Fraser on TVNZ
May 6th, 2007 at 8:01 am by David FarrarThe SST has an interview with Ian Fraser. Some of it is expected justifying his record, but what I found interesting was:
His belief that the “hybrid” model of public service and commercial television cannot work and should be abandoned.
Fraser also calls on the government to sell off TV2 and turn TV One into a non-commercial public service channel combined with Maori Television and Radio New Zealand.
Fraser has a lifetime of dedication to public broadcasting, so when he says the TVNZ model is fatally flawed as a hybrid, people should listen.
I have long advocated selling off a fully commercial TV2 and having TV One as a public service broadcaster. The idea of merging it with Radio NZ and Maori TV also has some merit – more so for Radio NZ than Maori TV.
Tags: Media
May 6th, 2007 at 9:09 am
The place will be honeycombed with Labour Party activists and become “Labour Broadcasting”. There will be much plotting in the night to ensure this happens. Maori TV should stand alone rather than become plundered with a whole lot of honkey Labour Party activists.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Agree entirely that TV2 should be sold off, but WHY STOP THERE???
What are the reasons for selling off TV2 that apparently don’t apply to TV One?? How is this logical?
Any fan of public broadcasting like to write here one good reason why the government should force people to subscribe to an entertainment medium they do not use?
Any pro TV One self described liberals out there want to explain their support and also explain how such support stacks up against their professed ideas on “economic and social” liberalism? Since when has compulsion been a part of liberalism?
Anyone like to explain why government should be in the entertainment industry, and a dying sector of the entertainment industry at that? Television jumped the shark a decade or so a go.
There is no good reason for government to be in broadcasting. Only bad reasons. Such as the ability to disseminate propaganda.
It makes no difference to me whether Tv One is sold or just shut down and the assets auctioned off, as the long as the damn anachronistic white elephant departs. As far as I’m concerned everyone working there can piss off to Cuba and apply for a job with Castro’s broadcasting unit. ..and the same applies to Maori Tv and Radio NZ.
Give me my damn money back. I’ll organise my own entertainment budget thank you commies. (liberals??? pfft, what crap!!!)
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 10:14 am
BTW, before the economic illiterates start yelling that TV One runs at a “profit”, and therefore doesn’t depend on taxpayer support-
Rubbish.
Take away the massive income generated by so called “public good” advertising and paid for by the taxpayer. (speeding, boating, drowning, falling over the coffee table, smoking blah blah blah blah)
Take away funding and grants at all kinds of levels for television productions in NZ, through NZ On Air and other such anachronistic sources that TV One has access to rates much lower than it pays for real programs.
The idea that TV One runs at a “profit” is mere propaganda. As tangible as the government’s figures on who is receiving the dole in Flaxton. Without compulsory contributions from taxpayers who don’t want it or watch it, TV One would collapse into a financial black hole.
This is also the reason why it cannot be trusted to comment objectively on political issues. Staff at TV One will use their ability to shape political perceptions to venomously attack any political party that advocates that it be shut down.
TV One is a wasteful and dangerous social and political anachronism. Shut it down.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
agreed, close tvNZ completely, you don’t got to be serious Dave F that anyone should take notice of Fraser or Ralston, then guys still sing in the shower dave, these guys presided over and collapsed TVNZ,
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Apparently Redbaiter hates TVNZ so much that he watches it all the time. ( even the ads??)
Remember the joke about the most popular instrument in Folk music being the …off switch
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Selma, what the hell have those comments got to do with NZers trying to provide for their family or save for their retirement, or perhaps even so arrogantly wanting to organize their own entertainment budget, while the cultural commissars loot their income to keep their political acolytes broadcasting propaganda?
Same old crippled comprehension behind the screwed up thinking patterns of every leftist/ pseudo liberal right?
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
RB, it’s Flamere.
PQ, it was Clark who presided over the collapse of TVNZ by interfering with the board which in turn interfered with executive decisions. Please put the blame where it really belongs, rather at the feet of Clark’s scapegoats.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
The Board interfered with executive decisions ?
Like When Rosanne Meo, appointed by National, secured Paul Holmes $800,000 salary
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I support keeping TV One as a public service free-to-air broadcaster. But it needs clear direction that allows it to shed the commercial requirements of its hybrid role, and improve its programming.
The choice available through pay-television means that retaining the more commercial TV2 in public ownership is no longer necessary.
The suggestion of lumping TV One, Maori Television and Radio NZ together implies that bigger is better. Maori Television has already proved its viability and successfully caters for its audience – it should be left as it is. Radio is a different medium from television and the Radio NZ stations should remain separate to service a more mobile listening audience.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’d be interested to know where else in the world a country with four million people is able and willing to fund a free to air nation wide TV network and a nationwide radio network.
Come to think of it, I’d be interested to know of any city in the world where four million people fund such luxuries from their taxes. Oh yes, I mean cities and nations which have no more than our current level of per capita GDP – so that excludes half of the OECD countries.
We can’t afford them. Sell them and then set them up again from sctatch in twenty years’ time, after a tory gummint has actually brought us back to some semblance of prosperity.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
There is an underlying suspicion on the right that those not working for private capital invested for profit money are not to be trusted. It’s called a conspiracy theory. It premised in a paranoia that those independend of such controlling interest might actually not have to believe in the private eneterprise capitalist system and the free market model, therefore some of those working there might well be commies.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
“Anyone like to explain why government should be in the entertainment industry, and a dying sector of the entertainment industry at that? Television jumped the shark a decade or so a go.”
Yes,I would. FOX NEWS is a lesson to everyone on what can happen when powerful private citizens get to run their own television channels.The news filtered through ideology.
It’s not that public broadcasters are particularly remarkable ,(although the BBC and PBS tend to take little things like research a little deeper than say Fox’s Sean Hannity). We should all be keeping an eye on ALL news services for bias but alternative independent points of view are important as is fact checking.
Independence is the true problem. Private broadcasters make money selling ads to many of the corporate citizens that it is supposed to be reporting on. That’s a relationship that’s just a little too cosy to want to back the idea of a privately run media.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“Yes,I would. FOX NEWS is a lesson to everyone”
What the damn hell??
FOX news has some of the most liberal presenters out there. Jezuz, its getting so bad its almost intolerable. What planet do you live on J?? Sure they have Hannity, but they’re riddled with left wingers as well.
More importantly of course, (and I guess because you suffer from typically leftist comprehension standards) you haven’t even half answered the question. What makes your criticisms of FOX inapplicable to any other broadcaster?
Why you might to think government owned broadcasters are free of ideological bias is something I find staggeringly inexplicable, when such stations have historically provided the most stark examples of pro-government propaganda. Why also would they be “independent” when their paychecks and very existence depends upon the goodwill of the government??
Public broadcasters are just as guilty of bias as anyone, and especially more so than FOX who at least admit to it, left and right and do not pretend to objectivity like the commie charlatans at TV One and or RNZ.
For example, whilst the mainstream media has ignored it, why haven’t public broadcasters reported on the Channon Christian Chris Newsom murders? Because they share the same biases of course. FOX to my knowledge is the only broadcaster with the guts to make any kind of issue out of this horrifying event, hushed up by everyone else. If there was ever a case for public broadcasters to step into the void it was with reference to this crime. What did we get? Shameful silence.
That you J seek a broadcaster who is “independent” or unbiased is a reflection of gross immaturity. You’ll never get it. Its impossible.
..and this is not about FOX, and the laughable suggestion that somehow public broadcasters exist on a greater moral plane than any other broadcaster. FFS..!!
I notice neither you or any of the other pro state funded broadcasters addressed any of my other queries- most notably
Any fan of public broadcasting like to write here one good reason why the government should force people to subscribe to an entertainment medium they do not use?
Issues of morality and principle are always too hard for leftists.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Next I suppose you will be saying the healthy do not use health care services and thus this there should be a pay as you get sick basis.
Everything is “across the board” – many companies charge lower profit levels on some product lines than others when the market is competitive and manage this by operating higher profit margins on other lines when competition there is easier – do you also object to paying a higher price to cross subsidise a lower price for consumers in other areas?
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“That you J seek a broadcaster who is “independent” or unbiased is a reflection of gross immaturity. You’ll never get it. It’s impossible”
But I’m 104.
My point is the experience of Fox doesn’t bode well for the future of privately owned news services. A public broadcaster may indeed be biased but has to operate in a much more visible, accountable arena and is open to more scrutiny. Maybe they need more? I’d vote for that.
“Public broadcasters are just as guilty of bias as anyone, and especially more so than FOX who at least admits to it (bias).”
Although perversely Fox are adamant they aren’t biased. “Fair and balanced” is their catchphrase. To be honest nearly all modern news services suffer from the same problems, lack of attention to research and fact checking and an obsession for ”tiny” interviews. This may well be (is) because of the the short political attention spans of the viewing public however you’ll surely agree it’s not a great environment to run progressive politics in.
Let’s be honest red the average citizen needs to take a much greater interest in the politics of their nation. Political analysis should be taught in schools up there with Maths and English as a core subject.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
j, you haven’t got a shit’s show in hell! They don’t yet teach the real function of profit and you want politicl analysis taught? What sort of idiot are you?
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
There is no such thing as an unbiased broadercaster. I mean it wouldn’t matter so much if they just gave out pro-govt propaganda: but we all know TVNZ, Radiosocialism, Ministry of Health Education etc give out pro-Labour propaganda regardless of who is in government.
And that it why it is absolutely imperative that the state in NZ does not intevene in any way shape or form in broadcast or narrowcast entertainment, the web. etc etc.
It would be very simple indeed to close down the whole damn lot, terminate all jobs and contracts through legistlation (no redundancy or notice necessary whatsoever). Sell the buildings and gear to the quickest bidder, and then (most importantly) the frequencies too: and convert the frequences into property rights in perpetuity.
Passing the legislation would take a week: arranging the sales the rest of the month. Yes it might raise more money in the short term to see it as a going concern, but look at the railways: should Labour ever manage to get relected they would just but it back.
These things must be demolished fast and in such a way that they will never, ever come back to haunt NZ.
That is the only broadcasting policy this country needs.
Vote:(funnily enough, it’s also the only Health policy, Education policy, transport policy, and so on)
May 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Some associate a greater level of prosperity to a greater ease in making a profit off the use of capital.
Such greater “prosperity” need not be reflected in growth, rising work incomes or increasing home ownership levels.
It would refect suppression of the local population and any economic sovereignty (and thus any effective political sovereignty) and placing the area into abject service to global capital of which local capital would be a subset.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“j, you haven’t got a shit’s show in hell! They don’t yet teach the real function of profit and you want politicl analysis taught? What sort of idiot are you?”
Oh ad man your hurting mah feelings.
But seriously it’s a course that would be great for you and sinner and red.I could timetable it just after your anger management classes.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“What sort of idiot are you?”
Agreed..
No matter how often I might disagree with leftists, they still always manage to astound me with their barbarism and their ignorance.
The way they slander FOX news is a disgrace. So typical of a bunch of knuckle draggers who get their political inspiration from totalitarian tyrants like Mao, Stalin and Castro. FOX does nothing illegal. (although he left are trying hard to change this) It runs a successful commercial enterprise. Catering for a market that only exists because of the wall to wall leftists that control the greater part of the media.
Here’s this tiresome ignoramus J complaining about Sean Hannity when the fact that Hannity shares the front desk with the bleeding heart liberal Alan Colmes appears to have completely escaped him.
As the meaning of “fair and balanced” has also escaped him. This is a phrase that acknowledges that objectivity in reporting is impossible, and explains FOX’s philosophy, in trying to counter that lack of objectivity by employing both left and right wing presenters, wherein the bias of one is compensated by the bias of the other. Balanced..!! Get it you moron????
..and this is all that incenses the left, the fact that FOX actually takes the trouble to give both sides.
Its all so much commie bullshit. ..and anyway, any perceived lack of objectivity in news reporting by the private sector is still no reason for the government to loot the pay packets of citizens and establish a broadcaster that is just as biased and that those who have been looted may not even want to watch. What utter illogical crap. The gummint has no business being in the entertainment business (TV).
More scrutiny? What a fucken laff that is. If there was any real justice the incredibly biased unaccountable leftists at RNZ would have been defunded decades ago.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Thank god for Fox or we’d never have known about “the war on xmas.”
Red, do you watch this shit? Alan Colmes gets about 20% of the airtime Hannity gets, he gets buried in debate and lets be honest he’s hardly representative of the liberal side of the Democratic party. No, that’s not fair and balanced news.
But taking your assumptions further where is O’Reillys sidekick and/or Brit Humes , John Gibsons or Chris Wallaces co-presenter? There have been ex-presenters who have gone on record admitting they were told to distort the news, there have been actual e-mail directives leaked from the editorial chiefs stating the same thing. This isn’t about left or right it’s about lying to the public.
You can’t seriously be telling me you think Fox News is a news channel of merit. I’m agreeing with you journalism is pretty bad all round but to defend Fox News shows you really to be a bit lost there Red my old chap.
By the way is redbaiter David Farrar? Do I get a prize for guessing?
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“Alan Colmes gets about 20% of the airtime Hannity gets”
A lie.
“where is O’Reillys sidekick”
You dick, there are pleny of left wingers on Fox who don’t have co-presenters. Geraldo and Greta for two examples.
“you really to be a bit lost there Red my old chap”
I’m not lost and I’m not your “old chap” you nauseating smug ignorant barbarian.
“By the way is redbaiter David Farrar? Do I get a prize for guessing?’
Fuck off, even for a leftist, you’re just too much of an utter idiot.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“You dick, there are pleny of left wingers on Fox who don’t have co-presenters. Geraldo and Greta for two examples.”
See red OLD BEAN it’s this kind of observation that makes me think you really have no comprehension of modern politics. Jesus not even fox believe they have left wingers on fox.
You’re not reading the society you live in at all. It’s a prerequisite for intelligent political debate. Also why is it so shocking that you might be David you “nauseating smug ignorant barbarian ********UCK ***UCKER!!C##T CO^K S##K#R!!!!.” (HEH)
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Try and understand, its a little disappointing to come to the realisation that you’ve been debating with a clueless knuckle dragging savage who has no concept of private property rights, is so pathologically ill mannered he’s quite prepared to label someone a liar without the faintest substantiation, and is so cluelessly inept at debate he thinks that even if FOX is biased this somehow makes a case for taxpayer funded television and radio.
..and then to cap off this display of intellectual depravity, you show yourself astonishingly incapable of recognising the subtleties of writing style and the obviously different political views that make the allegation that I am David Farrar so absurd.
Even your vulgarities are misplaced. I’m not calling you a smug nauseating ignorant barbarian in the way someone might call you an arsehole. I’m using those words because, as I have explained in the paragraph above, I feel they are an accurate description of you. In the end, you’re just a schoolboy, who shouldn’t be cluttering discussion sites like this with such painfully witless views. Please find somewhere else for your immature and time wasting inanities.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“I’m not calling you a smug nauseating ignorant barbarian in the way someone might call you an arsehole.I’m using those words because, as I have explained in the paragraph above, I feel they are an accurate description of you:”
Fucking hell.How fucking old are you?
…..and pal you stop fucking talking bollocks and I might just stop posting. Get familar with the truth fast pal because the world is about to change very fast.There’s gonna be a black man in the white house.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Back to the real issue- I see where SPC claims that as the government provides health care, this justifies it also being in the entertainment business. What a devastating argument.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I agree totally with ‘baiters initial post ( even if upon the realisation of who I agree with I felt a strong compulsion to vomit ).
There is no logical arguement for the government to own tv1 or 2.
I’d prefer the Maori Channel + NZ Onair only, but if the government feels a burning desire for a PBS style channel to go along with the Maori channel, I could live with that, but at a combined cost of 150% of the Maori channel.
P.S. Aside from the policy reasons for selling 1/2 together, I’d be curious if anyone has the breakdown of expected differential in values ( seperate vs combined ), it certainly used to be substantial.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“this justifies it also being in the entertainment business”
Oh dear.The argument is that the government through public funding should fund a public news service with an independent agenda (fact checking) although being a FOX NEWS viewer (why don’t you just write “gullible” across your forehead) I understand your limited comprehension of the difference between news and entertainment. Red, please find somewhere else for your immature and time wasting inanities.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Redbaiter
You wrote
“Any fan of public broadcasting like to write here one good reason why the government should force people to subscribe to an entertainment medium they do not use?”
Your specific point was to the issue of paying for services not used.
My reply simply noted that we all pay for services we do not use (when young for super, when on super for education etc). Sometimes we make a cross subsidy and sometimes our payments are in the form of insurance against a future need etc.
My reply was
—- Next I suppose you will be saying the healthy do not use health care services and thus this there should be a pay as you get sick basis.
Everything is “across the board” – many companies charge lower profit levels on some product lines than others when the market is competitive and manage this by operating higher profit margins on other lines when competition there is easier – do you also object to paying a higher price to cross subsidise a lower price for consumers in other areas? —-
Your being left to an arguement premised on distinguishing between entertainment and other service products is farcial – TVNZ is a news and current affairs provider, an information resource, a community service, amongst a number of other things.
You may as well add all cultural sporting and arts funding by government to the list of things you object to paying for, but given there is no asset sale value involved there the right sees no profit to raising this wider issue. AIt would also of course expose how narrow minded the “society” of the right actually is
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“Your specific point was to the issue of paying for services not used.”
Sorry, my specific point was much more comprehensive than that. I used the phrase “subscribe to an entertainment medium”. If you think this means the same as pay a compulsory health insurance premium, then I don’t know what language I might use to debate the issue with you, as it seems you have a lot of problems with English.
TV One is a television broadcaster- this is an entertainment medium. dress it up in with whatever fancy descriptions you want, it still doesn’t change the bottom line.
If people have objections to to the way some television stations are run, they go out and start their own television station, with their own money or money they raise from investors. They don’t force me or any other NZer to pay for it by abuse of the democratic/ legislative process.
As for the claim that government services are “independent”. Bullshit. They are as dependent on finance as any other broadcasting entity, they merely serve a different master, and in most cases, this “independence” is merely progressive code for “extreme left”. Anyone who seriously uses the word “independent” to describe Radio NZ or TV One needs their damn heads read.
As for FOX, this is a private company for chrissake. Its their money and its owners can run it any way they want. You don’t like it, turn the damn thing off, (as listeners did to Air America.)
There’s no way you can use perceived bias in private companies to justify the theft of taxpayer funds to start an equally biased government broadcaster. You don’t like FOX or any other broadcaster, start your own damn station.
You won’t of course, all leftists ever want to do is dream up absurd reasons to justify their compulsion to elect immoral vote buying scum to parliament who agree to legislatively steal money and give it to the leftists who voted them to power. Voters have to start recognizing this process for the gross immorality it is and start taking steps to make it criminal.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Nigel, you cannot say you agree with the logic that supports the closing down or selling of TV One and TV Two, and then say you agree with the continued government funding of Maori TV. Jesuz man, this is a direct logical contradiction. (leaving aside racist and patronising).
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Sorry redbaiter, but most people accept that they pay for public services they do not use. They don’t try and have the one they don’t use closed down or sold off.
Note many of those for the sale of TV 2 are arguing for a public broadcaster TV1.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
“Sorry redbaiter, but most people accept that they pay for public services they do not use.”
Entertainment is not a public service, and I am not “most people”, and not being a brainwashed commie, neither do I accept it.
The “most people” strategy is only fill for an argument that lacks logic or morality.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Your opinion about what is and what is not a service to the public, is just that. Your definition of public broadcasting as entertainment, is also just that, an opinion.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“The “most people” strategy is only fill for an argument that lacks logic or morality. ”
No I think what is being said here is that there is an unusually high consensus to support the funding of public broadcasting. Restructuring is needed however no one apart from brainwashed delusional facist dreamers think that the private sector could provide the kind of broadcasting services important to a progressive society, let alone police themselves.
Jesus man have a look at the history of corporates and their inability to stay within the law. How easy it would have been for Enron if they had owned a news service. In the end they were still able to run rings around a sluggish nervous business press for years. A press who never had the guts to ask them , “How the hell are you making your money?”
Redbatter you seem to have a complete lack of knowledge of how your country works and/or the development of human rights in the first world in the last 100 years. You are a cheerleader for a sector of the business community who constantly fabricate “logic and morality.”
You are an angry old man who gets off on isolation.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“Your definition of public broadcasting as entertainment, is also just that, an opinion.”
So what SPC, is the essential difference that makes one television service “entertainment”, and another a “public service”, especially as it applies to TV One??
I guess you’ll be providing a valid definition rather than an “opinion”.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
There’s no contradiction, just an acceptance that Television can be for the public good & a willingness to not be a slave to ideology, but instead to believe that compromise & solutions are far more effective, you could argue it’s the Governator philosophy.
Why TVNZ should be sold wholesale.
- It’s damn expensive to run.
- It should be & was a purely commercial operation.
- There is no public benefit from owning it.
- Mixed goals as a broadcaster ( ie. the charter ) make for worst of both worlds.
Why Maori TV should be kept along with NZOnair & potentially a PBS style channel.
From the top.
- NZOnair is an excellent funding model for documentaries & non-profitable Television eg Childrens Programming, utilising Major broadcasters, so it’s dead easy to keep that.
- Maori TV, it’s cheap & serves a public good, I don’t see the harm ( how can you claim racism when Judy Baily anchors the ANZAC special, which was excellent television as an aside ).
- PBS style channel, well I guess you need somewhere for the arts nuts & if founded on C-Span style political coverage it makes sense & serves a public good, but it has to be cheap ala Maori TV, though it would be a good thing for it to work with Radio NZ for news/current affairs coverage for added benefit.
- There’s an added technical benefit, which is that to start a TV channel has never been cheaper with digital & HD technology being so affordable.
I guess I see things in grey, not black & white ‘baiter & actually care that genuine public good broadcasting is provided by the best agency & I believe that is central government ( no I don’t think private fundraising aka US model works, it’s a disaster ), but I can’t see any model for that centered around TVNZ, which is far to commercial & structurally to big, the last thing we need is NZ version of the BBC bureaucratic white elephant ( which is what TV One would turn into if kept as public only, almost guaranteed ).
Vote: