Ralston & Wilson on ‘NZ on Media’
Bill Ralston and/or Janet Wilson (not sure which one of them authored it) blogs:
Over on Kiwiblog Dave Farrar reports on an interesting idea from the redoubtable Herald columnist Fran O’Sullivan who talked at a recent Rural Women NZ conference about expanding NZ On Air funding to cover all media, not just broadcasting.
Fran has a good point. Why should what is effectively a government subsidy to ensure there will remain a New Zealand voice in the media be reserved solely for radio and television?
She argues that NZ On Air (or NZ On Media) funding should be made available to worthy local content whether it is broadcast, in print or on the internet. …
Currently NZOA funding is contestable, both public and private broadcasters can dip into it. What’s wrong with private sector publishers and bloggers having access to it also?
Back in the day, when Maurice Williamson was broadcasting minister, the whole idea of contestable NZOA funding was that it was needed for all broadcasters to provide NZ content because otherwise commercial pressure on the channels would mean cheaper imported foreign product would overwhelm locally produced material.
This effect is now being felt not just in broadcasting but all media. So, open up the fund!
Yep. NZ on Air used to be funded by the TV license fee. But ow it is funded out of general taxation, the rationale for broadcast only is weakened.
Frankly, it will eventually have to happen because of media convergence anyway.
Once that wonderful high speed broadband to the home rolls out and the broadcasters start pumping more TV programmes and video into your computer, what’s the difference between a TV channel and, say, a newspaper site like nzherald.co.nz or stuff.co.nz that screens news videos?
And the newspaper sites are putting up considerable video content.
If anyone doubts internet sites lack journalistic nous and quality check on interest.co.nz and Bernard Hickey’s recent great yarn about how this country’s biggest privately owned dairying operation (they own 22 farms) is allowing dozens of calves to starve to death on one of it’s farms in the central North Island.
Hickey’s story comes complete with a whistleblower, graphic video footage and a MAF investigation that oddly seems to have come to nothing in terms of the animals’ welfare. …
Hickey produced a scoop that was eagerly followed by TV ONE’s Close up and RNZ National’s Morning Report, the NZ Herald and others.
Perhaps the most interesting part is that Bernard Hickey has long been regarded with suspicion and resentment by some in the mainstream media, who curl their upper lip at what they see as his self-promotion and entrepreneurial approach to the news business.
Oh Bernard is a media whore of such excellence, he is the Princess Diana of media whores, and everyone else is at the Jade Goody level. Bernard appears on Tv several times a week, and never fails to get the magic words “interest.co.nz” into his dialogue at least twice. I swear he will have the domain name on the coffin at his funeral 
Unlike some though, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I think it is great Bernard has abandoned safe employment within the traditional media, to work online only and turn it into a commercial success. He is in this to make money, and good on him for making sure he consistently gets the brand across. And it has allowed him to do investigations such as the Crafer one, which has been hugely beneficial.
I find it highly amusing that that avowed right wing capitalist has fully exposed the practices of NZ’s biggest farmer, rather than the environmental left movement. Not totally surpised, as people on the right can be very harsh on those who “let the side down”. That is one reason I hate “scummy employers” who are exploitative. They are the reason we get all these rules and regulations on the other 98% of employers.
This is the kind of investigative story that would merit NZ On Media funding.
A good example.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Bernard has made Hans Criek and his merry band look like the puisant amatuers they are.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
In fact, it is a good example, why there should NOT be NZ On Media funding. If Hickey is capable of doing this without state funding, he is simply proving the validity of his business and media model. This now should be followed instead of the other way around.
It is not surprising that DPF and even Whale now seem to be sending signals that they would support such a means of getting onto the tit, but this should be rejected. There is now a prima facie case to show that very good investigative journalism can be had without any cost to the taxpayer. Good reason to stop all funding to TVNZ and the like straight away…
[DPF: People who think I have a personal interest in applying if there was a policy change are deluded. I make my money from spending time away from blogging and the returns there on a per hour basis will always be much greater than being paid to write. I blog because I enjoy it - it in facts cost me considerable money in terms of opportunity cost]
October 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
DPF
Cheers
Great idea on the branding on the coffin. I’ll get my twitter/bernardchickey on there too. By the time I kark it I’m sure there’s a way I can post and tweet from hell.
I’m loving being compared to Princess Diana too. If only I could bat my eyelashes, look coyly down and wear a bullet proof vest with the panache she did then I’d made even more money.
But seriously, I agree with dimmocrazy. Subsidies are a dumb idea for news in mainstream media (or entertainment for that matter). There are successful business models online. It’s just that the traditional media haven’t found one that bails them out of their legacy costs associated with broadcasting and printing. It cannot be done.
In the long term the traditional media will have to embrace the online only way to make profits. That will mean shutting their printing plants and closing their ruinously expensive studios. That will mean cutting their costs 90%. So be it. I suspect it will actually mean fewer printers, fewer advertising executives, fewer sales and marketing types and fewer truck drivers, but more journalists breaking stories rather than just sitting in front of their screens churning press releases. We actually need more good journalists and fewer ‘churnalists’.
There’s more over here at Janet’s site.
http://www.janetwilson.co.nz/2009/09/show-me-the-money/comment-page-1/#comment-81
Here’s how to make money producing news online.
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/17/opinion-how-to-profitably-publish-financial-news-online-for-free/
cheers
Bernard
October 1st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I want to shout NOOOOOOOO. If we dilute NZ On Air funding and divert it into other areas, there will be less to fund quality New Zealand content. There will be nothing on TV except soaps, crime-dramas and reality TV. Oh hang on a minute…
I’m also highly suspicious of the MSM, who sneer at the new media (biased, unprofessional, unbalanced, etc.). They hollow out their own models, employing repeaters and live-cross muppets instead of proper journalists, but are only too happy to brazenly steal real investigative work of journalistic merit such as this story. I wonder if Q&A, Radio New Zealand, the Herald or any of the others gave Bernard even the courtesy of a hat-tip for the story? And, is Bernard even able to submit for consideration at the Qantarse Media Awards?
Ooh, and I wonder if being termed “ubiquitous” is Bryan Linkwhore Spondre’s ultimate wet dream?
October 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Does the TV licence fee still exist?
October 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“live-cross muppets ”
I think it is unfair to denigrate them like this. They have sensible faces and sensible names.
TVNZ’s live cross muppet in Samoa this morning opened each cross I saw (after they had done the name pushing routine which was futile, I can’t remember the names) with a comment like “Apia right now shows no sign of what had happened only a day ago”. Then they kept showing repeat smatterings of material from the previous day – not from Apia of course because the tsunami hit the opposite side of the island.
This raises a serious question – how much would it cost to get a real journalist into the disaster zone and provide some worthwhile coverage? It wouldn’t be easy, nor cheap. But I guess it isn’t that cheap having two studio talking heads (how many journalist wages worth?) plus associated entourage and flying a muppet head and crew to the wrong side of Samoa either.
October 1st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Pete, you think it is unfair to denigrate WHOM like this? You mean my reference to “live cross muppets” is insulting to other breeds of muppet?
October 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Or how about cut the funding completely and see what pops up?
Can’t be worse than the retarded bunch of irresponsible journalists and NEWS MAKERS we have now.
After all, New Zealand is a “free market” totally uncontrolled and has totally uncontrolled media.
Joke.
October 1st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Bernard Hickey (17)
Hi Bernard. Great article. Since April, I’ve only been reading MSM stories if they’re linked to from Kiwiblog, or Sweetness and Light. I used to read stuff.co.nz almost daily. Now I get my NZ news of KB, and Whaleoil. You know that sites like this cater to a particular niche, and make no pretense otherwise. Not like MSM sites.
cheers
David Prosser
October 1st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
TV3 are free to do as they like, but I think TVNZ should be pressured into getting into serious journalism and cutting the celebrity fluff, especially the self promoted celebrity wanabe stuff.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
So, PG, are you prepared to pay what is necessary to stop TVNZ having to chase the ratings? Because the only reason celebrity/grief porn is featured so highly in our media is because, whether you or I like it or not (and I don’t) it sells. If we want at least one of every media devoted to serious journalism, in a country this size, we have to look to something other than the commercial model. Professionally, I wish it wasn’t so. Realistically, I know it is.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Alastair Miller
Many thanks. We can apply for the internet part of the Qantas Media Awards. We won the business site of the year award at this year’s Qantas awards
http://www.qantasmediaawards.co.nz/web.html#business
cheers
Bernard