Drinnan on Broadcasting Ministers
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am by David FarrarJohn Drinnan in his media column look at the last four Broadcasting Ministers.
First he looks at TVNZ’s game playing:
Television New Zealand is trying to outbid TV3 for rights to Fox Television programming – begging awkward questions about the taxpayers-can-pay logic underpinning the Kiwi television business.
The state broadcaster has been crying poor. It can’t deliver profits, it has to cut back its news operations and starting this year it needs taxpayer subsidies for the Sunday current affairs programme.
Yet TVNZ – which already holds the rights to Warner Bros and Disney content – is willing to bid tens of millions of dollars to challenge TV3 for shows like Boston Legal, House and The Simpsons.
They would fill TVNZ programming vaults to overflowing and devastate TV3. Then – a delicious irony this – the Government releases TVNZ submissions that accuse Sky Television and its free channel, Prime, of being a domineering, acquisitive menace in the TV world.
Outraegous that TVNZ is trying to steal broadcasting rights off the sports codes who own them.
Then he looks at the Broadcasting Ministers:
Maurice Williamson: “Minister of Market Forces.”
Williamson was an admirer of entrepreneurs Craig Heatley and Terry Jarvis who started the pay-TV firm. Lack of regulation ensured that it was able to grow swiftly and unencumbered. To be fair, Williamson inherited a new system from Labour that was light on regulations Like Telecom, Sky was small, and during his era at least, no threat to anybody.
Marian Hobbs: “Minister of Muddles.”
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there were lots of potholes during Marian Hobbs era as Broadcasting Minister. It was a period marked by muddled ideas about social and cultural goals mixed with overseeing the Beehive’s paybacks to TVNZ for imagined wrongs.
… In her era Labour killed off TVNZ’s early, flawed aspirations for a digital strategy to challenge Sky – which some believe was a missed opportunity.
Steve Maharey: “Minister of Broadcasting Bureaucracy.”
Broadcasting was a minor portfolio for a busy minister; Maharey privately lamented the state of the portfolio he inherited from Hobbs. …
Maharey’s approach centred on giving TVNZ whatever cash it wanted with as little scrutiny as possible. An anti-Murdoch phobia held sway with the implementation of Freeview, a new platform for digital free-to-air television that would act as a counter to Sky.
Trevor Mallard: “Minister for Holding the Fort.”
Pragmatic Mallard is largely disinterested in his smallest portfolio, which he picked up when Maharey resigned from Parliament. Mallard was stunned by the “money for nothing” terms of state subsidies to TVNZ and approved by Maharey, and instituted changes.
I like the nicknames. So true.
Related posts:
- National’s Broadcasting Policy
- Broadcasting Minister threatens Plunket with Board complaint
- Drinnan on Save TVNZ7
- Three Ministers sacked, 23 to go!
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Maharey hasn’t actually resigned from parliament has he? I thought he’d just stepped down as a Minister.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
DPF: “Outraegous that TVNZ is trying to steal broadcasting rights off the sports codes who own them.”
I can’t see where Drinnan suggests this, but it may just be me. Would you care to elaborate?
sean14. Correct.
Also, I am not sure that Drinnan meant to say, “Like Telecom, Sky was small,…” Should this have been “Like Clear…” After all, wasn’t Telecom NZ’s largest company at the time?
Also, better usage would be “Pragmatic Mallard is largely *uninterested* in his smallest portfolio.” As the OED puts it:
“Uninterested
3. Unconcerned, indifferent. In this sense disinterested is increasingly common in informal use, though widely regarded as incorrect…”
Bottom line: it does look like this piece was written in a hurry.
[DPF: Drinnan doesn't cover it in this column but it has been reported elsewhere that TVNZ thinks Sky should not be allowed to bid for top sporting events - hence that sporting codes should be forced to accept a lower price from TVNZ for them]
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Another example of why the ideological dogma relating to state owned assets is such a joke – sadly one that National has felt forced to by into. The tragedy is that Maurice wasn’t allowed to sell TVNZ when it was making a profit.
As for this back door attack on Sky TVNZ can get stuffed. OK, I could do with out paying the $100-odd a month to Sky but I would have to say for that I get outstanding sporting content – almost always live and without adverts every ten seconds. The reality is that pay broadcasters have taken sports watching to a new level and in an era where sporting professionals are demanding more it is the only way that sport can survive.
If ACT get in they should demand a ministerial position – Minister for privatisation and sale of TVNZ and (giveaway) of National Radio.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
GPT1: “If ACT get in they should demand a ministerial position”
Not sure what you mean by this. ACT are almost assured of being returned with at least one seat and, on current polling and polling trends over the last year, probably two seats.
But I can’t see how a party with 1% of the vote, give or take a per cent, can realistically demand a ministerial position. Do keep saying that, though. Or, better still, put it up on some billboards in locations with really heavy traffic. Please.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
So none of you thinks a state broadcasting service is a key piece of infrastructure that the country might one day need to call on, in a time of war or disaster, perhaps?
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
There was a disaster – RWC 07 – and it was on TV3
I bet no one at TVNZ has asked the sports bodies what they want. Taking Sky out of the equation will take $$$ for professional sport out of the equation and we potentially will end up a sporting backwater.
The Warriors currently pay their way and pay for another team through the amount Sky pays for league. Reduce the amount that the NRL gets and the logic for having a NZ team in the NRL becomes far less compelling.
In any case, why invest in TV when TV is losing the battle with the internet – eg YouTube etc
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Agree, SOE’s in the marketplace are frequently deadly. And look at what Air NZ did, squeezing fares downwards for smaller airlines for years, then they get bailed out by the taxpayer. Actually, this stuff is the fault of the socialist politicians that regard all businessmen as pricks who deserve to get wiped out.
On Fox News, I can just imagine the selectivity of the content that makes it through to Kiwi viewers depending on just how PC and leftwing and anti-Bush the station that ends up running it here is. Said socialist politicians MIGHT just like the idea of having just a little bit of INFLUENCE over this process, might one not think?
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“So none of you thinks a state broadcasting service is a key piece of infrastructure that the country might one day need to call on, in a time of war or disaster, perhaps?”
I can only speak for myself with an emphatic no!
In times of national emergency a private operator will do as well or better than TVNZ or Radio NZ.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
But I can’t see how a party with 1% of the vote, give or take a per cent, can realistically demand a ministerial position.
So what’s your stance on Jim Anderton?
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I remember that TVNZ concocted an excuse that some sports (eg golf) should pay TVNZ for the privilege of broadcasting their sport. Now TVNZ is crying foul as the boot is on the other foot.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
JafaP, so Peter Dunne shouldn’t have a ministerial position in the this government ?, Jim Anderton, with an undetectable share of the party vote shouldn’t be a minister ? Under MMP, if you need one more person, from a party with 1 seat and NO party votes at all, and they are the key swing between government & opposition, they can demand almost anything, and they’ll get it too.
RRM, the only reason you need state ownership is so you can run propaganda unopposed. What network would refuse to assist in a disaster ? What network would refuse to go along in times of (a just) war, and if they didn’t, governments certainly have the power and probably the general backing of the populace to force (reasonable) compliance. No, state ownership is simply a part of socialisms mantra for the media, because they want control over what people know. Oh, and sometimes delusions of artistic grandeur can play a part.
Outside of that, state control of TV is foolish. You want fairness in reporting (aka report what we tell you to), pass a law, governments can do that.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Having lived with the ABC and SBS for some years now I’d suffer severe withdrawal symptoms if denied access to serious programming. State-funded (or, in the case of SBS, state subsidised) broadcasters can have value if they’re made to focus on doing things the commercial channels can’t or won’t – like in-depth news and current affairs, developing young talent and so on.
But given the state (no pun intended) of TVNZ it is true there’s absolutely no reason the government ought to be carrying it. It’d be like asking the Australian government to prop up the failing, celebrity-obsessed Channel Nine. Interestingly, that channel provides a compressed history lesson in how not to run a commercial broadcaster which TVNZ would do well to observe, since for years it’s been showing the kind of shallow fare now favoured by Nine under James Packer, and being hammered in the ratings and thus income stakes.
Under Kerry Packer (who wasn’t inclined to spend money he didn’t have to) the channel used to invest money in shows like 60 Minutes, and reaped the ratings rewards. Now the ethos is to do stories on the cheap and to use the show to “profile” “celebrities” who host other Nine shows.
Perhaps the answer for NZ is to sell TVNZ, let some ruthless capitalist decide if all their “personalities” are worth the ridiculous salaries, and allow it to run as a truly commercial operation. Then invest the money in a relatively low cost digital channel with purely cultural objectives. And have a Minister who gives a damn.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
We should remember that TVNZ in its glory days did jealously guard its rugby exclusivity, generously playing a few All Black games live (or nearly live, in the times when gate sales amounted to something). They had first right of refusal but foolishly (and with breathtaking incompetence) let Sky outbid them, back in the day, and have now resorted to (in the finest tradition of the socialists) whining and trying to screw the scrum through prohibition and over-regulation.
We should also not forget that TVNZ at one point owned a pivotal stake in Sky, which would have protected their access to the free-to-air portion of any rights. I’m a little vague on the details after all this time, but wasn’t it our Labour leaders who opted to sell that stake rather than allow TVNZ to increase its investment in Sky?
And, of course, it was most definitely Labour who crushed TVNZ’s digital plans time and again (Saturn Cable anyone?), resulting in today’s feeble Freeview offering — TVNZ6 and TVNZ7, two pathetic channels of content nobody wants to watch, trying to compete with 80 channels of television from Sky.
The wonders of state broadcasting!
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Personally I’d combine TV1, TVNZ7 and Radio New Zealand into a single state-owned broadcaster with a strong mandate for ad-free high-quality news and current affairs and New Zealand culture. Let them run one consolidated newsroom, common production facilities etc etc.
Then flog off TV2 + TVNZ6 + whatever other rights to Freeview slots to whichever private sector broadcaster wants to show Desparate Housewives to the nation.
Use the sale proceeds from the TV2/TVNZ6/Freeview sale to re-invest into new infrastructure & resources for state-funded broadcasting.
Vote:May 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ed Snack: I could be accused of sophistry (imagine!), but I didn’t say that ACT “shouldn’t have a ministerial position”.
What I said was: “But I can’t see how a party with 1% of the vote, give or take a per cent, can realistically demand a ministerial position.” Note the word “demand”.
Whether or not ACT, Dunne or any other party scoring sweet FA should hold a ministerial position depends on how close the election is, and that is a qualification that was not made in the post that I was responding to.
Thanks DPF for the clarification. Hadn’t seen that.
Vote:May 24th, 2008 at 2:00 am
No I don’t, RRM. I’ll have to do some research, but my understanding is that in times of war or civil disaster there are already significant powers to “call on” media regardless of the nature of its ownership. And just to take the blinkers off for a moment, if (for the sake of argument) a major earthquake hit Wellington local commercial stations wouldn’t broadcast emergency messages because they have ads to play?
Vote: