Petition to get rid of Mike Hosking from Seven Sharp: A step in the wrong direction for freedom of speech?

Forums › Off topic › Petition to get rid of Mike Hosking from Seven Sharp: A step in the wrong direction for freedom of speech?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1578601 22-Jun-2016 19:03

16905 so far. Here it is:

Petition:

GET RID OF HOSKING.

[ It is our opinion ] TVNZ broadcaster Mike Hosking is an offensive and thoughtless media personality who continues to arrogantly and ignorantly disregard the struggles of everyday New Zealander's. Hosking's attitude and comments continuously cause offense, upset and disdain to reasonable and innocent people ; both viewers and non-viewers of TVNZ. Supporters of GET RID OF HOSKING expect that TVNZ acts as a responsible and mature public broadcaster and respects this request from thousands of New Zealanders - That is - We no longer wish to see or hear any more from Hosking on our TV screens.

This petition will be delivered to:

Minster of Broadcasting NZ Hon Amy Adams MP
TVNZ Kevin Kenrick CEO and Jeff Latch Director of Content
Broadcasting Standards Authority
ASB BANK Executive General Manager Marketing & Communications at ASB Roger Beaumont

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1578607 22-Jun-2016 19:22

The only one of those likely to have any effect at all is ASB.

I assume ASB is a cornerstone advertiser in the timeslot.

I can't see that number of people closing their accounts and transferring their mortgages over Mike Hosking but you never know I guess.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1578616 22-Jun-2016 19:41

gzt: The only one of those likely to have any effect at all is ASB.

I assume ASB is a cornerstone advertiser in the timeslot.

I can't see that number of people closing their accounts and transferring their mortgages over Mike Hosking but you never know I guess.

I did when they started wasting money on rugby.

alasta

6704 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1578617 22-Jun-2016 19:41

I have never seen or heard this Hosking guy so I don't have anything to say about him specifically, but are people really stupid enough to expect quality journalism from TVNZ? It has been wallowing in the sewer for at least 15 years now and it is only going to get worse now that advertising revenue is being increasingly diluted.

I say sell off TVNZ and increase funding to RadioNZ so that they can set up a public service television channel. Their experimentation with Checkpoint proves that they can do it - they just need the money.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1578618 22-Jun-2016 19:42

Under employment law is " a petition from the plebs " a reason for dismissing an employee?!

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1578622 22-Jun-2016 19:46

Journeyman:
MikeB4:

Journeyman:

markl:

I agree, except for the point that he's being paid to do that job by the taxpayer. Perhaps arguably people should be going after his employers, then, for both employing such a hateful person in the first place, and for wasting public money on that dross generally.

Once again, he doesn't get money from the taxpayer.

MikeB4:

Correct me if I am wrong but NZ on Air funding is applied by TVNZ and Media Works for News and Current Affairs programming.

You are wrong :)

markl:

TVNZ is no longer subject to a charter which might dictate it's behaviour on matters of "public good", but I'd argue that there is a case for the government, as the effective owner of TVNZ, to be asking questions as to the bias or otherwise of some of its presenters, and also to be questioning the merits of providing programming such as Seven Sharp, given that it is essentially a soapbox for a lone privileged, middle aged, white man who's morals are clearly non-existent to the point that he's happy to spew forth all sorts of vomitous crap for the highest bidder.

This in SPITE of the possibility that said paid-for televised chunky bits are making money.

The problem with that idea is that as soon as the government starts meddling with the news and current affairs of a broadcaster, they get accused of political interference. Helen Clark faced the same accusations from Ian Fraser when he was in charge of TVNZ. It's best if the government keeps its nose out of TVNZ's news decisions and let them go about their business.

The NZ on Air site gives the impression that they do provide funding for news and current affairs.

I had a look at their website and didn't see anything like that at all. Maybe you can show me what you were looking at?

Yes, NZ on Air do directly fund current affairs. One of the most recent series funded by them was a bunch of 3rd Degree episodes, subtitled with "Investigates", if I remember correctly. Of course, in line with the kinds of decisions you'd expect with sticking a money man in charge of a network, TV3 canned the programme and sacked the journalists making the show (many of them now employed by Fairfax).

alasta

6704 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1578623 22-Jun-2016 19:46

eracode:

I think you're right but there are more 'intellectual' alternatives available e.g. The National Programme - which has the advantage of being ad-free - but few people want to listen to it. Not the huddled masses anyway.

My understanding is that RNZ National has a very large audience, although it's hard to quantify because the main ratings surveys have historically excluded non commercial stations, but that is likely to change in the near future.

When I'm on the bus in the morning I can usually look down at the centre consoles of cars, and the majority of people have their radios on National. There's the odd one on The Breeze or Radio Live, but around here Morning Report seems to be the breakfast radio show of choice.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

alasta

6704 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1578624 22-Jun-2016 19:48

jonathan18:
Yes, NZ on Air do directly fund current affairs. One of the most recent series funded by them was a bunch of 3rd Degree episodes, subtitled with "Investigates", if I remember correctly. Of course, in line with the kinds of decisions you'd expect with sticking a money man in charge of a network, TV3 canned the programme and sacked the journalists making the show (many of them now employed by Fairfax).

Fortunately Weldon never got around to dumping The Nation, which has funding from the NZ On Air Platinum Fund. It's probably the only decent current affairs show left.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1578625 22-Jun-2016 19:54

nathan: How pathetic

Why is it that the left like to shutdown free speech. Who cares what a non-practicing barrister who divides his time between China & Wellington thinks.

How come there were no petitions for John Campbell to be taken off air?

Why should the Govt decide who is on air or not? The sooner the long suffering taxpayer sells TVNZ & RadioNZ the sooner they'll still be worth something.

I think Hosking is a smarmy prick. But he does ask hard questions and you just gave him a heap of free publicity.

No viewers = no ad revenue = no Hosking

Tbh, what has happened to TVNZ over the past few years, there's really no benefit to it remaining state owned, but there certainly is a place for true public broadcasting - and there was brief hope for that with TVNZ 6 and 7, which quickly got snuffed out.

But the idea of Radio NZ being sold off depresses me immensely. It is truly astounding what they manage to do, given they essentially have had a budget cut every year of the current government (no increase, not even inflation adjustment). To suggest that it would be a good call to sell off the last vestiges of public broadcasting is ideological claptrap.

Journeyman

1186 posts

Uber Geek

#1578629 22-Jun-2016 20:09

jonathan18:

Yes, NZ on Air do directly fund current affairs. One of the most recent series funded by them was a bunch of 3rd Degree episodes, subtitled with "Investigates", if I remember correctly. Of course, in line with the kinds of decisions you'd expect with sticking a money man in charge of a network, TV3 canned the programme and sacked the journalists making the show (many of them now employed by Fairfax).

They fund some current affairs. They don't fund Seven Sharp. They don't fund One News. Mike Hosking does not get paid by the taxpayer. This is a persistent myth that needs to die.

When 3D Investigates got NZ On Air funding, they got $567,420 in 2014 for 10x 30 minute episodes. It's on their funding decisions pages under the Documentary & Factual section of the Television page.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1578630 22-Jun-2016 20:14

Journeyman:

jonathan18:

Yes, NZ on Air do directly fund current affairs. One of the most recent series funded by them was a bunch of 3rd Degree episodes, subtitled with "Investigates", if I remember correctly. Of course, in line with the kinds of decisions you'd expect with sticking a money man in charge of a network, TV3 canned the programme and sacked the journalists making the show (many of them now employed by Fairfax).

They fund some current affairs. They don't fund Seven Sharp. They don't fund One News. Mike Hosking does not get paid by the taxpayer. This is a persistent myth that needs to die.

When 3D Investigates got NZ On Air funding, they got $567,420 in 2014 for 10x 30 minute episodes. It's on their funding decisions pages under the Documentary & Factual section of the Television page.

I never intimated that NZ on Air did fund Seven Sharp; I was simply pointing out that they do fund current affairs as a genre (which was disputed in the earlier post).

Journeyman

1186 posts

Uber Geek

#1578635 22-Jun-2016 20:21

I was disputing that One News or Seven Sharp gets govt funding. That's been my point all along and should be pretty obvious from the context of the conversation.

Whether a TV3 programme gets funding from a contestable fund is quite a bit different from this concept advanced by some that Mike Hosking gets paid by the taxpayer.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1578637 22-Jun-2016 20:26

Journeyman:

I was disputing that One News or Seven Sharp gets govt funding. That's been my point all along and should be pretty obvious from the context of the conversation.

Whether a TV3 programme gets funding from a contestable fund is quite a bit different from this concept advanced by some that Mike Hosking gets paid by the taxpayer.

You can make points without the bold lettering, its kind of rude and usually makes me ignore posts.

bluedisk

226 posts

Master Geek

#1578640 22-Jun-2016 20:31

A few observations about this topic.

The lefties run TV? Really... is Mike Hosking really a leftie with his high rating Seven Sharp programme? Is the former National Party candidate for Wairarapa Paul Henry a leftie? Probably not, yet they completely dominate the primetime "news shows" as well as commercial radio in the mornings. I think we can safely say that TV in NZ is not leftie at all, not even close. Put that one to bed.

The petition to sack Hosking is a demand from viewers of prime FTA TV to give them a fair go, sure its OK to have a Hosking or Henry on one channel, but what about an alternative to balance things out on the other?

Where's the balanced diet on the menu? Its like fish and chips on both channels.

We desperately need and deserve a far more varied diet, which only a public service news organisation can provide. Don't say we can't afford it, we can and did have this till relatively recently. Its a small price to pay for a healthy democracy.

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

Journeyman

1186 posts

Uber Geek

#1578641 22-Jun-2016 20:35

MikeB4:

Journeyman:

I was disputing that One News or Seven Sharp gets govt funding. That's been my point all along and should be pretty obvious from the context of the conversation.

Whether a TV3 programme gets funding from a contestable fund is quite a bit different from this concept advanced by some that Mike Hosking gets paid by the taxpayer.

You can make points without the bold lettering, its kind of rude and usually makes me ignore posts.

No, it's not rude at all. It's done for emphasis. I'll continue to use bold as and when I wish to, and you can ignore me as much as you wish to. Just don't start a petition to make me stop using bold.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9