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

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1660876 30-Oct-2016 13:39

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.

I have added RNZ to Hot Sites on my Mac, tks for the comments re RNZ

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1660886 30-Oct-2016 14:33

Geektastic: 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...

Your heart will stop when you find out which ex Shortland Street star's best dressed cat of the week was rescued from a tree in Pongaroa!!!!

bluedisk

226 posts

Master Geek

#1660928 30-Oct-2016 15:03

mattwnz:

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are of the state of the media in NZ at the moment. I was pretty disappointed for example with local coverage of the council elections. Very few stories, mainly just token questions to people in the street about local issues. The Auckland elections were the only one really covered by TV. In the end the voter turnout was the lowest ever in many regions, and people were disengaged, and in my area the same old people got voted back in, possibly because they were known names. I don't think it is good for democracy, as you need a good strong media for democracy. My own local paper seems to have cut down their paper size, and where they once concentrated on the town, they now have very few local stories, and most are now republished stories from other town papers in the region. Their office is also closed most of the time. Online headings are also often not what they seem, they are designed to get clicks. There are also much local news that simply isn't reported on these days, such as good news and success stories.Rather stories tend to be quite negative, or are about 'celebrities'. Many are also opinions rather than impartial stories. I also find news stories are very dumbed down, especially on TV. I'm wondering whether other people think we are being well served by the media.

As someone who has worked extensively in the media as a cameraman since 1977 I feel like I can comment to this point. In the 70's and 80's TVNZ ran a half hour regional news bulletin each night in the four main centres after the "Network News".

These shows were very local and enormously popular due to them covering local stories that would not have made it to National News. Things we covered were local council meetings, local elections, celebrities coming to town, funny pisstake skits etc. This was also at a time when TV was a very important media, and it was common for the whole family to sit down to watch the evening news together. In 1989 TV3 arrived on the scene and these local news shows (The Mainland Touch, The South Tonight, Today Tonight and Top Half) were axed to make way for "Holmes". There was an outcry from the regions that all the local content would disappear, but TVNZ assured us otherwise. It was also the start of cost-cutting and penny pinching, cutting two person crews to one person and cutting the system of reporters having "specialty rounds". Over time the specialised reporters whose rounds were health, education, science and finance, they gradually dissappeared and then were expected to become generalists in all topics (except politics and sport). Some of this has changed back in the last few years when they realised it wasn't working.

Gradually over the years the audiences have become very fragmented in our TV small market making it harder and harder to fund news gathering as its fundamentally quite expensive to do properly. TV3 found this and so had to let go of most of its very stable newsroom last year. There were major differences between management and the newsroom with the end result being a complete clean out.

Celebrity gossip and hot trending topics on social media command prime news time now, so any local elections just wouldn't stand a chance. TVNZ aren't even keen on running part political broadcasts in election year as they don't rate and TVNZ doesn't see itself as the national broadcaster anymore.

We have the kind of broadcasting system that we have voted for. Those who cried nanny state interference over the Charter can feel happy that we now have a fully commercial, market responsive broadcaster with no public service mandate.

Stuff is no better, as they have cut their staff at the same time doing more tasks and more multi-skilling. Proof-reading and sub-editing seem like relics of a bygone era now.

It sounds good on paper but we bear witness to the net negative effect when we complain about local body elections not being covered.

Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all...

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1661028 30-Oct-2016 18:31

I'm not particularly keen on serious news reporting being dependent on government funding.

It makes the media too vulnerable to government pressure. It's quite hard to do this using regulatory methods. But, I suspect, much easier via the back-door, especially if the government appoints the board as well as controlling the funding.

It's OK to have some state provision. But we need something that is independent of state revenue and (direct or indirect) editorial control to keep it honest.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1661093 30-Oct-2016 21:26

JimmyH:

I'm not particularly keen on serious news reporting being dependent on government funding.

It makes the media too vulnerable to government pressure. It's quite hard to do this using regulatory methods. But, I suspect, much easier via the back-door, especially if the government appoints the board as well as controlling the funding.

It's OK to have some state provision. But we need something that is independent of state revenue and (direct or indirect) editorial control to keep it honest.

Oh dear.

Given that you seem to agree that it needs to be "funded", lets keep it "honest" by letting those with lots of money do the funding. That'll restore "balance". Brilliant.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1661136 30-Oct-2016 23:16

DarthKermit:

Geektastic: 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...

Your heart will stop when you find out which ex Shortland Street star's best dressed cat of the week was rescued from a tree in Pongaroa!!!!

Oooh! I really must find out! My life is sad and hopeless and a waste of carbon and oxygen, so this sort of thing is part of my core being!

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1661153 31-Oct-2016 07:34

This article in the Spinoff gives a fairly good summary of the issues. I do wonder if removal of the charter was a deliberate way for the government to reduce scrutiny. This government has been very cynical around the way it engages with the media. Ministers refused to appear on the likes of Campbell live or the old tvnz show. This contributed to their devolution into lifestyle tv as if politicians won't appear to debate issues then they need to fill the time with content.

http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/25-10-2016/one-weird-trick-to-help-fix-public-service-broadcasting-in-nz-sell-tvnz/

Edit fixed url as mobile editor doesn't do uris.

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1661186 31-Oct-2016 08:53

Good article. What it says is also pretty much what I believe, and I fully support the conclusion. We need a proper public TV broadcaster here, not another revenue-driven dumbed down spewer of fluff.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1661190 31-Oct-2016 09:00

Rikkitic:

Good article. What it says is also pretty much what I believe, and I fully support the conclusion. We need a proper public TV broadcaster here, not another revenue-driven dumbed down spewer of fluff.

If you mean a state run broadcaster then no thanks. It is not the role of government to run businesses.

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1661196 31-Oct-2016 09:06

Rikkitic:

Good article. What it says is also pretty much what I believe, and I fully support the conclusion. We need a proper public TV broadcaster here, not another revenue-driven dumbed down spewer of fluff.

We will then have a taxpayer loss driven, spewer of stuff driven by political agendas, and devoid of anything newsworthy that is not aligned with aforesaid political agendas

We want objective news, not biased news

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1661227 31-Oct-2016 09:20

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

Good article. What it says is also pretty much what I believe, and I fully support the conclusion. We need a proper public TV broadcaster here, not another revenue-driven dumbed down spewer of fluff.

If you mean a state run broadcaster then no thanks. It is not the role of government to run businesses.

It is government's job to run services though.

TVNZ/NZBC used to be a "service" not a "business".

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1661230 31-Oct-2016 09:26

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Good article. What it says is also pretty much what I believe, and I fully support the conclusion. We need a proper public TV broadcaster here, not another revenue-driven dumbed down spewer of fluff.

We will then have a taxpayer loss driven, spewer of stuff driven by political agendas, and devoid of anything newsworthy that is not aligned with aforesaid political agendas

We want objective news, not biased news

The private model will deliver you health news courtesy of British Alcohol and Tobacco, court news sponsored by Serco, environmental news courtesy of VW.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1661231 31-Oct-2016 09:27

I do not understand the objections to this idea. Having the government fund a broadcaster does not have to inevitably mean unwarranted political interference in the programming. There are ways to defend against that. Other countries, most notably the Netherlands, manage it quite well. Why are we so hopeless that we can't do that too?

The argument for government-funded public service broadcasting in the first place is the same as the argument for public transport, drinking water, libraries, and other essential services. The capitalist free enterprise competitive market model works well for many things, but it doesn't work well for some things. Not every value can be reduced to dollars and cents. With free enterprise broadcasting, you get the kind of lowest common denominator crap that currently pollutes our airwaves. Quality content is unfortunately not economic in this environment and cannot compete with the rubbish. To survive it needs to be supported by other means. It is accepted that people pay taxes to pay for essential services provided by the government that would not be economic otherwise. My argument is just that public broadcasting should be included as one of these essential services.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1661250 31-Oct-2016 09:57

Rikkitic:

I do not understand the objections to this idea. Having the government fund a broadcaster does not have to inevitably mean unwarranted political interference in the programming. There are ways to defend against that. Other countries, most notably the Netherlands, manage it quite well. Why are we so hopeless that we can't do that too?

The argument for government-funded public service broadcasting in the first place is the same as the argument for public transport, drinking water, libraries, and other essential services. The capitalist free enterprise competitive market model works well for many things, but it doesn't work well for some things. Not every value can be reduced to dollars and cents. With free enterprise broadcasting, you get the kind of lowest common denominator crap that currently pollutes our airwaves. Quality content is unfortunately not economic in this environment and cannot compete with the rubbish. To survive it needs to be supported by other means. It is accepted that people pay taxes to pay for essential services provided by the government that would not be economic otherwise. My argument is just that public broadcasting should be included as one of these essential services.

Providing water and waste water are utilities and a government function but can be and should be contracted. TV, Radio stations, transport are businesses and not a core function of government.

Remember you may not like the current media offerings but you are NOT all, the market research etc these organisations do will show what the majority wants.

SepticSceptic

2186 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1661261 31-Oct-2016 10:26

MikeB4:

Remember you may not like the current media offerings but you are NOT all, the market research etc these organisations do will show what the majority wants.

I sort of have a niggly feeling that these research organisations, or TV viewer stats, or something is not quite adding up right.

Ask a dozen people what they watch, or are interested in, and perhaps 1 , or at most 2, would say the Kardashisans, yet they rate consistently high in TV viewer stats and On line clicks ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6