MELISSA LEE should be deprived of her ministerial warrant. Her handling – or non-handling – of the crisis engulfing the New Zealand news media has been woeful. The fate of New Zealand’s two linear television networks, a question which the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media could have settled long ago, remains inexcusably obscure. Given the simplicity of its answer, Lee’s failure to offer it is unacceptable. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon should sack her.
The NZ media must have seen this train wreck coming and they did nothing about it.
I think it shows how out of touch and distanced from reality that the MSM are. If you can't attract advertising dollars then there is a problem with the product and it shows a degree of arrogance and incompetence within the MSM to not consider that as a core reason.
The MSM are blaming Lee yet she is only dealing with the result of the MSM's inability to provide a product that is informative, unbiased, well investigated and thorough. Where were all of the political commentators when the public service was swelling by 16000? Why was Jacinda not asked, in detail and without letting her away with her waffling answers that used lots of words but provided no detail by multiple media outlets?
If there was any evidence that RNZ, ABC, BBC, CBC & Co were "developing a vibrant national culture" then who among us would have a problem with funding them with public money.
You know, Chris, that that is not what they're doing. They all are faced with plummeting audience numbers and trust for good reason: they're actively undermining our culture and the people that support them.
God knows what their agenda is but balanced, objective , inclusive and without guile it is not.
Yes Andrew, those are fine words and noble sentiments.
How's it working out for Public broadcasting in the USA? Are they ideologically captured like their equivalents elsewhere in the West?
The NPR (National Public Radio) has just had something of a convulsion; one of its most senior editors has exposed it's almost complete lack of balance and commitment to the truth. He now no longer works there; there will be no reckoning.
Reading it one can't help but see the similarity to our equivalent - RNZ.
"With declining ratings, sorry levels of trust, and an audience that has become less diverse over time, the trajectory for NPR is not promising. Two paths seem clear. We can keep doing what we’re doing, hoping it will all work out. Or we could start over, with the basic building blocks of journalism. We could face up to where we’ve gone wrong. News organizations don’t go in for that kind of reckoning. But there’s a good reason for NPR to be the first: we’re the ones with the word public in our name."
The NPR have just appointed a new chairwoman, ex Wikipedia's Katherine Maher. She says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be."
The implications of that word salad (that the truth is racist?) is that NPR have chosen someone happy to sacrifice truth to an insane ideology. All funded by decent, hardworking taxpayers that think them a bunch of fools, frauds and firebrands. They are.
"If NPR [US equivalent of RNZ] wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away.
I don’t expect them to do that. They don’t listen to people like us. They don’t care what we think. But nevertheless, this is an important story because it shows just how cynical it is. It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”
Very good. I find it interesting that "...giving creative and intelligent producers and journalists the freedom to make the best television they can" seems to be what's required. Trusting in individuals/small teams with intellectual diversity and talent. These days it seems the corporatisation/commercialisation has led to a top-down crushing of diversity. There's no light between TVNZ news and 3 news - they're both poor. I still recall the late 70s, early 80's when Lindsay Perigo fronted the 9:30 pm news/analysis and this was on top of decent 6pm news plus a regional news half hour, plus a reasonable number (though never quite enough for me) of good documentaries such as John Pilger et al. Those days it was definitely TV in the public interest even if it wasn't necessary interesting to the (majority) of the public.
Interesting solution that politicians don't want to touch with a barge pole. Interesting that you mention 'Māori elites' (a term that Peters often uses), but how come we never talk about Pākehā elites? or any other non-Māori elites? Why this fixation on labelling successful Māori businessmen as elites?
I think it is something to do with Iwi and tribalism, and is likely to be the result of the co-governance model proposed, that gave some Maori greater voting rights than anyone else.
The NZ media must have seen this train wreck coming and they did nothing about it.
I think it shows how out of touch and distanced from reality that the MSM are. If you can't attract advertising dollars then there is a problem with the product and it shows a degree of arrogance and incompetence within the MSM to not consider that as a core reason.
The MSM are blaming Lee yet she is only dealing with the result of the MSM's inability to provide a product that is informative, unbiased, well investigated and thorough. Where were all of the political commentators when the public service was swelling by 16000? Why was Jacinda not asked, in detail and without letting her away with her waffling answers that used lots of words but provided no detail by multiple media outlets?
If there was any evidence that RNZ, ABC, BBC, CBC & Co were "developing a vibrant national culture" then who among us would have a problem with funding them with public money.
You know, Chris, that that is not what they're doing. They all are faced with plummeting audience numbers and trust for good reason: they're actively undermining our culture and the people that support them.
God knows what their agenda is but balanced, objective , inclusive and without guile it is not.
Imagine a Minister of Broadcasting making a speech like this https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm
Yes Andrew, those are fine words and noble sentiments.
How's it working out for Public broadcasting in the USA? Are they ideologically captured like their equivalents elsewhere in the West?
The NPR (National Public Radio) has just had something of a convulsion; one of its most senior editors has exposed it's almost complete lack of balance and commitment to the truth. He now no longer works there; there will be no reckoning.
Reading it one can't help but see the similarity to our equivalent - RNZ.
"With declining ratings, sorry levels of trust, and an audience that has become less diverse over time, the trajectory for NPR is not promising. Two paths seem clear. We can keep doing what we’re doing, hoping it will all work out. Or we could start over, with the basic building blocks of journalism. We could face up to where we’ve gone wrong. News organizations don’t go in for that kind of reckoning. But there’s a good reason for NPR to be the first: we’re the ones with the word public in our name."
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
The NPR have just appointed a new chairwoman, ex Wikipedia's Katherine Maher. She says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be."
The implications of that word salad (that the truth is racist?) is that NPR have chosen someone happy to sacrifice truth to an insane ideology. All funded by decent, hardworking taxpayers that think them a bunch of fools, frauds and firebrands. They are.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger:
"If NPR [US equivalent of RNZ] wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away.
I don’t expect them to do that. They don’t listen to people like us. They don’t care what we think. But nevertheless, this is an important story because it shows just how cynical it is. It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/wikipedia-co-founder-shocked-by-npr-chief-katherine-maher
I don't know if there's anyway back from here Chris. Shut down the whole shit-show?
Very good. I find it interesting that "...giving creative and intelligent producers and journalists the freedom to make the best television they can" seems to be what's required. Trusting in individuals/small teams with intellectual diversity and talent. These days it seems the corporatisation/commercialisation has led to a top-down crushing of diversity. There's no light between TVNZ news and 3 news - they're both poor. I still recall the late 70s, early 80's when Lindsay Perigo fronted the 9:30 pm news/analysis and this was on top of decent 6pm news plus a regional news half hour, plus a reasonable number (though never quite enough for me) of good documentaries such as John Pilger et al. Those days it was definitely TV in the public interest even if it wasn't necessary interesting to the (majority) of the public.
Interesting solution that politicians don't want to touch with a barge pole. Interesting that you mention 'Māori elites' (a term that Peters often uses), but how come we never talk about Pākehā elites? or any other non-Māori elites? Why this fixation on labelling successful Māori businessmen as elites?
I think it is something to do with Iwi and tribalism, and is likely to be the result of the co-governance model proposed, that gave some Maori greater voting rights than anyone else.
Or it could be the result of the Crown requiring Māori to set up particular structures to conduct Treaty claim settlement negotiations.