Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Awesome
4810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1062

Trusted
Subscriber

Reply # 1609779 10-Aug-2016 18:46
Send private message

sbiddle:

 

As a news junkie I dread 99% of what's "news" these days.

 

The problem however is that clickbait  stories drive traffic volumes and people love celebrity gossip. You can't really blame the media for focussing on such "news" when it's what the vast majority of people want.

 

Says the guy constantly posting links to stuff.co.nz





Twitter: ajobbins


4051 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 708

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1609800 10-Aug-2016 19:46
2 people support this post
Send private message

I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination but I accept that public broadcasting is now critically important because quality journalism is no longer commercially viable. My news requirements are satisfied by RNZ on the radio and web site, and by The Nation on TV on Sunday mornings. All of that is taxpayer funded and of high quality. 

 

TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster and is not capable of running a public service channel even if the funding were forthcoming. The money would be better spent to allow RNZ to increase their television content, similar to what they're already doing with Checkpoint.




Glurp
7970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3711

Subscriber

  Reply # 1609826 10-Aug-2016 20:23
2 people support this post
Send private message

alasta:

 

I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination but I accept that public broadcasting is now critically important because quality journalism is no longer commercially viable. My news requirements are satisfied by RNZ on the radio and web site, and by The Nation on TV on Sunday mornings. All of that is taxpayer funded and of high quality. 

 

TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster and is not capable of running a public service channel even if the funding were forthcoming. The money would be better spent to allow RNZ to increase their television content, similar to what they're already doing with Checkpoint.

 

 

Yay. Two of us. Anyone want to make it three?

 

 





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


1765 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 612

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1609828 10-Aug-2016 20:27
4 people support this post
Send private message

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.

Go Hawks!
877 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1609851 10-Aug-2016 21:24
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

alasta:

 

I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination but I accept that public broadcasting is now critically important because quality journalism is no longer commercially viable. My news requirements are satisfied by RNZ on the radio and web site, and by The Nation on TV on Sunday mornings. All of that is taxpayer funded and of high quality. 

 

TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster and is not capable of running a public service channel even if the funding were forthcoming. The money would be better spent to allow RNZ to increase their television content, similar to what they're already doing with Checkpoint.

 

 

Yay. Two of us. Anyone want to make it three?

 

 

 

 

Yup - I'll make three.


13186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2356

Trusted

  Reply # 1609877 10-Aug-2016 23:38
Send private message

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.

 

For sure.Its like a Woodstock, Ban the Bomb, Free Love mentality. Its not realistic, unless we get the Govt to own and support us for free. That type of model would eliminate large bully companies that provide little of interest to us.




Glurp
7970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3711

Subscriber

  Reply # 1609879 11-Aug-2016 00:02
Send private message

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 i that it should be available to everyone who wants to access it.

 

 





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


13186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2356

Trusted

  Reply # 1609881 11-Aug-2016 00:08
Send private message

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 i that it should be available to everyone who wants to access it.

 

 

 

 

Preserving quality content doesnt work as todays masses wants todays news formats and content. No point funding that if its effectively a niche market. User pays, paywall it, a few bucks a week and the journo's can settle down and write good content and video coverage. 95% of voters wont want to pay taxes for a niche news service. 

 

Think of the tax you are happy to pay as a paywall. others wont want to pay a tax for your news service though


21382 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4333

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1609882 11-Aug-2016 00:10
3 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Unfortunately, our myopic government and incompetent Minister of Broadcasting felt that the five million dollars this would have cost was better spent on things like a pointless flag referendum.

 

 

As soon as that argument comes out I kinda lose interest in anything else that has been said. The decision to cut it was a policy decision, The govt it not running a week to week household that has to cut one expense to pay for something else.

 

The govt simply decided that the funding of it did not match their policy. The dig at a flag referendum is meaningless. Its as absurd as those people that think that if there was not a flag referendum that a quantity of starving kids would have had meals.





Richard rich.ms



Glurp
7970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3711

Subscriber

  Reply # 1609995 11-Aug-2016 10:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

richms:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Unfortunately, our myopic government and incompetent Minister of Broadcasting felt that the five million dollars this would have cost was better spent on things like a pointless flag referendum.

 

 

As soon as that argument comes out I kinda lose interest in anything else that has been said. The decision to cut it was a policy decision, The govt it not running a week to week household that has to cut one expense to pay for something else.

 

The govt simply decided that the funding of it did not match their policy. The dig at a flag referendum is meaningless. Its as absurd as those people that think that if there was not a flag referendum that a quantity of starving kids would have had meals.

 

 

In that case the government has a crappy policy and criticism of that is legitimate. I understand that there is a limited amount of money available and it has to be allocated according to priority. But I think this government has got some of its priorities badly wrong. Apart from that, public broadcasting has a place in civilised society and it is an important one that should be supported. Nearly every other country, at least the ones we regard as 'western', recognises this. It does not belong behind an elitist paywall, though I would gladly pay for it. There needs to be something to balance the mindless rubbish. That is the mental equivalent of a fast food diet. Eventually it makes you sick and that applies to societies as well as individuals. This is what I believe.

 

 





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


13186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2356

Trusted

  Reply # 1610067 11-Aug-2016 12:23
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

richms:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Unfortunately, our myopic government and incompetent Minister of Broadcasting felt that the five million dollars this would have cost was better spent on things like a pointless flag referendum.

 

 

As soon as that argument comes out I kinda lose interest in anything else that has been said. The decision to cut it was a policy decision, The govt it not running a week to week household that has to cut one expense to pay for something else.

 

The govt simply decided that the funding of it did not match their policy. The dig at a flag referendum is meaningless. Its as absurd as those people that think that if there was not a flag referendum that a quantity of starving kids would have had meals.

 

 

In that case the government has a crappy policy and criticism of that is legitimate. I understand that there is a limited amount of money available and it has to be allocated according to priority. But I think this government has got some of its priorities badly wrong. Apart from that, public broadcasting has a place in civilised society and it is an important one that should be supported. Nearly every other country, at least the ones we regard as 'western', recognises this. It does not belong behind an elitist paywall, though I would gladly pay for it. There needs to be something to balance the mindless rubbish. That is the mental equivalent of a fast food diet. Eventually it makes you sick and that applies to societies as well as individuals. This is what I believe.

 

 

 

 

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. 




Glurp
7970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3711

Subscriber

  Reply # 1610079 11-Aug-2016 12:49
Send private message

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. 

 

 

 

 





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


2479 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 678


  Reply # 1610088 11-Aug-2016 13:24
Send private message

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 i that it should be available to everyone who wants to access it.

 

 

 

 

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?


17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1610098 11-Aug-2016 13:46
Send private message

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?

 

 




Glurp
7970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3711

Subscriber

  Reply # 1610141 11-Aug-2016 14:35
Send private message

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

 

 

 

 

 

 





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


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.