Sell TV2
January 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am by David FarrarI couldn’t agree more with Goldman Sachs JBWere who recommend the Government sells TV2. TV2 is fully commercial, provides no public good service, and there is no rationale for the Government to own it.
They think TV2 could fetch $436 million.
The report notes that TV1 had lost 26 per cent of its prime-time audiences since the charter was put in place on March 1, 2003. TVNZ is confused with a dual role to be both a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster. One can’t do both.
Also the role of the Government as both owner and regulator complicates things.
So yes sell TV2 and focus TV One on being a public service broadcaster. Has my vote.
Tags: Media
January 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Sell both of them.. TV1 and TV2. Absolutely no need for any government to own/control any major broadcasting service, TV or Radio. Government ownership of major broadcasting outlets is not condusive to the democratic process, and this is especially the case in New Zealand.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I might agree with you rb but TV3 and the other private channels are hardly good advertisements for private enterprise.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I might agree with you rb but TV3 and the other private channels are hardly good advertisements for private enterprise.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Get a good price for your grandmother did you RB?
Actually it does make sense to sell TV2 as it was always a commercial operation…but I would also retain and re-brand TV1 into the role of public service broadcaster. Similar such operations are found in all modern developed nations outside of RB’s medieval fantasy world.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Wow, “They think TV2 could fetch $436 million”
Well maybe $4 billion should be tha asking price, how can anyone value a state assett?
Do they also want to use our state owned transmitters?…. I bet they do!
Why sell TV2 it at all then. We own it it is a commercial Station and returning revenue back to the owners…US!!!!! the people of NZ.
It seems a Brash/Hide stunt to me, sell TV2 then play the same game a couple of years down the track, flog off TV1.
Vote:No DPF, the good people of NZ don’t want their state assetts flogged off.
We all know those who are interested in buying TV2 would have no intentions of starting a TV network from scratch, it would have to be a typical business move…Buy TV2 for a song off the people of NZ and then floating shares to buy something “we” already own. No DPF forget it!
January 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Damn spider season ended early this year.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“So yes sell TV2 and focus TV One on being a public service broadcaster.”
Harden up – sell both of them. Can we sell National Radio whilst we’re at it?
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Sell ‘em all, while you can still get decent money for them. I for one intend to abandon the networks as soon as decent internet TV is possible.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Experienced producer / broadcaster John Barnett has thought of possible solutions for TVNZ – and comes up with some very interesting ideas.
As he points out flogging off chunks of this asset has backfired horribly in the past!
Start the speech halfway down – fascinating:
Vote:http://www.tbi.co.nz/article.php?sid=3060
January 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I agree with redbaiter, sell TV1 and TV2. The labour party allready write John Campbells copy, why let helen control 3 channels.
Vote:Nice to see the marketshare figures dive by more than 25% since the teletubby gave us the “charter”
January 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Thank God we can finally get Fox in NZ…
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
As someone who’s been both a broadcaster (RNZ and private radio) and involved in politics (including a stint as spokesperson on broadcasting for NZ First) I’ve agonised over this question more than many.
In principle Redbaiter is right – government ought to have no role in running a broadcasting service.
Go back 20, or even 10, years and private radio was doing as good a job (better, in some cases) than the commercial network of RNZ in meeting both commercial and community objectives.
But of late broadcasters (both radio and TV) have all tripped over one another in their rush to bottom of the barrel – from pre-recorded networked radio with no connection to its listeners to “reality” TV.
And despite the already significant switch to torrent downloading and cable, the lesson seems not be being learned. Probaby because enough people are unaware of the alternatives and willing to listen to/watch this dross to make it profitable. But as viewing/listening numbers shrink, so do budgets, and thus so does quality.
So I’ve – very reluctantly – reached the conclusion that a government funded (though not government controlled) presence is necessary – especially after watching the ABC and SBS here in Australia. While not perfect, unlike TVNZ neither channel pretends to be what it isn’t. They unashamedly fund and broadcast local news and documentaries, and screen a variety of quality programming from the US, the UK and Europe as well as other parts of the world. They’re probably the one thing I’d miss most about Australia if I left.
So I’d support DPF’s proposal – sell TV2, keep TV1 and force it to return to doing what publicly funded broadcasters in the rest of the Western world do – produce and transmit programming for people with an IQ in the triple digits.
Cadmus has a point though – $400 million is a ridiculous price. Canwest made $23 million in NZ in the first quarter of the 2007 FY.
Here’s an idea – lease the whole shooting box to a commercial operator for a percentage of the profits. Over time the returns would be much greater than those produced by a sale.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
It’s unlikely TVNZ will sell either channel. Under the TVNZ Charter, they’re obligated to promote local content, which apparently they’ve decided to do by using TV1. However, they’re also obligated to remain commercially viable, which they achieve by having TV2 screen mindless, satiating, entertaining crap.
If they sold TV2 (the cash cow), they might not be able to produce a profit off TV1 alone. This would force the government to either step in and subsidise TVNZ (cue outrage) or to privatise TVNZ entirely. While this might be a good financial move, TV1′s current status as a local-content channel would evaporate. Traditionally, I would look at this as a bad thing. However, with the looming onset of dozens of free to air digital channels, local content may be provided for anyhow.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
That’s just crazy, you’d have to either built an entire new studio/transmission infrastructure or the buyer be 3/sky & then you’d be left with infrastructure for One that is not supportable by it’s revenue & the govt would have to really pour money into One.
Vote:Better to sell the whole thing, the infrastructure for 1/2 is so intertwined to the point it’s impossible to extract ( coincidence ? ) & why should the govt own a TV channel anyway, it makes about as much sense as owning a newspaper/commercial radio station, if you want something like SBS/PBS that should be done more like the Maori TV channel vs the huge infrastructure around TVNZ.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
There is a need for a public service broadcaster in NZ based on the principles developed by John Reith in the UK last century. That is, a publicly funded, politically independent broadcaster that provides citizens with the tools that allow them/us to make well informed and educated decisions that contribute to the ideals of a democratic society – i.e insight, analysis, commentary, a capacity to participate, critique, question and so on. Broadcasters that depend on advertising revenue are always going to focus on ensuring that their revenue streams have first and foremost priority. Imagine watching a debate on a critical issue that went for at least an hour, and was uninterrupted every 10 minutes by advertising breaks. For example, The McLaughlin Group…a programme like that in NZ with a high calibre of participants is long overdue.
Vote:http://www.mclaughlin.com/
January 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Cant get to your comments page on the Key speech Have the Socialists shut it down so we are comment? Wouldnt put it past Clark Especially after she told the nation on radio this morning that she had given up on trying to fix the gang problem and the unemployable problem. What other problems has she given up on fixing and not told us. the only problem she wont give up on is getting re elected.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
One of the main functions of television is to keep people amused.
Amused means, quite literally, “without thought.”
This govornment is no more likely to sell such a useful tool than Caesar was to sell the Circul Maximus.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“the Socialists shut it down so we are comment”
Yes gd, thats right, we control the internet, all of it! Helen Clark has personally ordered us to shut that thread down to stop you exposing Labour as communist satraps.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH cough HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I agree in principle with the sell 2, rebrand ONE as a public service broadcaster, but we really have to be clear what we mean when we use the term “public broadcaster”. Are you advocating that the government ditch the part of the charter that stipulates TVNZ must make a profit? That, to my mind would be the only way ONE could resist ratings pressure to provide the sort of viewing that would fit the bill. Public broadcasting distinguishes itself from ratings-driven stuff because it consists of educational, high-quality viewing. i.e. it is pricisely the type of TV that most of us prefer NOT to watch, if we take ratings as a guide. To have proper public-service broadcasting, ONE would have to be oblivious to ratings (and perhaps not conduct surveys at all, like RNZ) and would either have to kill advertising or sell it at a flat rate all day.
Personally I’m happy with that. I’d love to see TV modelled after PBS in the states, the old BBC or NHK in Japan (which is as dry as unbuttered burnt toast), but under such a system ONE would have to deflect criticism that a) it was not attracting enough viewers to justify the cost, or b) it reflected a liberal bias. Would you be happy with that?
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“The report notes that TV1 had lost 26 per cent of its prime-time audiences since the charter was put in place on March 1, 2003″
Another government success!
Where did it all go so wrong, or were the government inspired objectives of the charter too difficult to achieve without alienating viewers?
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
poor old sonic Had a humour bypass this morning did we. Sorry that of the Right are too subtle for yoy Socialists.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
poor old sonic Had a humour bypass this morning did we. Sorry that we of the Right are too subtle for you Socialists.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I disagree, there’s absolutely no reason why the government should be running some assets that could actually generate profit. If TV1 and 2 were sold it would be to a media company that would be looking to make more money from them then they cost. Business 101. There may be many reasons why Labour can’t make them profitable but the next government probably could, and it would be a shame for them not to have the opportunity.
As for Maori TV, I take my hat off to them, it’s actually really good to watch and probably would take up more of a PBS role without having to change where it’s already heading.
I say keep them all.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“Get a good price for your grandmother did you RB?”
Typical lame arse socialist thinking. Read my comment again jackass.. its not about money its about the democratic process.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
For what it is worth we should sale TV1&2. Where then would the socialists go to get their mindless dribble and propaganda fix for the day?. Given the present circumstances I doubt very much if Dear Leader and her spin machine could afford air time to spout the party line on a private channel. Thats why they need to have the state mouth piece by the short and curlys and under control by the party lapdogs.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“That is, a publicly funded, politically independent broadcaster”
This is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing as a publicly funded politically independent state broadcaster, given that that broadcaster will always depend upon the state for its funding, and will therefore never subject that entity to the scrutiny it should.
State funded broadcasters are beholden to the state, and their political allegiance is therefore to the state. This is why that without exception, publicly funded broadcasters (TV One, BBC, PBS etc etc)always deliver news and opinion from a leftist perspective. (even more leftist than the general mainstream media) State broadcasters are a tool of totalitarianism. The TVNZ “charter” is merely a blatant attempt to impose socialist ideology and left wing political ideas upon NZ culture.
Furthermore, it is not moral to use money forcibly obtained from citizens who may not be leftists to promote leftist ideology.
State broadcasting is a 20th century anachronism and should go the way of the dinosaurs and the dodo. The sooner the better. Sell them both, and if they can’t be sold as a going concern, close them down, fire the staff and auction off the assets. No democracy needs the kind of poison that emanates from TVNZ or RNZ.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
RB,
If TVNZ is so poisoned by liberalism, how come TV3 consistently polled Labour higher in the run-up to the 2005 election. I don’t think that this has much to do with a TV3 ‘liberal bias’ – TV3′s poll was just more accurate, as shown by the results on the day, but the image of TVNZ is one of stuffy conservatism, not sponsors of Helengrad.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“State funded broadcasters are beholden to the state”
yes lets have more channels beholden to big business, Fox news springs to mind (although in RB’s world they are probably also dangerous leftists)
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
State funded broadcasters are beholden to the state… publicly funded broadcasters always deliver news and opinion from a leftist perspective.
So what, pray tell, do they do whilst dependent upon a right wing government for funding?
What did the BBC do under Thatcher? TV One under Bolger and Shipley? PBS under Reagan and Bush 1, and now under Bush 2?
If your answer is “still spout leftist propaganda” then that ipso facto means they are not influenced merely by who controls the funds. And that those who control the funds don’t – usually – threaten that funding lest they be publicly caught doing so.
In fact even the openly left-leaning broadcasters I know would agree with you that much of what is broadcast on public TV and radio is biased, often subtley, in favour of the left, though not nearly as much as is claimed by those on the right.
The reason, however, is much less sinister. Speakly very generally, those of a left/liberal persuasion tend to pursue what might be termed “theatrical” studies and careers. Those on the right tend to pursue the practical. Thus many broadcasters tend to lean toward the left, and simply employ their mates when the chance arises – not due to any Vast Left Wing Conspiracy but because radio and TV are the most incestuous bloody industries in the world aside perhaps from the arts.
It’s a bit like the breathless “look how many Labour MPs are teachers / unionists” “expose”. Of course they are! Would you feel comfortable walking into a Labour Party meeting? Or even bother applying for a job at Party HQ? Birds of a feather, as they say…
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Sell 2 for whatever some asset stripper is prepared to pay for it – and good luck to them.
Close down 1 – the public service broadcaster model is a 1920′s propagandist anachronism.
While you’re at it, please also do a mercy kill on Radio NZ.
Multichannel internet is the medium of the future.
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Sell the fucken lot….why oh why does the State need to own TV stations other than to put out their propaganda? Only bedwetters and slack wristed girly men need Helen wiping their bottys and providing their TV viewing…
PS …harden up Redbaiter you Socialist pussy!
Vote:January 30th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
In an age when the costs of producing television programmes are the cheapest they have ever been, and the cost of the equipment is widely accessible, the only excuse for state owned television is to pay the inflated wages of those who work their dream careers. You see it in TVNZ and the BBC because they are permanently trapped between “we need popular programmes” and “we need to produce “quality” programmes hardly anyone will watch”.
With multichannel free to air digital TV everyone will have access to 30 or so channels as a matter of course with over 100 through pay tv, and that ignores the internet.
Television is not some sort of god given right or obligation, you can live without it and the state can live without owning any of it.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 1:04 am
RW
“In fact even the openly left-leaning broadcasters I know would agree with you that much of what is broadcast on public TV and radio is biased, often subtley, in favour of the left, though not nearly as much as is claimed by those on the right.
The reason, however, is much less sinister…”
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that broadcasting is biased towards the left because journalism, when it is good, attempts to criticise or question established notions about society and in liberal democracies the “establishment” tends to be conservative? Thus, when journalism becomes an uncritical quest for ratings (TVNZ) or partisan bullying (FOX) it tends to drift off to the right. Sure, there are liberal and conservative newspapers, but the raw element of TV and the ability to catch people out for all to see tends to heighten the sensitivity of politicians and blame the telly for whatever dive in the polls they may be experiencing.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am
Speaking as someone heavily involved with the NZ television industry-
TVNZs failures have nothing to do with the charter.
There have been two major issues:
1. Falling news ratings in their 6:30 slot which has bled into less ratings later in the evening. (there are a number of reasons for this, none to do with the charter in any conceivable way.
2. Bloodymindedness of the programmer (now left) that we ought to be weened off our TV1 BBC diet and onto American. Unfortunately there are actually not THAT MANY really good US programmes to go around, and those that are, and haven’t already been taken by TV2/3/Prime. We have missed a lot of really good BBC programming (in particular documentaries), and it has dumbed down TV to the extent that many people don’t bother to turn it on.
That said, there is a charter driven programme coming out this year. It is called ‘Rude Awakenings’.
It will bomb.
Unfortunately this will be blamed on the charter. However, I think if one has a close look at he people who have actually MADE the programme you will see Rude Awakenings pretty much matches up with their previous creative record. The charter isn’t suddenly going to make these people able to write/produce better just because the charter tells them to.
So – why were these people get the cash in the first place.
1. The Commissioner had a chip on his shoulder about certain production companies (and wanted to go with independent producers.
Frankly, I think this is a good thing in some ways. The larger productions companies carry a lot of baggage that isn’t needed. They also have lot of experience too, and they can do some great work. Generally, however they have a very poor record of treating upcoming creative talents. Without naming names, there’s some pretty good recent examples of this.
But anyway, in this case they chose the wrong people. The desire overcame common sense, and I just don’t think they took a good hard look at the previous records of the people involved. Yes – they are ‘name’ people… but when it comes out, take a look for yourselves; you’ll see what I mean. At the same time, there’s some fucking great people involved at a number of levels, so I don’t want to tar the whole team; but you’ll see…
But anyway, the tragedy of this is that the charter will be blamed, when in face the charter is a wonderful document which will allow good people to do great things, that in a purely commercial environment (with NZs population) would be impossible.
For my 2 cents:
Keep the Charter.
It can give us intelligent, perceptive TV. It’s got nothing to do with fucking politics or left and right or any of that 99% pointless and didactic debate. Intelligent, perceptive TV can be conservative as well as liberal. The best is simply at a simpler level ‘art’. Many people who hold a lot of right wing values appreciate artistic ideas. They hate mindless lowest common denominator crap as much as the left wing leaning. The charter aims to give us the former and avoid the latter. Selling it off will reverse the situation. It is simply a population thing. People are simply scared to take risks with the small pot of money there is.
So – how do we get good, intelligent (and yes, risk taking) programmes to be made in NZ? Well, we’ve proved that it can be done. Insider’s Guide was one example. The Conchords now working for HBO, etc.
So why did those work?
I don’t think it’s an accident that the people most heavily involved with the creation of this work are young people with some good fresh IDEAS. Not old school people who get funding because they’ve accumulated the right connections and power. (the irony of course, is that, at least in the Insider’s Guide case, the large, well established production company then turned around and screwed the creator, but I suppose that’s to be expected…)
So the point is that it’s all about the charter being used well. This is about 2 things:
1. It’s a wonderful tool, but it needs the right people on TVNZs end to weld it.
2. We need to empower new (perhaps young, but not necessarily) creative talents in the industry. Because they are leaving. Often because of the poor treatment and lack of acknowledgement from various bullying factions of the NZ Industry.
So there you have it.
I better get back to work.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 11:17 am
“and in liberal democracies the “establishment” tends to be conservative?”
What friggin timewarp have you emerged from?????? The “establishment” has been socialism for decades..
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 11:24 am
“when in face the charter is a wonderful document which will allow good people to do great things”
There you have it.. as stark a demonstration of the socialist mentality that prevails at TV One as you’ll ever see.
Close it down, fire the staff and auction off the assets. Get rid of this nest of government worshipping Goebbellian vipers, who have done nothing but produce the most dimbulb racist and socialist propaganda for years, and apparently don’t know how to do anything else… Who the hell needs this banal shit????
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
“yes lets have more channels beholden to big business, Fox news springs to mind”
Once again Sonic reminds readers how barren of intellect he is and how leftist mush in the form of anti business fairy tales forms the basis of his political and commercial understandings. That’s what happens you see when people are indoctrinated and not educated. Its a process that leaves them bereft of the ability to reason or think critically.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 11:43 am
“Thus many broadcasters tend to lean toward the left, and simply employ their mates when the chance arises – not due to any Vast Left Wing Conspiracy but because radio and TV are the most incestuous bloody industries in the world”
Not true.. read a bit on the issue. There’s plenty of information out there that challenges this perception. For example read Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias”. Leftists constantly strive to control, and controlling information is something they’ve always been especially obsessed with.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“What friggin timewarp have you emerged from?????? The “establishment” has been socialism for decades..”
Pah. If you are talking about Helen, then hers is probably the most conservative steady as she goes Labour government we’ve ever had, with the exception of perhaps Fraser’s. Note how whenever she goes on about the National Party and its swing to the right in the last decades she says how it is no longer the party of Holyoake, as if Holyoake’s boring conservatism was a good thing? That’s because she thinks it is.
I do too.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Once again Sonic reminds readers how barren of intellect he is”
It always strikes me that when a person is barren of intellect they resort to abusing the person rather than the substance of the idea. Educated people tend to rise above the personal attacks.
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Redbaiter: Leftists constantly strive to control, and controlling information is something they’ve always been especially obsessed with
You’re correct in your assertion I believe, (though of course no generalisation applies to everyone) but I think there’s very broadly two sorts of leftists – the hard and the soft.
The hard ones tend to gravitate to whatever elected office they can get their hands on, from which they start trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them (c.f. the recent anti-blogger sentiment). Just sitting in a publicly funded broadcasting job doesn’t give them nearly enough scope to impose their worldview. They have no illusions they’re being fair – they’re right, everyone else is wrong.
The softer ones often end up in broadcasting or the arts, or in some obscure quango responsible for doling out vast sums of public money. They’ll benignly impose their worldview through their decision making but it’s much less of a concerted crusade than many imagine. I have read a bit on it – I’ve also worked in the midst of it.
sorry can’t say: I would love to have a chat with you sometime. Not only does your comment ring absolutely true about TVNZ, with a couple of word changes it would also apply to TV in Australia. And I suspect many other markets. If you’d like to talk offline, I’m at rexwiderstrom -at- hotmail.
Tiger Coxhead: …broadcasting is biased towards the left because journalism, when it is good, attempts to criticise or question established notions about society and in liberal democracies the “establishment” tends to be conservative?… If you are talking about Helen, then hers is probably the most conservative…
The present Labour government could hardly be called socially conservative, though in the hands of Cullen there is certainly fiscal conservatism.
Good journalism does question and criticise the prevailing orthodoxy, but far too many broadcasters’ critical faculties tend to fail when confronted with an idea with which they agree. The measure of a good journalist is, in my opinion, the ability to be an effective devil’s advocate no matter what your own beliefs.
Because too many journalists are of the “slightly left but soft” ilk (as described to RB above) they approach a politician with whom – or an issue with which – they agree with far too little cyncism.
When I was doing talkback and switching from Bolger to Moore to Anderton to Peters and back again, I simply assumed all politicians are liars and gave them all an equally hard time
Vote:January 31st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
TV2 peddles crap.
Vote:Sell.