This entry was posted on Monday, October 31st, 2005 at 7:10 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Gonzo’s analysis is pretty useful, but considering he gives the pro left bias of the TVNZ board at just over 5 out of 10, inferring there is a almost a balance there, something has to be wrong. During the election campaign, the TV One newsroom acted as the propaganda arm of the Labour party, wherein every talking point raised by the Labour party media campaign office immediately made it on to the six o’clock news. This deceitful operation culminated in Susan Wood repeating baseless Labour charges that Don Brash had lied, to his face, on Close Up. Either the board members that Gonzo suggests could balance left wing control aren’t doing there job, or as is more likely, the less left members of the board are neutralised by the combined efforts of the left wing board members and Fraser and the staff in the news and current affairs department. Maybe Fraser is annoyed because someone (perhaps a courageous and persistent board member) was finally putting in the extra effort needed to try and correct the imbalance.
The had to deny the interference otherwise they have broken the law. It would be fun to have a full argument in court. There is only one reason to have Ann Hercus there and that is for political interference. Bryan Gould also. The thing can go tits up for all I care, there is plenty of competition. It is simply quite anomolous to have the state involved in broadcasting. But we are talking about a company worth $100 million but the Labour Party simply do not care about that.
Redbaiter, my assumptions were based on all three bullshit detectors sorting through what I could discern by The Google.
Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald has posited an alliance between Hercus and Goulter which changes the equilibrium somewhat. Although Goulter’s business cred is undeniable, he is also on the Board of the Lotteries Commission, a Reserve Bank bank thing, Vector and United Carriers. I was tossing up whether to list these on my blog as they were already provided in the links and I found nothing to expand upon.
In hindsight, I should paid more attention to my Gut and have given Goulter a 3.
Sigh … *always* with the political DNA testing. It’s irrelevant. In a practical sense, appointments to the TVNZ board have always been political: the board and senior executives through the 1990s were under clear direction to prepare the network for sale. It was actually the Rosanne Meo board that made the clanger that still hurts TVNZ – the bizarre decision to firesale TVNZ’s strategic holding in Sky. Things would be a bit different by now if TVNZ still had a relationship with Sky.
I also find it odd that the Ralston appointment is the controversial one. Frankly, that’s the successful one (people seem to forget how bad Ralston’s predecessor Heaton Dyer was). There are others that have been rather more problematic.
Ralston at least has a decent vision underpinning his endeavours. Rather than Fraser and Ralston, TVNZ needs to lose people like Tony Holden who seem to be consumed with empire building at the expense of effective communication with Commissioning and decent relationships with independent production houses. TVNZ doesn’t need a bloated in-house production capacity and TVNZ Programming needs to get over their current power trip. Their efforts to live up to the charter will look pretty hollow if they screw their content partners.
While TVNZ board appointments have tended to be political, I wouldn’t go so far as to call an inspection of their skill sets irrelevant. A cursory Google of “Roseanne Meo” turns up quite a number of comments from RB, so I don’t think you think it’s irrelevant either Russell!
As it stands, I happen to agree with you on Meo’s goof on the Sky TV fire-sale. She also clusterfucked on other occasions such as killing off Max TV and MTV, and losing millions down the John Hawkesby plughole.
However, Meo at least had a backgound in running successful businesses. Mai Chen describes Meo as “one of the most senior company directors in NZ, who blazed the trail in corporate life for women at a time when very few women were involved.”
The risks Meo took at TVNZ were business decisions. Her precedent sharply juxtaposes against what appears to be the current Board motivation, namely a commitment to the airy-fairy TV Charter. Dagg knows how much this Charter has wiped off TVNZ’s net worth. And what cultural inspiration have we to show for all this? Perving at Rachael Hunter sunbathing topless on The Real Gilligan’s Island.
I’ve always had immense respect for both Fraser and Ralston. Their TVNZ partnership was truly inspired. Alas, Ian Fraser will no longer act as a buffer between the Board and Ralston. How long will it be before they kill Bill?
Bill Ralston is the walking dead, no doubt about that. He is very much a creature of Ian fraser. I just wish the thing got wound up, why on earth is the state involved in Broadcasting. But I guess we will get someone from ABC. It will be some leftie, they seem to go for these hybrid governmenty thingies, righties give them a wide berth.