Both Q+A and The Nation to return

December 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm by David Farrar

Infonews reports:

Highly regarded current affairs programmes Q+A and will return to New Zealand television screens next year, with funding from .

The funding agency announced today it will continue supporting the two programmes through its special Platinum Fund.

NZ On Air chief executive Jane Wrightson said TVNZ will receive $798,000 to produce 38 episodes of Q+A. Front Page Ltd will receive $972,000 to produce 36 episodes of The Nation for TV3.

“Both series provide an important point of difference for television current affairs,” Ms Wrightson said. “Public funding allows such programmes to exist outside the demands of commercial prime time. Each programme provides a special opportunity for thoughtful interviews with leading news makers, accompanied by insightful analysis.”

I’m glad NZ on Air is keeping them both going. In an election year especially we need shows like them.

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Both Q+A and The Nation to return”

  1. Michaels (1,317 comments) says:

    I wonder why there is a $6000 difference per show?
    I guess Garner costs more than Holmes…………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. adze (1,867 comments) says:

    I still miss Agenda. :(

    Holmes adds cancer to any respectable current affairs format

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    That’s great David, I’m happy for you and all the watchers of Q+A. I am one of them. Not enough people watch them to make them viable. So we’ll take the money and give it to them anyway.

    Now, please be consistent and let’s talk about all the things I want that, like Q+A, aren’t viable. Let’s start with taxpayer discounted gym membership, taxpayer discounted ski gear, and sharks with laser beams.

    New Zealand is poorer when its politicians force people to pay for things that are demonstrably worth less than the cost of producing them. No ifs or buts. I’d rather live in a country where things got made because people actually want them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. themono (132 comments) says:

    Michaels – that’s exactly what I wondered. Possibly just better negotiators at Front Page…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    I wonder why there is a $6000 difference per show?

    Q+A is (almost?) entirely studio-based.
    The Nation has studio-based material as well as current affairs type stories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Frederick (39 comments) says:

    I sincerely hope that Jon Johansson is jetisoned from the Q and A panel. I would have thought the political commentator in the centre of the panel should be realtively neutral and impartial. However he seems to have a distinctly labour/green bias so the panel is basically two from the left and one from the right which seems a little skewed.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Johansson didn’t have a large portrait of Helen Clark in his lounge. And one of Cullen too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mrbearsshadow (3 comments) says:

    @Frederick

    He’s just educated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    I also preferred Agenda and johansson is annoying

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. calendar girl (1,175 comments) says:

    Well said, Ben. I’m interested in political affairs too (not such a junkie as DPF, though!) but I don’t want Government to subsidise my particular interests or hobbies. Any more than I approve of subsidies to the precious NZSO or NZ Ballet. It all smacks of keeping the populace quiet in Roman times with bread and circuses.

    The best place to start relevant reform is to disband NZ on Air and redirect its budget to something useful – reducing the Government’s weekly borrowings, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    I too would like to know why the difference. Holmsey is just superb. He clearly enjoys doing the show. Head and shoulders above Garner who has become an irritation. Holmes gets the information, asks the hard questions but he does it well. No aggro though I am sure Holmes could “turn” should it be required. Garner is just pushy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    The Phomes Show, what a joke he is.
    What I would like to see is Paul Henry doing it, no?
    Q & A and The Nation need some different people on the panels instead if the usual communists. Short of talent street is more exciting, not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @ben and calendar girl

    I think it was Lord Reith who said something along the lines of, “don’t give the public what they want. They deserve much better”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. flipper (3,562 comments) says:

    Questions:

    How is it that an “academic (s)”, with no real world experience, manages to get a weekly spot on Holmes show?
    Why do they use dickheads like Bradford, McCarten and Williams?
    How is it that yesterday’s woman, an overdressed/painted Boag, gets time?
    Whern will some one with balls cut Espiner off at the knees?
    When will we have respectful but hard and to the point interviewers (ala Fox) and not egotistic, painted idiots?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Yeah good on you flipper, I note no farmers ever make the cut, can’t have ill informed peasants stinking up the set.

    Why do these shows try to take a neutral or slightly left bias, just my opinion. Most presenters and panels are card carrying socialists that would go into fits and spasms if someone dares to turn to hard to the right. NZ is left of center and it seems to me that any idea coming from the far right is seen with much disdain. I would like to see more political shows with a clear bias or is something like this to scary for NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    Far too scary Bob, but is getting close to the time when the Socialist Scum will realise that there is no more ‘other peoples money’
    There is a need for Socialism, the blind, handicapped, crippled etc etc. But there is no need for the TAXPAYER to look after all of the useless lazy dropkicks. That is black, brown, white or any other colour.
    Now these cocks like Bradford, McCarten and Williams are just keeping the lazy pricks on their side, most of the lefty followers have never watched Q & A or The Nation. Most Liarbour voters would not even know, off to TV2 for some animated shit.
    All propaganda, notice Phil Goff cleaning up but the shit flows.
    Well Im off coz I gotta watch TV One Network News that I taped on Wednesday the I gotta ring Radio Yackback and moan about the news on Wednesday.
    Today is Friday so I have the weekend to sort out the news from Thursday and today. My Mum said I have to do this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Don’t bother Steve, best to get your news off the net, better then the sanitised crap they dish up on socialist TV. Don’t think I could watch two day old news, it’s a bit like watching a prerecorded game on TV, every bastard takes great delight in telling you the score before you watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    Both programmes are very poor and indicative of of the low level of political reporting, analysis, and interviewing in today’s New Zealand. The “journalists” and “commentators” in them will not pass muster anywhere else.

    I stopped watching after a couple of boring weekends.

    Neither program is worth the money spent to produce them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    I too loathe Johansen. I find him smarmy and patronising of everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mrbearsshadow (3 comments) says:

    @Steve

    “Now these cocks like Bradford, McCarten and Williams are just keeping the lazy pricks on their side, most of the lefty followers have never watched Q & A or The Nation. Most Liarbour voters would not even know, off to TV2 for some animated shit.”

    So Leftys only dominate the airwaves but only the right watch them? That’s a bit silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mrbearsshadow (3 comments) says:

    @TVB

    Yes, Jon is a bit elitist. But he is very, very

    very…

    …. very smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    The panel is normally full of Lefties and tree huggers like Johansen. And why does he occupy a permanent seat on the panel?

    There is never enough time to properly debate issues.

    I would make it 2 hours long and have 4 panelists, 2 each from Right and Left and allow some serious in-depth debate of issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Why the obsession with “must be some from the left sand some from the right”? That is real political correctness gone overboard. What about most panelists from the middle, where most people sort of are? If you have designated right wingers then the righties will just bitch over whether they are right enough or if they are proper righties. The Standard would do the same over the left.

    I’d rather see the focus on intelligence and insight, and not get bitter and twisted over arbitrary and often imaginary leanings. Many commenters are just as bad as some of the politicians – distracted by irrelevant sideshows.

    Some things need to be looked at with compassion and care, other things need to be looked at with simple business principles in mind. Many things need touches of both. Common sense and common ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Dave Mann (1,169 comments) says:

    Yes, side show, it is best to get one’s news and current affairs off the net.
    I stopped watching Q+A because that screeching Canadian chook and Holmes irritated the shit out me me (I now read that there is another irritating panelist hahaha).
    I LOVED Stephen Parker as the host on Agenda. When this programme was launched I thought ‘finally a decent current affairs programme!’…. But obviously Parker was just too good and he was replaced by a couple of bland overwheight talking puppets…. So I switched that one off too.
    The best current affairs programme in my view is Kiwiblog. The host is balanced and knowledgeable (albeit a little bit left of the mark hehehe) and the panel is rowdy, crazy and often off the planet but there are always gems to be found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. artemisia (208 comments) says:

    Never been a Holmes fan but have to admit he does a better job on Q+A than Duncan on The Nation. Agree Johansen should be replaced – bland slightly left views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. a fortiori (4 comments) says:

    I agree entirely that the hobbies and preferences of citizens are not the right sorts of things to spend taxpayer money on. But I don’t by this “it’s akin to other hobbies and ergo a waste of taxpayer money” argument.

    That’s because I disagree that current affairs and political debate programs are at all akin to hobbies and preferences.

    The state funds these programs because public culture, debate, and awareness of the issues are essential to a functioning and flourishing democracy, which alongside providing core government services (infrastructure, schooling, courts, etc.), everyone on the political spectrum should agree is a necessary and desirable thing for the Government to do.

    But these programs should less represent the views and biases of presenters than set up the debate and let the analysis of the issue take place between relevant, interesting, and informed panelists.

    So I agree we should get rid of Holmes and several of the panelists.

    Plus it would be nice to see a wider pool of academics participate, and a wider pool of people who have an interest and opinions worth hearing that come from different organisations or backgrounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    RB’s correct position: http://truebluenz.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/socialist-propaganda-supported-by-taxpayers/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.