He is too scared to answer a question relating to a decision of a Cabinet committee he chaired – the appointment of his own electorate chair.
He knows there is a lot more to come out about this guys grubby work and he is trying to keep his distance.
Making his very junior Minister take the heat. Hardly fair really.
Paid the PM salary – should do the job.
This morning, this is what David Farrar blogged on the US SOPA Bill which was blocked by Obama:
My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.
Earlier this morning he was on Radio NZ commenting (in his role as right wing commentator) on the NZ on Air fiasco saying it is:
”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.
So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.
But we mustn’t censor the internet. According to Farrar.
Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign. If the issue was lack of balance, then there are places to complain. The BSA and the Electoral Commission. That’s what should have happened.
NZ on Air should never have got involved in the issue. That they did, appears to be because of inappropriate politically motivated pressure.
Suggestions that publicly funded programmes should not be aired during an election campaign reveal serious cracks in our democratic process and must be resisted.
I meant to write about this a few days ago.
US comedian Louis CK (I hadn’t heard of him, but he seems pretty popular) decided to produce a good version of his latest live show and make it available online for $5.
Nek Minnit (well 12 days later) he made $1 million.
Comedian Louis CK has proved a point: People are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for DRM-free content from a performer they love, even though it would be trivial for them to pirate the same content for free.
Twelve days ago, Louis CK decided to skip the distribution, DRM, ads and everything else that goes into marketing and sale of a video, and simply offer the video of his latest performance on his website for $US5.
It took four days for Louis to earn $US200,000, and another 8 days to earn a whopping $US1 million.
It blows out the water the view that content has to be locked up with laws to enforce it because too many people will only steal it. In fact people will pay money to get access to new content. If the price is right and the product is what they want.
Louis CK posted a blog saying he would keep just $220,000 from his $1m.
He said:
So I’m breaking the million into four pieces.
the first 250k is going to pay back what the special cost to produce and the website to build.
The second 250k is going back to my staff and the people who work for me on the special and on my show. I’m giving them a big fat bonus.
The third 280k is going to a few different charities. They are listed below in case you’d like to donate to them also. Some of these i learned about through friends, some were recomended through twitter.
That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.
I had a quick look at Louis CK’s stuff. Here is is a clip on Youtube (not the $5 version). Pretty out there, but worth paying for. I think the business model is pretty obvious. It’s just a pity that he had to spend the money himself upfront to develop the tools to distribute his work.
Imagine if that technology was readily available to artists for a small fee. Imagine if the New Zealand tech industry was encouraged to go for it.
Another point to end on. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the technology used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale.
Companies such as Amazon, AOL, Apple Inc., the BBC, Microsoft and Sony use digital rights management. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the United States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available technologies whose primary purpose and function is to circumvent content protection technologies.[1] The use of digital rights management is controversial. Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and that it can help the copyright holder maintain artistic control[2] or ensure continued revenue streams.[3] Those opposed to DRM argue that there is no evidence that DRM helps prevent copyright infringement and that DRM helps big business stifle innovation and competition.[4] Proponents argue that digital locks should be considered necessary to prevent intellectual property from being stolen, just as physical locks are needed to prevent personal property from being stolen.
I thought it was interesting that I learnt about Louis CK’s online business endeavours through twitter via the ABC’s managing director Mark Scott who tweeted:
“The comedian (is) providing lessons in the future of digital rights management”.
Prescience from the head of Australia’s public broadcaster. It would be good to have a bit more debate about it here.
It’s one of those small things. But it niggles. And it should have been sorted. We will sort it.
When Labour announced its broadcasting policy earlier this week, apart from the main message that Labour would create a new public commercial free broadcaster, another part of it attracted a bit of attention, and controversy.
It proposed:
An audio standard for New Zealand television
There has been an ongoing debate in New Zealand for some time around volume and consistency between featured programmes and commercials on TV, where there are concerns that the audio of television commercials are broadcast at louder sound volumes than the television programme material they accompany. The issue is not straightforward, but the solutions are.
Labour believes broadcasting networks have been slow to adapt and revise their Technical Delivery Requirements to reflect digital technology.
Labour will bring the TV broadcasting industry together to establish a consensus for new Technical Delivery Requirements and a unified national standard for all broadcasters that reflects international best practice.
Various right wing blogs predictably ridiculed the idea. Interesting, given there’s some clear evidence that it’s an issue and that the industry, while having had time to sort it out, haven’t.
Even Bill Ralston agrees, and he’s no friend to Labour. He said this on Kiwiblog (I will post separately on the major point he raises of establishing a new public broadcaster, though note he agrees that we need the debate before we finalise the form and how to pay for it).
It’s true that the audio is compressed. But the actual audio perception by the listener is that the TV commercials are louder. Call it what you like.
Many people accuse advertisers of applying pressure to the networks to make their particular television commercial appear louder. As I understand it this isn’t the case, although I’m pretty sure advertisers don’t complain. Essentially, 30 seconds of audio can be processed and controlled in post-production very easily so that it “airs” loud. The failure of the networks to effectively monitor their own standards, in part, accounts for the annoying loudness discrepancies found on NZ television.
We believe new technical delivery standards should be agreed on and implemented. As an entire collective group, New Zealand broadcasters should arrive at a consensus that reflects what is best for the audience and the industry as a whole. We will ensure they do.
I believe the reason it hasn’t happened before now is that it costs a bit of money to implement. And the industry needs a push.
Like NZ, the US TV industry was unable to resolve loudness issues internally. Unlike the National Government here (which reckons there’s no issue), the US congress recognised that loudness variances were a problem, and in December 2010 passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation ACT or “CALM Act”. This Act requires the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the audio of TV commercials from being broadcast at louder sound volumes than the TV program material they accompany.
It’s been claimed as one of the most popular US pieces of legislation. In the US it was lauded as a simple fix to a huge nuisance.
Now tell me there’s no problem!
Harvey Norman TVCs anyone?
1. There is no public television broadcaster in NZ. Our public broadcasting environment is depleted. Labour believes a strong, independent, free public media service NOT driven by commercial interests is essential to an informed democracy.
2. A Labour Government will immediately start a debate to establish a new non-commercial public broadcaster. It will include the functions of Radio NZ and TVNZ7. It will consider other functions. So to be clear we will keep TVNZ7. Radio NZ will retain its autonomy. We will strengthen them and may add services. We will ensure the governance of the new broadcaster is more arms length from government.
3. It will exist in the digital environment. Therefore it spans the traditional broadcasting telco industry and internet realms. This is called convergence. Labour has already signalled a converged regulatory environment for broadcasting and telco sectors.
4. A public and industry (broadcasting and telco sectors) debate will take place on the final shape and funding mechanisms. There are a range of options to be canvassed. The debate is important because it will be a New Zealand broadcaster that belongs to all of us and is about us. The lack of a public broadcaster has been debated. The shape of a future one has not. That debate has been sorely missing.
4. We don’t anticipate any extra cost to the taxpayer. We will asking the sectors how they think it should be funded. The outcome could be a mix of options. We are not prejudging or anticipating the outcome of this. The debate hasn’t been had. Many stakeholders are keen to have it.
5. The debate will be concluded within a year and it is anticipated that decisions will be made and any regulatory and other changes underway.
This is a significant policy. It marks an important change towards a contemporary Kiwi approach to protecting and promoting our culture in the 21st Century. It’s a commitment not made lightly and it’s a commitment we will see through.
I hope you agree.
It new, it’s modern. It’s not a we might do it, We will do it. We’ll have a debate first. Then we’ll decide the funding mechanism and the new shape. The policy sets out how we’ll do it.
Will blog further about it soon.
Labour’s Communications and IT policy, announced today (and available here), will invest in local people, business and intellectual capital to drive our economy forward.
Kiwi kids are growing up in a digital world. They need the skills and career pathways available to enable them to excel in this increasingly important arena.
Labour will ensure all Kiwi families can access the internet and high speed broadband no matter what their background.
Some of our greatest innovations can come out of the most deprived areas. Labour will encourage community participation in IT by among other things increasing funding to Computer Clubhouses and Computers in Homes by $2.7 million.
Labour has the commitment and the plans to establish New Zealand as a digital nation. This means making sure New Zealand develops a comprehensive digital infrastructure and ensuring that no-one misses out, so that all of our potential whizz kids of the future can flourish.
Labour has some grave concerns about Government’s urban and rural broadband scheme, and with the amendments to the Telecommunications Act passed in 2011.
National’s broadband network must not be a tool to entrench the divide between the haves and the have nots. Labour will conduct an independent review of the ultrafast broadband rollout, including a full assessment of the true costs of the scheme.
While we commit to working within Crown Fibre Holdings’ current investment limit of $1.35bn for ultrafast broadband, we will allow and encourage the UFB to be extended to other areas of New Zealand.
Labour’s ICT policy also sets out an ambitious forward thinking strategy to draw together the policy and regulatory environments for ICT, telecommunications, broadcasting and the internet realm Labour’s ICT policy is a converged policy with broadcasting. The broadcasting component will be announced separately in the coming weeks.
Many other countries including the United Kingdom, Malaysia, the EU, the UK, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa have already taken this approach. Australia and Canada are moving in that direction. As the technologies converge a number of issues arise around the networks that will be needed to carry both content produced inside New Zealand and which comes from outside the country.
Each action Labour proposes is underpinned by the recognition that a growing economy is dependent on building local skills. Labour will:
Labour’s ICT policy also contains the details of Labour’s policy on copyright, which will remove the clause for internet account suspension for infringing file sharing as a remedy the District Court can impose; and commits to conduct a full review of the Copyright Act, with the aim of introducing a new Copyright Bill within 18 months that updates and extends the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand.
It’s a policy with a lot in it. I hope you’ll read it.
Martyn Bomber Bradbury has been banned from Radio NZ for criticising John Key.
Media Watch (about 26 mins into the programme) this morning confirmed the was banned for an unacceptable breach of Radio NZ’s editorial policies of fairness and balance.
What did he do? On Thursday’s The Panel segment on Jim Mora’s afternoon show, he criticised John Key for appearing as host on Radio Live for an hour at their invitation pretending it wasn’t political. He also criticised the Prime Minister for his behaviour in parliament this week in blaming Labour during the well publicised incident where a man tried to jump from the public gallery into the House. Both issues have been widely reported in our media.
Bomber is a bit out there.
Like other commentators across the political spectrum he tends to speak his mind rather freely. He’s a “left” commentator. Not attached to Labour or any other party directly that I know of (maybe Mana).
He expresses his views stridently. Presumably that’s why he’s on the programme regularly. Along with others who are also fairly strident at times.
I’d like to know what editorial policy was being breached? And who made the decision to ban Bomber Bradbury?
And to be reassured that there was no external influence brought to bear on Radio NZ management and editorial staff to make that decision.
I think it’s valid to ask that if they can make this decision how come commentators from the Right haven’t been banned on a regular basis for regularly criticising Phil Goff on the Jim Mora Show, on Nine to Noon’s political slot and other RNZ shows? If I trawled through Radio NZ’s afternoon show I wonder how many times I’d find a commentator who lambasted Phil Goff and the Labour Party for this or that action or policy.
I’m not suggesting other commentators should be banned. Yes I’d like to see more commentators on Radio NZ and other media who didn’t regularly bash the Labour Party. But I’m not complaining about it because it’s Radio NZ’s right to choose their commentators. And all NZ should trust them to do so with fairness and balance.
But once they choose the commentators, banning one for criticising the Prime Minister is a bit rich.
As we head into the election it’s important that the coverage is fair and balanced. But that doesn’t mean media outlets should prevent criticism. Especially shutting down criticism of the government of the day.
Our state broadcaster should know better than that.
The Radio NZ charter includes these principles:
Programmes which provide for varied interests and a full range of age groups within the community, including information, educational, special interest, and entertainment programmes; and
Comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs, including items with a regional perspective;
What Bomber Bradbury said was not news. It was commentary, on a programme, on a section called The Panel where people are invited to vent their spleen about an issue they care about and is bugging them.
Wisdom and experience is what’s needed by our media organisations during an election period. We need to know it’s there. And to trust the judgement calls being made.
PS: Why has the relevant part of The Panel been removed from the Radio NZ website? It’s ironic because the Prime Minister’s spot on Radio Live got taken off Radio Live’s website last week after a complaint was made to the BSA and the Electoral Commission.
Popularity and power go together. I think we all know it. Whether it’s in the school playground, the boardroom, the big screen or the bear pit of parliament.
If you have the gift of the gab and a brain, then you’ve got an “x factor;” something that others want to be near and have a part of.
But with power comes responsibility and judgement. The more popularity, the more power, and the risk that good responsible judgement goes out the window.
That happened last week I believe, when the Prime Minister was a DJ on an hour long show with no editorial control on Radio Live interviewing celebrity guests and generally chatting about (supposedly) nothing to do with the election.
It was less than 8 weeks before the election. he is the Prime Minister. A politician. His Party wants to be returned to power. It was an opportunity not offered to the Leaders of other parties.
The National Party’s election strategy is based around John Key’s popularity. Brand Key. All its election hoardings bear his picture. Activists and candidates wear t-shirts with “I’m a Key person” on them.
An hour long show on Radio Live in a prominent Friday afternoon slot was about cementing Brand Key in the minds of listeners. It was a clever marketing idea. It was not a clever political strategy. And it was not “fair”.
Radio Live is owned by Radioworks, which is part of Mediaworks. In 2009 the National Government provided Mediaworks with a $43 million loan to defer payments for their radio spectrum licenses.
This issue has been covered extensively in the media since March this year when it came to light. There is, at the very least, a perception that Mediaworks was provided favourable treatment by the government. In that case it is even more important for Mediaworks to ensure they are extremely balanced in their election coverage.
On Monday, Labour submitted a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority over the PM’s show. Another complaint was lodged with the Electoral Commission.
Labour contends that the New Zealand electoral system is based on fairness, responsibility and impartiality to order for Kiwis to make their voting choices without pressure or misleading information.
We believe the show breached the Broadcasting Act and the Electoral Act.
I was completely gobsmacked when I heard that Mediaworks had given the Prime Minister a free hour. I believe, as I think all new Zealanders do that we are all entitled to a fair trial if we are accused of something and charged. I also believe that New Zealanders are entitled to a fair electoral system.
It doesn’t matter how popular you are. None of us are above the law. There’s always a point when the popular guy crosses the line and takes too much for granted.
The right to a fair go is a deeply held belief in our country. It doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re on. I think that’s the test here.
It has resonance for all our media and I reckon they aren’t happy at being put in this position.
Jonathan Coleman has been insisting for months that National’s commitment to public broadcasting lies in in NZ On Air’s contestable funding model. National MP Nikki Kaye parroted this in a recent column in the NZ Herald:
We believe that quality and diversity in local content is best provided through contestable funding which promotes competition for quality, content diversity and the availability of programming across multiple channels and platforms.
In the past year, more than $81 million of contestable funding was made available through NZ On Air for locally made television. The Platinum Fund, which was launched in 2009, provides $15 million in contestable funding for New Zealand television content. This funding gives priority to high-end drama, current affairs, documentaries and special event programming – material that is generally considered to be public broadcasting programming.
TVNZ’s recent Statement of Intent (SOI) for the next 3 years tells a different story. It might be a commercial channel now, but it’s still the state owned broadcaster. An SOI is technically a contract between the broadcaster and shareholder. Presumably Coleman signs it off. If he did, then he has endorsed what runs counter to his public position on public broadcasting; quality content. The SOI says:
Notwithstanding the inherent uncertainty of any contestable funding scheme, there remains the risk of potential misalignment between the programming objectives of NZOA with the commercial objectives of TVNZ. This could result in the inability of TVNZ to attract NZOA funding for commercially attractive local programming.
To mitigate this risk, we will engage NZOA to align objectives, agree aims for commercially attractive local programming and address potential revisions to funding criteria.
What does this mean? TVNZ is going put the heavies on NZoA? Did Jonathan Coleman agree to this?
If TVNZ pressures NZoA to direct a higher proportion of funds toward commercially viable/populist genres then there is going to be less money available for programmes that have a strong public service value but might not pull in a mass audience- such as those on TVNZ7 which Coleman claims can still be funded by NZoA.
And then there’s the bit where TVNZ says its moving further into the pay channel business:
The challenge is to harness this digital presence to drive revenue growth and other commercial benefits. To mitigate this risk, we will continue to pursue growth in our pay channel business and further grow and diversify our video on demand business.
and this:
We will continue to strengthen our position along the content value chain by retaining our mass audience, by forming strategic relationships with both local and international content rights holders, and by increasing funding from NZOA;
Enhance our rights management capabilities to optimise the commercial value from the content rights we do secure, particularly in relation to our multi-platform distribution strategies…
Well, TVNZ’s a commercial operator now. Let’s not pretend it’s otherwise. But NZ on Air should watch out. And I wonder what further deals are planned with Sky TV?
There’s been a bit of reporting about this. Not much. I guess the RWC is on and all. Grant Smithies wrote a good piece in the SST called Fade to Black which is worth a read.
It’s interesting that Maori TV (which has become the quasi-public TV broadcaster in NZ) has stolen a march on TVNZ with it’s “quality” broadcasting during this time. What can we all look forward to under this brave new world?
Whatever it is, Jonathan Coleman should cease to pretend he believes in quality public broadcasting.
TVNZ’s reinvigorated commercialism is indicative of a shift in the media environment that intensifies competition for ratings and increases the cost of providing content with high public value but sub-optimum audience appeal. TVNZ’s SOI shows why Coleman’s assurances that the content on TVNZ 7 will still be available is mistaken. Diversity of digital platforms do NOT mean a diversity of content.
Auckland journalist Colin Hogg (who runs the production company which produced Talk Talk on TVNZ7 and had its final show last week) summed it up when he wrote:
“TV these days is basically programmed by the ad agencies, which is pretty sad,” Hogg writes. “The cultural impact of the loss of TVNZ 7 is that there will be no outlet for shows like ours, or Media 7, or Backbenches. In years to come when we look back for archive of this time, all we’ll find is Motorway Patrol, Border Patrol, Dog Patrol, food shows and freak shows about fat people.”
We can do better than this.
Any discussion about the future of NZ’s media has to be about the stuff it produces. Not just about the networks or channels that transmit it.
NZ content needs a boost. Our local industry is generally talented, whether it be screen production, journalism, current affairs, writers, producers. But it’s generally not thriving and energetic. It feels tired and struggling against a tide of advertising-driven content. Much of it purchased cheaply from offshore to fill our screens. Journalists struggle to meet the increasing demands of multi-media and multiple deadlines with diminishing staff in many newsrooms.
Public funding for broadcasting is shrinking. It’s simply not considered important by this government. The commercial broadcasters are fighting for more dominance. And the consumer is losing.
Had a really interesting discussion today with a respected prominent figure in NZ (based) media. He said Jonathan Coleman should resign for accepting TVNZ’s recent Statement of Intent (SOI).
The SOI said that it would pressure NZ on Air to approve more commercially attractive local programming and address potential revisions to funding criteria. That’s essentially the Minister signing up to a strategy which sees it’s own SOE do a funding grab for commercial gain (separate blogpost following on this).
A ray of sunshine in the gloom is the steady rise of some various independent NZ (digital) media (this list is not exhaustive) who are making a go of it in this new environment – such as Interest.co.nz, Scoop, BusinessDesk, AllAboutthe Story, Idealog – and the rising viability of specialist subscriber news.
I think they are an important part of the future media landscape but this will only become apparent in a more competitive environment. What customers ultimately want is good content. Whether it’s in the publicly funded sphere, or a competitive commerical sphere. Currently, we could do a lot better in both.
A competitive and thriving media and content creation sector is needed to deliver diversity. The New Zealand broadcasting sector currently lacks a diversity of ideas because, unique in the world, the government has abolished the public television broadcasting function. Radio New Zealand’s frozen budget puts it under such pressure that it must consider fundraising via a trust or commercial sponsorship to pay for some of its programmes.
To incentivise competition—and get the best from it—we need to be aware of the extent to which the ownership and control of our digital media lies outside New Zealand, and whether our access to content is limited by those who run the media system in their own interests.
I think that’s an important issue right now. Don’t you?
It’s been a year since ABC Open kicked off. It’s an initiative of the publicly funded broadcaster to invite regional communities to produce and publish photos, stories, videos, and sound through the ABC. They have a team of producers based in regional towns to help people with ideas and learning skills in storytelling and making media.
This is worth a look. I know I post a bit of stuff from Australia’s ABC Television public broadcaster. That’s because they’re doing some good stuff. I can’t put up a clip, but you can click the link here and see for yourself. What a great idea. Fostering new talent. Telling regional stories.
ABC Open invites people in regional Australia to connect and share stories through the ABC. In September 2010, we got off to a cracking start, tapping into the creative and diverse life of regional Australia using audio slideshows to tell personal stories of change.
Since then, well over 4700 contributions to 22 projects have uncovered different themes, landscapes, personalities and stories which demonstrate, through words, pictures, sounds and video, the flavours of regional life. The contributions and stories themselves are powerful, but so too are the connections, collaborations and sense of accomplishment that learning new skills and sharing has brought to both the contributors from the community as well as the ABC Open producers involved.
This is seriously cool. It’s become a bit of a hit I understand. Wish we could do this stuff here. To the same quality.
Perhaps if we had a real public broadcaster. We certainly have the talent and the creativity. Just not the political will to back public broadcasting which believes in more than the next reality TV show.
Having the piss taken out of you is part of this business (as I’m realising). I reckon we’d be better off for a bit more satire and humour (and quality).
I hope the ABC makes the episodes available for a NZ audience too.
There are some big questions to consider about the state of our public broadcasting service. In both television and radio. Television is perhaps more urgent, with the impending demise of TVNZ7, the axing of the TVNZ Charter, the shift to a commercial only model, the impending sale of TVNZ’s Wellington-based Avalon studio and the abdication by our TV broadcaster of any public service responsibilities.
Now we’re seeing the abdication of responsibility to the whole of NZ.
I think it’s becoming rapidly clear that Television NZ has morphed into TV Auckland. The latest piece of evidence (and there’s been a steady stream) is yesterday’s news in the Herald on Sunday that:
TVNZ has told Good Morning hosts Sarah Bradley and Brendan Pongia to reapply for their jobs – and is also holding auditions for the roles.
At least 14 people will lose their jobs when the magazine-style show moves from Wellington to Auckland and TVNZ says it wants to “tap into” talent already in Auckland…
…Pongia and Bradley have hosted the show since 2006 and are thought to be on annual contracts…
…A TVNZ spokeswoman said the move north gave the network an opportunity to take a fresh look at the show. “These auditions will tell us what is out there and allow us to tap into the Auckland talent pool.
The sale of the important Avalon Studios is perhaps the starkest display of a blatant strategy to focus the company in one city, the city where the population is, the advertising dollar is best directed and where the commercial gain will be got.
But TVNZ is still a Crown entity. It is governed under the Crown Entities Act and the Television NZ Act (part of which has recently been amended to remove its charter and replace it with a statement of functions).
But the shareholding Minister has the ability to provide clear expectation through the Crown Entities Act of how TVNZ should perform.
Commercial return is one of those expectations now we’ve lost the TVNZ Charter. But so is providing a service to all NZers. And providing high quality content.
TVNZ has lost sight of that. So has the government. It’s all about going where the money is. And bugger the rest of New Zealand.
We have to consider whether Avalon Studios is an important strategic resource for the whole television industry. We don’t believe the government is thinking about the impact of losing Avalon on the wider TV and film sector. We think they should. And we would.
The Avalon Studios complex and 10-storey office tower became a Hutt Valley landmark after opening in 1975 as New Zealand’s first custom-built television centre. It is TVNZ’s biggest facility outside Auckland.
My colleague Chris Hipkins has blogged about this and spoken strongly against the proposed sale. As he says, closing Avalon is a stupid decision that lacks vision and shows TVNZ’s lack of commitment to quality local programming. Avalon is widely recognised as the best TV production facility in the southern hemisphere, but our state broadcaster would rather screen yet more low-budget reality TV shows than put it to good use.
Another Wellington colleague Trevor Mallard, who was a former broadcasting Minister has criticised TVNZ’s bloated management for not managing its assets better. I think they’re right.
Both TVNZ and this government have a very narrow view of broadcasting being about commercial return. They forget that this nation, as do most others, puts a high value on public broadcasting which is about reflecting our stories, our nation back to ourselves and to the world.
TV Auckland will provide us with a commercial service that ignores the rest of our country, the stories, the cultural identity of our nation. It all fits into the way this nationis now being run. As a corporation, not as a country.
We’ve got to change tack.
Yesterday the Dom Post picked up some of the concerns that I’ve been raising about TVNZ’s planned closure of the Avalon TV studios. I use the term ‘closure’ deliberately, because at the moment that seems like the most likely outcome of their decision to relocate the last of their shows to Auckland and place the complex on the open market.
TVNZ claims that there are about 60 permanent staff working at Avalon, but closure will have a flow-on effect on a far greater number of people than that. Most of the people who make a living from Avalon these days are contractors. The camera men, lighting technicians, and so forth. Then there are the many local suppliers, from the florist who decorates the Good Morning set through to taxi companies, local caterers and so on.
Closing Avalon is a stupid decision that lacks vision and shows TVNZ’s lack of commitment to quality local programming. Avalon is widely recognised as the best TV production facility in the southern hemisphere, but our state broadcaster would rather screen yet more low-budget reality TV shows than put it to good use. In a few years time if Avalon is closed and they decide to produce another Dancing with the Stars type series, they’ll have nowhere to film it. Instead they’d end up converting an unused warehouse somewhere in south Auckland, with all of the cost and expense that goes with that.
The decision to relocate Good Morning to Auckland also needs to be questioned. I’m told by those that work on the show that many of the segments currently screened, including Astar’s cooking segment and the live local music performances, won’t be able to be filmed in the Auckland studios because they’re too small. Don’t forget that TVNZ relocated Good Morning to Auckland once before and it didn’t work so they moved it back to Avalon. This time, if they’ve closed Avalon down, they won’t have that option.
As I’ve said before, we don’t have a public service TV broadcaster in New Zealand. TVNZ is no different to the privately-owned commercial stations like TV3 and Four. And it’s a dinosaur. TVNZ’s heavy reliance on cheap, imported shows will be its downfall. With the proliferation of TV channels and with new technology opening up all sorts of new ways for us to access content, TVNZ’s competitive advantage should be it’s local content. The closure of Avalon demonstrates once again how they’ve failed to grasp that.
Fox News’ take on the the News of the World hacking scandal.
Hacking is a big problem they say, but it’s foreign govt hacking that we should worry about not Murdoch empire hacking (ie a US media empire hacking into citizen’s phones to get stories)
They say it’s the hacking that’s a problem, protection of privacy. Well yes that is a problem, but the fact that a media empire is seriously implicated in a phone hacking scandal is and remains very serious.
Fox found a PR guy to create a diversion.
He says that for some reason the public keeps going over it again and again…. And we should now move on and talk about the important topics of the day. Yeah right
We’ll see.
Breaking News: Rebekah Brooks is arrested in London
Public television broadcasting ended in NZ last night. The TVNZ Amendment Bill passed which kills the TVNZ Charter. TVNZ is now required to be a commercial broadcaster. it remains State owned for now but is likely being prepared for sale by a government that has no commitment to public broadcasting.
While the National Govt axes the Charter and drives a stake into public TV broadcasting, there’s a mounting crisis in the media world; in the relationship between media and politicians which could severely impact on the Murdoch media empire and the UK Govt.
The News of the World phone hacking scandal has reverberated around the globe. The Murdoch empire has tentacles in many countries.
There’s some important lessons here.
Independent public media, not captured by vested interests is critical to the health of a nation. The public needs to know that politicians and media aren’t in bed with each other, that there’s standards that media adhere to and lines that wont be crossed. If they are crossed, that the judicial system will investigate and prosecute. And wont be captured and muzzled by fear of powerful media.
But the passing of this Bill takes NZ on a slippery slope to a place where vested interests rule our media. Hopefully not our politicians.
But.
We’ve already seen the government fork out $43 million to bail out Mediaworks. It’s pretty clear that TVNZ is being prepared for sale and meanwhile Sky gains a bigger slice of the unregulated broadcasting sphere. Unfettered. Not good.
Labour is committed to a strong independent public media. If you have had any doubts about the need, just look across the hemisphere.
All governments are susceptible to media influence. Especially big media empires. Which makes for a compelling case for independent publicly funded media which is arms length from government.
Just watched an Australian (part Murdoch-owned) Sky News report where The (Murdoch-owned) Australian newspaper is forced to “deny” phone hacking activities aka those undertaken by the (Murdoch-owned) News of the World (NotW) newspaper.
Interesting.
And think I agree with the Telegraph editor David Hughes (did I say that?) who thinks that the decision to close News of the World is not only about protecting News International’s chief executive Rebekah Brooks:
“Most of all, this move is designed to ensure that News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB goes ahead. That is at the heart of Murdoch’s strategy, not the fate of Britain’s best-selling red top.
The BBC has gathered a series of opinions on it which is worth a look.
Murdoch’s decision to close NotW is all about damage control. It’s certainly a disaster for him re NotW. But there’s a much bigger play happening. UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s response today yesterday to call an inquiry into the phone hacking shows just how big that play is.
David Cameron is now very exposed. Andy Coulson, his former press spokesman, has been arrested in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking.
Cameron has been busy covering himself. Shows what can happen when those with the levers of power over-reach themselves.
It appears the NotW demise is the fall guy. I believe they will attempt to ensure that the BSkyB network remains in Murdoch hands , but events may overtake.
Chickens coming home to roost.
Makes you wonder about our patch.
Update: And this just takes the cake. Cameron, calling for an inquiry into the phone hacking, calls for the end of close relationship between politicians and the media. Only when it doesn’t suit!
