PM’s Radio Live show referred to Police

Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:58 am

Stuff reports:

A RadioLive show hosted by the Prime Minister John Key prior to the election has been referred to the police for breaching the Broadcasting Act.

The Electoral Commission confirmed this morning that it had referred the broadcaster to police. …

NewstalkZB said it had obtained a copy of the report, which found the show violated the act. RadioLive could be fined up to $100,000 for the breach.

The BSA had earlier found the show was not an election programme and would not have breached standards even if it were.

It looks like Radio Live, rather than the PM, may be in the gun in a legal sense. But if the show is found in court to be a breach of the law, it will be politically embarrassing to the PM, no doubt.

I think it is safe to conclude there will not be a repeat show – or at least not during the regulated period anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the Police do. A show with Shane Jones in it was referred to them for investigation in 2008. I can’t recall what the outcome was in that case.

Tags: ,

BSA rejects Labour’s complaint on all grounds

Friday, October 14th, 2011 at 10:00 am

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has just released its decision on their complaints against the PM hosting a non-political hour of talkback on Radio Live.

They have rejected Labour’s complaint on every ground argued, and their conclusion was:

Our opinion therefore is that even if this programme were held to be an election programme, which we do not consider it was, it would not have breached any of the standards raised by the complainant.

So the BSA has said that in their view it was not an election programme, but even if it was it breached no standard. This suggests that the Electoral Commission are unlikely to find it was an election programme also, unless they radically depart from the BSA’s reasonings.

The real winner in all of this is Mediaworks. They have a tiny listenership, and if Labour had not whined about the one hour show, would have passed without much notice. But thanks to their complaints Mediaworks and Radio Live have had two weeks of publicity about it.

The decision is embedded below.

Radio Works 14 Oct

Tags: , , , ,

Labour on the PM’s radio show

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Labour is spending another day talking about the PM’s radio show, rather than oh you know say the credit downgrade. Yes I know they are talking about that also but if you talk about two issues in a day, then your chances of the media highlighting the one you want is diminished.

But anyway as they are still going on about it, has anyone else been amused by Labour’s position on the show. Their position is this:

  1. The show is an illegal election broadcast which should be prosecuted under the Broadcasting Act
  2. Radioworks should offer an identical one hour show to Phil Goff
  3. Phil Goff would accept the show if it was offered

You don’t need to be a member of MENSA to work out the flaw in their arguments.

For what it is worth, I think Radioworks should offer Goff an hour show also. Sure it will rate as well as a one hour discussion on agalmatophilia, but the revenue loss is probably less than the lawyer’s fees.

Tags: , ,

Electoral signs and broadcasts

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 at 11:00 am

Derek Cheng reports:

Their opponents are calling it desperate opportunism, but the Labour Party insists their black billboards are nothing more than a clever way to show support for the All Blacks.

One can show support by blogging about the team. Spending a large proportion of your limited campaign budget on billboards about the All Blacks is about politics, not sports.

About 40 billboards around Auckland and Wellington have recently popped up with white lettering on a black background: “When things look black, we’re at our best.”

Below that in red letters is: “Go the boys.”

The billboard has been mocked on right-wing blogsite Kiwiblog as desperate, and Labour’s campaign spokesman Grant Robertson was not shy about the link to the national rugby team.

“There’s multiple layers of meaning. We want to show some support for the All Blacks.”

The message was not meant to convey that Labour was close to toast this election, he said. “We’re facing a significant challenge. We recognise that. We think we can win.

“People shouldn’t be reading deeply into the tea leaves … We’re showing support for the All Blacks while having a light-hearted poke at ourselves at the same time. …

The billboards were put up within hours of being conceived, but Mr Robertson did not have the exact cost of the billboards.

Labour are trying to have you believe that this was almost done on a whim. First of all I seriously doubt any billboards were up within hours of being conceived. I’ve stuck billboards up and you need to generally get artwork in days in advance so skins can be produced, and then dried off. And then after that specialists have to put the billboards up.

As for the costs, the minimum tends to be $2,000 a month. Some sites can get close to $5,000 a month. And ballpark production costs are $1,000 per board to produce the skin and stick it up. So those 40 billboards would have costed Labour around $120,000. So they have spent $120,000 not on promoting their key messages or policies, but in trying to associate themselves with the All Blacks.

Prime Minister John Key’s DJ shows are likely to come under close scrutiny after Labour complaints to the Electoral Commission about a radio segment he hosted last week.

Mr Key hosted an hour-long programme on RadioLive on Friday. It included interviews with a number of celebrities including Sir Peter Jackson and Richie McCaw.

During the show, Mr Key told listeners the hour was an “election-free zone”, and spent the time discussing issues ranging from his cat to Coronation St.

At the time, a spokeswoman for the PM said the station had stipulated the hour had to be free of politics, after advice from the Electoral Commission that political content could breach election rules.

However, the Labour Party is arguing that his stint still broke the rules and yesterday lodged complaints with the Electoral Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

The PM went out of his way to refuse to talk politics on the show, specifically to avoid it being an election programme.

I actually think Radio Live should have given Phil Goff a one hour show also. Never mind that no one would call in!

UPDATE: The media story referred to billboards. Trevor Mallard has pointed out they are hoardings not billboards. In that case, my cost and time estimates are not correct. Billboards are 18 (and up to 60) square metres in size and are printed on special skins. They need to be put up by specialist crews. A hoarding or yard sign of up to three square metres and is on corflute and get erected on temporary structures or attached to fences.

The terms “billboard” and “hoarding” should not be interchangeable!

Tags: , , , ,

Peters on Radio

Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am

Winston Peters is the (suspended on full baubles) Foreign Minister of New Zealand. Yet he refused to take part in the Radio NZ debate on foreign policy. That is amazing enough. I’d ask the Prime Minister what she thinks of a Foreign Minister who won’t debate foreign policy?

But having been too busy to debate foreign policy, he did find time to ring up Radio Live talkback and attack host Matthew Hooton, journalist Phil Kitchin and others.

I asked Matthew whether Winston actually provided any useful information such as a guarantee the money would go to Susan Couch, despite still being with the trust months after he announced it. Matthew laughed and I realised how ridiculous my question was – asking if Winston actually provided useful information.

Tags: , , , , ,

MPs survey of the media

Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

  1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
  2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
  3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

  1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
  2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
  3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
  4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.
Media Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum Range
NZ Press Assn 6.1 6 6 4 9 5
Newsroom 5.8 6 5 1 10 9
Trans-Tasman 5.5 6 6 0 8 8
NZ Herald 5.3 6 6 0 8 8
Scoop 5.2 5 5 0 10 10
Newstalk ZB 5.1 6 7 1 8 7
Listener 5.0 5 3 1 8 7
NBR 4.9 4 4 1 8 7
Radio NZ 4.8 6 3 1 9 8
Radio Live 4.4 5 1 1 8 7
Sky/Prime News 4.3 5 5 0 7 7
The Press 4.2 5 1 1 7 6
TV Three 4.1 5 6 0 8 8
Dominion Post 4.1 4.5 1 1 7 6
TV One 3.9 5 5 0 6 6
Maori TV 3.7 4 5 0 6 6
Herald on Sunday 3.5 3.5 7 0 7 7
Sunday Star-Times 2.7 3 3 0 5 5

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

Media All Mean Nats Mean Others Mean Difference
TV One 3.9 6.3 2.2 4.2
TV Three 4.1 6.2 2.6 3.6
Maori TV 3.7 5.2 2.5 2.7
Sky/Prime News 4.3 5.5 3.3 2.2
Sunday Star-Times 2.7 3.5 2.1 1.4
Radio Live 4.4 4.8 4.2 0.6
Radio NZ 4.8 5.0 4.6 0.4
Dominion Post 4.1 4.2 4.0 0.2
Herald on Sunday 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0
Newstalk ZB 5.1 4.8 5.4 -0.6
The Press 4.2 3.8 4.6 -0.8
NZ Herald 5.3 4.2 6.1 -1.9
NBR 4.9 3.3 6.1 -2.8
Listener 5.0 3.3 6.3 -3.0
NZ Press Assn 6.1 4.3 7.4 -3.1
Trans-Tasman 5.5 3.3 7.1 -3.8
Scoop 5.2 2.8 7.0 -4.2
Newsroom 5.8 3.0 8.0 -5.0

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

Journalist Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum Range
John Armstrong (NZH) 6.4 7 2 2 10 8
Peter Wilson (NZPA) 5.8 5 5 3 8 5
Audrey Young (NZH) 5.7 6.5 7 0 10 10
Ian Templeton (TT) 5.6 7 7 0 9 9
Jane Clifton (Listener) 5.6 6 6 2 9 7
Barry Soper (Sky & ZB) 4.9 5.5 7 1 9 8
Ian Llewellyn (NZPA) 4.9 5 5 1 8 7
Vernon Small (DP) 4.6 5 6 1 8 7
Colin Espiner (Press) 4.5 5 6 0 8 8
Guyon Espiner (TV1) 4.4 5.5 7 0 7 7
Tim Donoghue (DP) 4.1 4.5 2 1 9 8
Brent Edwards (RNZ) 4.1 4 4 0 7 7
Tracy Watkins (DP) 3.8 4.5 6 0 7 7
Duncan Garner (TV3) 3.7 3.5 3 0 8 8
Gordon Campbell (Scoop) 3.6 5 5 0 7 7
Ruth Laugeson (SST) 2.7 2.5 2 0 6 6

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? :-) (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Journalist All Mean Nats Mean Others Mean Difference
Laugeson 2.7 4.2 1.6 2.6
Clifton 5.6 7.0 4.5 2.5
Soper 4.9 6.2 4.0 2.2
Campbell 3.6 4.8 2.8 2.0
Edwards 4.1 4.8 3.5 1.3
Llewellyn 4.9 5.2 4.7 0.5
Young 5.7 6.0 5.5 0.5
Garner 3.7 3.5 3.9 -0.4
Espiner G 4.4 4.2 4.6 -0.4
Wilson 5.8 5.5 6.0 -0.5
Armstrong 6.4 6.0 6.8 -0.8
Watkins 3.8 3.0 4.4 -1.4
Donoghue 4.1 3.2 4.9 -1.7
Small 4.6 3.2 5.6 -2.4
Espiner C 4.5 2.8 5.8 -3.0
Templeton 5.6 1.8 8.5 -6.7

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,