This entry was posted on Monday, October 31st, 2005 at 6:33 pm 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.
Of course there is political interference. Why else is Ann Hercus and Bryan Gould there?? Gould might know something about broadcasting but Hercus knows a lot about politics and THAT is why she is there.
Further to the above. If the Board is now going to control the pay and conditions of top news readers how do you avoid the board being able to manipulate and control the news??? That is what Fraser was trying to avoid. Board members got the Government involved in Judy Bailey’s salary package when it became public, Bailey was fired (her brand having become tarnished). How does all that stop a politically motivated board from damaging the integrity of the news product when the Board is controlling their pay. That is why Fraser was fighting to stop. He lost.
It’s kind of funny the way Fraser, who was roundly attacked as a political appointee, has suddenly been converted to a defender of the realm.
It’s clear that Fraser *did* fall out of love with his board; in which case it’s proper to resign. But the only example he offered was what seems to be a pretty peripheral dispute of who should oversee salary negotiation with a handful of highly paid news staff (the board wanted Fraser to do it, he wanted Ralston to handle it).
The irony, of course, is that National’s broadcasting spokesperson is on record demanding that Helen Clark “waste no time in calling for heads to roll at the TVNZ Board after reports suggesting newsreader Judy Bailey has been given an unjustified $400,000 pay increase.”
Brown is just a Helen-loving, Oliver-Driver-cock-sucking wanker so it is hardly worth noting anything he says, but this has to be a classic:
The Fraser/TVNZ board issue is just “a pretty peripheral dispute of who should oversee salary negotiation with a handful of highly paid news staff”!!!
Staff pay – especially senior exec pay – must be the prerogative of the CEO. Any CEO who felt that their board was interfering in the pay of their top talent would resign immediately. And if one of your board members was an extreme left wing cunt like Bryan Gould you’d so so yesterday.
rightkiwi – and it was the board who wanted it at the prerogative of the CEO!
It would appear the Fraser wanted to give that responsibility (and the blame that goes with it) further down the chain of command.
Russell, you’ll know that’s par for the course (from all political walks) – examples from my own history – Salient editor (and later frogblogger) Michael Appleton pens an article “No Prime Minister: Why Helen Clark is on the Slippery Slope to Political Oblivian” and the right loved him for it; Keith Ng breaks a story about how Labour broke its student allowances pledge and he gets congratulatory calls from the National research team. Or John Tamihere, now renowned speaker of truth, mere months after continuing allegations of impropriety surrounding the Waipereira Trust abound.
I’m trying to think of examples from the right, but it’s been some time since they’ve been in power… but I’m sure there’s a Simon Upton in there, or sage words from Doug Graham or Jim Bolger berating certain policies during the run up to the election campaign.
As I understand it the Board said: CEO please directly negotiate pay for everyone over $300k because we have accute political pressure to cut the “culture of extravagance” and
Fraser said: Ralston will be delegated by me to do the news staff and I trust him to do that –
Board said: we don’t trust Raltson [contrary to some reports of Ralson's safety] and then
Fraser said: well if you don’t trust me to trust Ralston (whom he hand-picked) then back me or sack me.
And the Board said: I’ll guess we’ll be willing to accept your resignation if that’s what you’re saying.
But I think Ralston’s in the mix heavily – he’s the bull in the china shop and Fraser’s the one who let him in – but maybe the Board was saying that Fraser’s delegation was implying that Ralston is over $300k and was going to stay that way when the Board thought Ralston is not worth it? It’s possible. But it’s all rumour isn’t it?
I hope they go back to the 2 reader format but Ralston backed the one reader format and so any change back to 2 would validate how wrong he was – and such a fundamental change that has proved to be incorrect means he cannot keep hi job. He screwed around with it and I reckon it will stand or die with Ralston.
That makes TWO organistaions Fraser was CEO of, that were in a tailspin when he bails out.
NZSO was IF first job as a Chief executive
Just try getting access to NZSO press releases, password protected for approved journalists only !!. http://www.nzso.co.nz/html/press/request_account.php
No biographies of players, no nothing !
Pamyla – Not so.
There was an earlier CEO-ship…Seville EXPO. Its physical success marred by budget blow out(s).
Incidentally – the Auditor-General normally signs off the TVNZ audited financial statements by end-August – for tabling with the Annual Report shortly after the new Parliament convenes.
Is this the real Board/CEO smoking gun amidst all the ‘political interference’ smoke & mirrors …. and resignation basis?
One might think if the PM wants to rebut charges of “political interference” she would just shut the fuck up – because her opining on other people’s contracts through the media has always been so profoundly helpful. (While being extremely sensitive about her annual “extravagent” pay increases that are well above the civil service average.)
Still, this is rapid turning into another item for the “who gives a shit” file. TVNZ can keep changing the ringmaster and head clown, but why should anyone take seriously a news/current affairs operation that’s just turned their best interviewer (Simon Dallow) into a prime time autocue reader? OTOH, from what I’ve heard
@T: I think they are looking at a Simon Dallow/Kate Hawkesby pair up. Simon Dallow’s run over the last three weeks has apparently helped a little, but it is too early to tell. And this week they are trying out Kate Hawkseby.
Plus it isn’t the first time the one presenter format has failed Bill Ralston. Remember Breakfast? After half a year of boring Alison Mau they had to throw in Paul Henry.
Who actually gives a flying fart who reads the autocue at TVNZ? I don’t,do you?Some must,or it would not be an issue would it?Why should anyone there be paid over $300k anyway,considering that their opinion on what constitutes News is banal,sanitised,once over lightly crap anyway.The most enlightening item I’ve seen on One News over the last year or so was the raising and rapid relowering of of Judy Bailey’s eyebrows.There is no waiting list for plastic surgery,obviously.(nothing personal Judy).Much as I love it,
NZ is actually a pissant little country at the arse end of nowhere,living above its means and I am reminded of this whenever I tune in to TV 1 News with a gin and cook dinner.The little creep on 3 is not much better.When I am not too comatose of an evening,I have a look at overseas papers and TV to see what I am missing.I further imagine that there are not too many of you who think that Ms Baileys costume de jour is more important than what she is not saying.A POX ON TVNZ AND HELEN CLARK for their cynical disingenuity.AHHH I feel a bit better now.