't that how they keep claiming they can't prevent the remuneration authority from raising their salaries?

How many people (including you, based on your obvious sceptism indicated by your using the word "claiming") would believe it was truly impartial? Not many.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1610156 11-Aug-2016 15:06

Rikkitic:

I don't see why. Even our current government is capable of setting up a funding organisation that is beyond the reach of politics. Isn't that how they keep claiming they can't prevent the remuneration authority from raising their salaries?

It is NOT a core or peripheral function of Government.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1610157 11-Aug-2016 15:08

This funding model does work quite well in other countries, specifically, the Netherlands. I don't see why New Zealand isn't capable of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610159 11-Aug-2016 15:10

Rikkitic:

This funding model does work quite well in other countries, specifically, the Netherlands. I don't see why New Zealand isn't capable of it.

Specific Example?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1610172 11-Aug-2016 15:31

networkn:

Rikkitic:

This funding model does work quite well in other countries, specifically, the Netherlands. I don't see why New Zealand isn't capable of it.

Specific Example?

Specific example is the Netherlands. I'm not sure of the current state of things because I haven't lived there for many years, but in the past the media have all been partially funded from public money. Newspapers are seen as an essential service and are subsidised without regard to their editorial content. That is how so many are able to survive in such a small country. The broadcasting system was originally all public service, based around broadcasting organisations that catered to specific interests. These were supported by subscribers and I believe they also received a government subsidy based on the number of subscribers. The subscription cost wasn't much, just a few dollars a year I think.

Under the pressure of pirate broadcasters in the 1960s and later, broadcasting was gradually opened up to commercial stations, both radio and TV, that did not receive any subsidies. Today both the commercial broadcasters and the public ones still exist. I am not certain what the current funding model is, though I assume the public broadcasters are still getting government support. From the beginning this was set up in a way that ensured editorial independence and prevented any kind of political interference. It is not that hard to do if there is a will.

Maybe it would be better to call it taxpayer-supported rather than government-funded. When the word government is used, everyone thinks of SOEs and bureaucratic inefficiency. As I understand it, the government has no involvement at all in Dutch broadcasting. It only acts as a conduit for funding. I do not see a problem with that. Surely we are not so hopelessly incompetent in this country that we would be incapable of achieving something similar?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610174 11-Aug-2016 15:34

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

This funding model does work quite well in other countries, specifically, the Netherlands. I don't see why New Zealand isn't capable of it.

Specific Example?

Specific example is the Netherlands. I'm not sure of the current state of things because I haven't lived there for many years, but in the past the media have all been partially funded from public money. Newspapers are seen as an essential service and are subsidised without regard to their editorial content. That is how so many are able to survive in such a small country. The broadcasting system was originally all public service, based around broadcasting organisations that catered to specific interests. These were supported by subscribers and I believe they also received a government subsidy based on the number of subscribers. The subscription cost wasn't much, just a few dollars a year I think.

Under the pressure of pirate broadcasters in the 1960s and later, broadcasting was gradually opened up to commercial stations, both radio and TV, that did not receive any subsidies. Today both the commercial broadcasters and the public ones still exist. I am not certain what the current funding model is, though I assume the public broadcasters are still getting government support. From the beginning this was set up in a way that ensured editorial independence and prevented any kind of political interference. It is not that hard to do if there is a will.

Maybe it would be better to call it taxpayer-supported rather than government-funded. When the word government is used, everyone thinks of SOEs and bureaucratic inefficiency. As I understand it, the government has no involvement at all in Dutch broadcasting. It only acts as a conduit for funding. I do not see a problem with that. Surely we are not so hopelessly incompetent in this country that we would be incapable of achieving something similar?

Ok, well I can see a few holes, but let's take it at face value. Have you spoken to your local MP? It would need a bill in parliament to proceed I believe.

Let me know how you get on.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1610175 11-Aug-2016 15:36

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

This funding model does work quite well in other countries, specifically, the Netherlands. I don't see why New Zealand isn't capable of it.

Specific Example?

Specific example is the Netherlands. I'm not sure of the current state of things because I haven't lived there for many years, but in the past the media have all been partially funded from public money. Newspapers are seen as an essential service and are subsidised without regard to their editorial content. That is how so many are able to survive in such a small country. The broadcasting system was originally all public service, based around broadcasting organisations that catered to specific interests. These were supported by subscribers and I believe they also received a government subsidy based on the number of subscribers. The subscription cost wasn't much, just a few dollars a year I think.

Under the pressure of pirate broadcasters in the 1960s and later, broadcasting was gradually opened up to commercial stations, both radio and TV, that did not receive any subsidies. Today both the commercial broadcasters and the public ones still exist. I am not certain what the current funding model is, though I assume the public broadcasters are still getting government support. From the beginning this was set up in a way that ensured editorial independence and prevented any kind of political interference. It is not that hard to do if there is a will.

Maybe it would be better to call it taxpayer-supported rather than government-funded. When the word government is used, everyone thinks of SOEs and bureaucratic inefficiency. As I understand it, the government has no involvement at all in Dutch broadcasting. It only acts as a conduit for funding. I do not see a problem with that. Surely we are not so hopelessly incompetent in this country that we would be incapable of achieving something similar?

In the past New Zealanders nearly had to get Government approval each time they went to the toilet. The Government controlled everything including what and when we could buy things, what to do with our money, provide mortgages (sometimes) they ran the radio and television stations, you name they controlled or ran it. It took a long time and a lot of pain to restructure the nation and to get government out of that stuff and concentrate on what they are really there for. They are not there to run or fund newspapers, radio stations, TV stations ......

If NZ went back down that track I would leave this country.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1610180 11-Aug-2016 15:53

Rikkitic:

... I think there has to be some form of public support to keep quality journalism alive

The problem is that whoever does the supporting has control of the journalism.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1610187 11-Aug-2016 16:06

Yes, yes and yes, but I don't see why it has to be that way. Also, I have some awareness of the Muldoon era and I certainly wouldn't want anything like that. But why does the one have to inevitably lead to the other? Maybe this country is so hopeless that it can't make something like that work, but I don't see why. It is just a matter of shifting your perspective a little. I did some checking up on the current state of things in Holland and while efforts have been and are being made to reform different aspects, the basic structure I described remains fundamentally the same. One thing I forgot to mention is that public broadcasting also gets some of its financing from commercials, but they are broadcast in groups between programmes (not during them) and they are handled by a separate organisation, so no programme is tied to any commercial and content cannot be influenced by commercial interests.

All I can say is it works there and Holland is not exactly a failed democracy. I cannot think of any reason why something like it would not also work here, except for the blinkered thinking of those determined not even to consider it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610192 11-Aug-2016 16:13

Rikkitic:

Yes, yes and yes, but I don't see why it has to be that way. Also, I have some awareness of the Muldoon era and I certainly wouldn't want anything like that. But why does the one have to inevitably lead to the other? Maybe this country is so hopeless that it can't make something like that work, but I don't see why. It is just a matter of shifting your perspective a little. I did some checking up on the current state of things in Holland and while efforts have been and are being made to reform different aspects, the basic structure I described remains fundamentally the same. One thing I forgot to mention is that public broadcasting also gets some of its financing from commercials, but they are broadcast in groups between programmes (not during them) and they are handled by a separate organisation, so no programme is tied to any commercial and content cannot be influenced by commercial interests.

All I can say is it works there and Holland is not exactly a failed democracy. I cannot think of any reason why something like it would not also work here, except for the blinkered thinking of those determined not even to consider it.

If it were as simple as you were making out, then lots of things would change very easily.

Changing the perception of %1 of the population of the country isn't that easy I'd argue, and regardless of any of that, it requires someone to step away from their keyboards or iPads and go and make it happen.

If you feel strongly, perhaps properly investigate it. (No I am not being sarcastic, nasty or disengenius). Seriously.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5