Fluff and journalism

Forums › Off topic › Fluff and journalism

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

512 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 177

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610193 11-Aug-2016 16:15

Government funding TV, radio and other media is pretty common worldwide. In NZ we have a good history of it too. I'd say if politics want to control media, then they will. No matter who funds it. You just have to look at the media in this country.

RNZ is the best proof that you can state fund without politics getting too much in the way (bar docking their portion because they are a pain in the proverbial to them).

I think government should be involved. Not because I actually like that scenario but because we can clearly see that private is a race to the bottom and govt funding seems to be the only way of (currently) preventing that or at least slowing the descent.

Netherlands, Germany and other countries have very good public TV and radio programmes that are not anywhere nearly as politically influenced as most private channels. It seems Britain is the exception with a very political BBC but I must admit i am in no way accross what's going onthere. Personally I'd be content with Radio, web and online TV. I wouldn't need a full fledged TV behemoth. And RNZ listener numbers show that there is a big market for what they offer. They are pretty much top spot on radio (and Govt chopping their funding is clearly politically motivated as you don't voluntarily hinder a winner).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1610205 11-Aug-2016 16:37

networkn:

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

I have no sense that you are not being serious. I am passionate in my beliefs and I support them to the best of my ability, but I am mainly a keyboard warrior. I like to think that raising public awareness through discussions like this is also a contribution, however modest. But to be honest, I just don't have the energy or drive to carry it much further. My hope is that I can help inspire someone else who does.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

bluedisk

226 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 39

#1610208 11-Aug-2016 16:40

"Countries that have popular, well-funded public service broadcasters encounter less rightwing extremism and corruption and have more press freedom, a report from the European Broadcasting Union has found."

We used to have a version of public service television, not so long ago and it was affordable. There's just no political will to fund this right now. Damn shame for democracy if you ask me.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/08/public-service-media-rightwing-extremism-ebu-psbs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

edit for typo

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1610210 11-Aug-2016 16:43

olivernz:

Government funding TV, radio and other media is pretty common worldwide. In NZ we have a good history of it too. I'd say if politics want to control media, then they will. No matter who funds it. You just have to look at the media in this country.

RNZ is the best proof that you can state fund without politics getting too much in the way (bar docking their portion because they are a pain in the proverbial to them).

I think government should be involved. Not because I actually like that scenario but because we can clearly see that private is a race to the bottom and govt funding seems to be the only way of (currently) preventing that or at least slowing the descent.

Netherlands, Germany and other countries have very good public TV and radio programmes that are not anywhere nearly as politically influenced as most private channels. It seems Britain is the exception with a very political BBC but I must admit i am in no way accross what's going onthere. Personally I'd be content with Radio, web and online TV. I wouldn't need a full fledged TV behemoth. And RNZ listener numbers show that there is a big market for what they offer. They are pretty much top spot on radio (and Govt chopping their funding is clearly politically motivated as you don't voluntarily hinder a winner).

Thanks for the support. I agree regarding RNZ. I also think that Internet TV has the potential to be a great leveller. We already have a couple of NZ sites. The right people, with a little funding from whatever source, could really shake things up here in medialand.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1610213 11-Aug-2016 16:48

Rikkitic:

Handle9: I really do have to call out the OP. He frequently talks about that he won't view advertising or pay for content as there is so much free content out there. Unfortunately this is the type of attitude which has made commercial journalism no longer viable.

To me this attitude is just bizarre but unfortunately it seems to have become the norm - I want great stuff for free and won't contribute to its production in any way.

I don't see the argument here. No-one is getting anything for free, or asking for it. I am just asking how quality content can be preserved and funded. There are different ways of paying for things. One way is to accept that something is so important that it warrants public funding. I don't think the pure commercial model works in this case.

I would be happy to pay some kind of tax for the content I want, but I don't think it should be hidden behind a paywall. The whole point of public broadcasting it that it should be available to everyone who wants to access it.

14:45

https://youtu.be/bq2_wSsDwkQ?t=885

"A big part of the blame for this industry's dire straights is on us, and our unwillingness to pay for the work journalists produce. We've just grown accustomed to getting our news for free and the longer we get something for free, the less willing we are to pay for it"

Isn't this exactly what you're proposing... you wan't it for free (tax funded) as you're unwilling to pay for it [yourself]

FWIW, I don't watch any sport, but wasn't calling sport watchers " knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes" -that was your highly emotive phrase- but simply people who don't necessarily love watching Doco's?

....Which presumably makes the neanderthals to you!

and then you have a signature for every post that says:

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

but expect people to change their own ideas to agree with you, based primarily on what you personally think is a better world?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1610227 11-Aug-2016 17:32

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Like everyone, I have things I believe in and ideas I espouse. Defending those is part of the debate (which is what this is). There is no obligation to agree with me or accept what I say. You make your points, I make mine, and eventually we either come to a point of agreement or we get tired of the discussion and go off to do something else. I do not think everyone has to agree with me but if you want to persuade me that my ideas are wrong or faulty, you need to come with a better argument. Otherwise what are we discussing?

As the part of my post that you quoted says, there are different ways of paying for things. One way is to watch commercials. Another way is through taxation. Or putting up a paywall, or bundling different paid services together as a form of subsidy. Once again, I am not looking for free news. I am looking for the most viable way of ensuring quality news. I want good journalism to be preserved and made available to all. I don’t care how it is paid for, as long as it works. I have been suggesting a way that works in other countries but I am open to other ideas. I don’t like paywalls for something like this, though, for reasons I hope I have made clear. Are there better ways to achieve this? I don’t know. I think so.

I apologise for the troglodyte comment if it offended you, but that is the logical extension of what you were saying. Just because people like one kind of content does not mean they cannot have any interest in another kind, or cannot have such an interest sparked by exposure. Most people who do not have completely closed minds are capable of having their curiosity aroused by accidentally encountering something they would never have chosen to explore. This is what being human is all about. It is something to be celebrated.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610295 11-Aug-2016 20:36

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

The change in economics due to the internet as far as media distribution is concerned has meant a change in model. Im not paying a tax to subsidise a new news service, but I would be happy to pay for a better news service, as it costs money to provide. We were all happy to buy a newspaper in the past but now we don't want to as its free in the internet, and the news service had to adapt to that free model, so they did.

Good point and that is why I think there has to be some form of public support to keep quality journalism alive in this changed economic climate. It is not always only about money, though some seem to think so. There are also other measures of value, and some matter a lot more.

Unfortunately it is about money. Yours, mine, Govt, or the news providers. They all need income to produce or consume. Thats todays reality.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610296 11-Aug-2016 20:39

networkn:

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

MikeB4:

Journalism, News services, publications are business ventures. The survival of these depends on their revenue from either cover charges (seldom covers the cost of distribution), paywall charges or advertising. Their ability to draw these revenues depends on their popularity,

like it or not what these organisations are publishing is what the vast majority of their readers/buyers want. The circulation and readership surveys that the advertising agencies etc receive, e.g McNairs reveal these metrics and the agencies and media organisations respond accordingly.

That is exactly it. The world has changed. What used to be goods that lasted for years and years, last much less, we run a disposable, short term lifestyle now. Same with TV programs, movies, its all hot today, gone tomorrow stuff in man cases, apart from a few gems.

This does mean that for every example I gave above, there is the rest of us, what the minority of their readers/buyers prefer

Gee, I'm a lemming. All those other lemmings are rushing over the cliff. Guess I better do that, too.

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?

Thats exactly it, thread can be closed now!.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610308 11-Aug-2016 20:46

Rikkitic:

PhantomNVD:

so lets put this in terms of Sky TV shall we?

Sports lovers (majority of customers) pay for the "Basic" package and effectively subsidise the Doco lovers content, is it fair to make people who love one thing subsidise something that the minority/niche market love but cant afford to pay for alone?

This is what you're asking the Govt to do for tour ideas of "quality journalism"

Alternately, do the sport lovers watch many Doco's because they have them available anyway? I seriously doubt Joe Blogs sport client watches even one a week, even though they are effectively "free" on his inflated Sports subscription!

Related back to Journalism.... how many Stuff readers would bother to also access an RNZ (tax subsidised "quality serious Journalism") site to "FREELY" read the quality journalism they have effectively subsidised?

In regard to the first point, this is one of the criticisms people have of Sky's 'bundling' policy and no, I don't think it is 'fair' in a commercial context, but I don't think that is relevant either, because fairness doesn't come into it. As people keep hammering on about, Sky is a commercial company in business to make a profit. They are entitled to do anything they like that is legal in pursuit of that profit. If they do things customers really hate, they will lose business and eventually go out of business as customers choose other options. That is how the free market works. It is not about perceptions of fairness, but about how far they can go in serving their own interests before people become sufficiently disenchanted to go elsewhere. This process gets distorted in a small market like New Zealand because there is no real competition, though that is now changing because of the Internet. But that is a different issue.

Public (interest) broadcasting cannot be compared to commercial pay TV. They are two completely different things. What justifies public funding is the understanding that the service being funded is not commercially viable but is sufficiently important to society that it warrants subsidising. This applies to libraries, rubbish collection, road maintenance, and many other essential services. The only argument is whether public service broadcasting and quality journalism are sufficiently important to be included in this group. I believe they are and that is what I am arguing for. That is why I think they should be paid for by public money if that is the only way to do it.

As far as your second point goes, I think it is a little harsh to suggest that sports-lovers and Stuff readers are such knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes that they would never, ever, for a moment, entertain any notion of actually being informed about something. That is more than a little arrogant and snobbish. In any case, the point is not whether any would make use of the facility, but that it is available if any wish to. There are plenty of taxpayers who never darken the doorway of a library, but no-one seriously suggests that libraries should not exist and be supported by public money.

The other point is that if services like RNZ were better funded, they might be able to make and present intelligent and uplifting programming that would better appeal to those outside their normal audience. The whole point of such programming is to make society and the people in it better. You can pander to the basest instincts of people and look on as they flush themselves out of existence, or you can raise their eyes to the prospect of a better world for themselves and their children. What on earth is wrong with that?

Museums and the fine art they contain, as well as other comparable cultural repositories, are accessible to any who wish to enter, not merely a self-selected elite. This is one of the truly great achievements of modern society. Hopefully some will be curious and venture inside. If the doors are closed they no longer have that choice. Serious journalism and news, like art and science and all the other lofty pursuits that separate us from monkeys, need to be supported by all of us because it is essential to a healthy society. Without an appreciation of these things we might as well go back to living in caves and watching teams of grunting men fight over a funny-shaped stone.

edit typo

First paragraph

There is real competition, in sport, think Golf, think EPL.

Second paragraph. Maybe. It depends on cost and on how many want the free subsidised service. You do, and thats good but do I want to pay extra taxes for you? Will you pay extra taxes for me to watch Formula 1 for free? Its up to the metrics to see what fits that model and if its subsidised or user pays

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610309 11-Aug-2016 20:48

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.

Sorry R but if NBR is a 100 per month and you want it funded? So instead of user pays, you want all people to pay so that your share is much less?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610311 11-Aug-2016 20:53

MikeB4:

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.

Yep thats bordering on socialism which is bordering on the C-ism word (not sure if FUG allows that word). Free, subsidy, Govt paying for it, same deal.

Geekzone

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610314 11-Aug-2016 21:00

PhantomNVD:

Rikkitic:

Handle9: I really do have to call out the OP. He frequently talks about that he won't view advertising or pay for content as there is so much free content out there. Unfortunately this is the type of attitude which has made commercial journalism no longer viable.

To me this attitude is just bizarre but unfortunately it seems to have become the norm - I want great stuff for free and won't contribute to its production in any way.

I don't see the argument here. No-one is getting anything for free, or asking for it. I am just asking how quality content can be preserved and funded. There are different ways of paying for things. One way is to accept that something is so important that it warrants public funding. I don't think the pure commercial model works in this case.

I would be happy to pay some kind of tax for the content I want, but I don't think it should be hidden behind a paywall. The whole point of public broadcasting it that it should be available to everyone who wants to access it.

14:45

https://youtu.be/bq2_wSsDwkQ?t=885

"A big part of the blame for this industry's dire straights is on us, and our unwillingness to pay for the work journalists produce. We've just grown accustomed to getting our news for free and the longer we get something for free, the less willing we are to pay for it"

Isn't this exactly what you're proposing... you wan't it for free (tax funded) as you're unwilling to pay for it [yourself]

FWIW, I don't watch any sport, but wasn't calling sport watchers " knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes" -that was your highly emotive phrase- but simply people who don't necessarily love watching Doco's?

....Which presumably makes the neanderthals to you!

and then you have a signature for every post that says:

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

but expect people to change their own ideas to agree with you, based primarily on what you personally think is a better world?

Well put. It doesnt matter what we believe in, and its not a matter of convincing the unconvincable, its about putting forward our arguments. There is no need to call/imply our argument opponents such names.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610316 11-Aug-2016 21:01

Rikkitic:

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Like everyone, I have things I believe in and ideas I espouse. Defending those is part of the debate (which is what this is). There is no obligation to agree with me or accept what I say. You make your points, I make mine, and eventually we either come to a point of agreement or we get tired of the discussion and go off to do something else. I do not think everyone has to agree with me but if you want to persuade me that my ideas are wrong or faulty, you need to come with a better argument. Otherwise what are we discussing?

As the part of my post that you quoted says, there are different ways of paying for things. One way is to watch commercials. Another way is through taxation. Or putting up a paywall, or bundling different paid services together as a form of subsidy. Once again, I am not looking for free news. I am looking for the most viable way of ensuring quality news. I want good journalism to be preserved and made available to all. I don’t care how it is paid for, as long as it works. I have been suggesting a way that works in other countries but I am open to other ideas. I don’t like paywalls for something like this, though, for reasons I hope I have made clear. Are there better ways to achieve this? I don’t know. I think so.

I apologise for the troglodyte comment if it offended you, but that is the logical extension of what you were saying. Just because people like one kind of content does not mean they cannot have any interest in another kind, or cannot have such an interest sparked by exposure. Most people who do not have completely closed minds are capable of having their curiosity aroused by accidentally encountering something they would never have chosen to explore. This is what being human is all about. It is something to be celebrated.

Bolded, I agree, but we need to stop calling people neanderthals when we don't agree.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16315

Lifetime subscriber

#1610339 11-Aug-2016 21:33

I often have a feeling that people are not actually reading my posts, or are just seizing on keywords and not getting the context. I never called anyone a Neanderthal. This is what I actually said:

'As far as your second point goes, I think it is a little harsh to suggest that sports-lovers and Stuff readers are such knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes that they would never, ever, for a moment, entertain any notion of actually being informed about something.'

Yes, I use colourful language but all I am saying is that it should not be assumed that sports lovers and Stuff readers have no interest in other, possibly more demanding subjects, just because they also happen to enjoy sports and they like reading Stuff. That is hardly the same thing.

In any case, I feel like I have said everything I have to say on this topic. Anything else is just repetition. If anyone has a question or comment about anything they think I have said, please check my postings here first. I'm sure you will find my response, but if you really do have a new point to make, feel free to make it and I will do my best to come up with a thoughtful and considered reply. If it is something I have already dealt with, though, I won't bother going into it again.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1610344 11-Aug-2016 21:45

Rikkitic:

I often have a feeling that people are not actually reading my posts, or are just seizing on keywords and not getting the context. I never called anyone a Neanderthal. This is what I actually said:

'As far as your second point goes, I think it is a little harsh to suggest that sports-lovers and Stuff readers are such knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes that they would never, ever, for a moment, entertain any notion of actually being informed about something.'

Yes, I use colourful language but all I am saying is that it should not be assumed that sports lovers and Stuff readers have no interest in other, possibly more demanding subjects, just because they also happen to enjoy sports and they like reading Stuff. That is hardly the same thing.

In any case, I feel like I have said everything I have to say on this topic. Anything else is just repetition. If anyone has a question or comment about anything they think I have said, please check my postings here first. I'm sure you will find my response, but if you really do have a new point to make, feel free to make it and I will do my best to come up with a thoughtful and considered reply. If it is something I have already dealt with, though, I won't bother going into it again.

I do enjoy your posts. Its an outlook, an idea, and while they often are not my beliefs, they are valued. I just feel that so often, emotiveness overtakes discussion. Inserting "knuckle-dragging Neanderthal troglodytes" doesn't really help a great deal.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5