It just happened to be one that supported my argument. I would have been typing all day to put everything in there.

You appear to be suggesting that the News would gain higher ratings if it was full of rugby results? Perhaps this is exactly what our TV stations should do. At least then people wouldn’t be mistakenly viewing News programmes under the mistaken belief that they were being informed of the most newsworthy events of the day.

Its not realistic to base ones views on a poll conducted by a television station. This type of poll involves only who happens to be watching at the time. It is important also to know how the question was couched and what programme the poll was conducted on to gain a better understanding of what these results really indicate.

I suggest a poll question couched “Would you like your news programmes to provide you with the most important happenings of the day in New Zealand or would you prefer to be provided with the latest corporate propaganda?” might gain a different outcome.

It is realistic to assume that those who switch on a News programmes are doing so with a desire to know what events of the most significance are occurring in the country for the day. It is a false conclusion to draw that because of one television poll that NZers who switch on News programs would be more interested in, say, rugby results than being informed that our ombudsman is concerned enough to give a warning regarding our Government’s activities in trying to bypass the official information act with regard to a number of the major issues that are currently topical in NZ.

The reason we have such fluffy news programmes is people just don’t seem to be interested (wider audience than this, it is abundantly clear that you are!).

I remember around the turn of the millenium TV1 ran a poll to find out what people thought was the worst thing to happen in the last 100 years. Believe it or not the loss to France in the rugby world cup rated as worse than the Tangiwai disaster… I don’t think things have got much better.

You’ll get no argument from me that people SHOULD be interested, but how do you force people to take it in?

You also misread what I was saying. I read Tanya’s response as closing the Ombudsmans office as being a very dangerous thing for the insurance sector. It isn’t even mentioned anywhere… I never suggested the chief ombudsman lied, I was questioning that it was a result of a funding change, maybe she thinks they have ALWAYS been underfunded.

I think it is you reading too much into the headline.
Perhaps the Ombudsman wants more funding, however she wouldn’t tell porkies in order to get them. It wouldn’t be worth losing her job over. Mr Key and Banks are clearly able to keep their jobs while providing honesty-challenged statements to the public, however I fail to think there are many public servants who would enjoy the same privilege; especially when they are speaking out against the corruption of this government.

The only report i have seen relaying this information is the Herald’s online version. I don’t know whether the online articles are printed or not? Other than that TV media don’t appear to see this as important information to relay.

The public “Just aren’t interested”?
I don’t think this information is uninteresting; certainly no less so than the murder investigation, road works and Dot.Com activities that were reported on the day this information came out.

There are certainly not many people in NZ whose best interests it serves to withhold this information.

What interests does it serve you in being an apologist for an unacceptable level of [non]reporting of important events?

I’m not sure I would consider the media under control of government, that’s a slightly extreme view (and I have seen Nats skewered in the media a couple of times lately, surely National didn’t plan that as a red herring).

Is it not more likely a function of the fact that people who would benefit from seeing the information and learning a bit more about how things are going just aren’t interested (thus show directors/editors react to show them what they want to see)?

The Press have had a big influence over the past 2 Elections in NZ, they buried Winston Peters prior to the 2008 Election and basically told voters that National was a done deal at the 2011 Election with 1.0 million people not voting.

The people that do not vote are generally from the lower socio economic sections of the economy.

New Zealand deserves what it gets.

One Track it is all very well blaming len Brown for Auckland’s housing problems however it was Jim Bolgers Asian investment schemes which is driving Auckland housing prices up and the Government tax breaks which are available to property investors.

Also the management of the Super City were selected via Magnum Consulting which has links to the National Party.