Kiwiblog

Radio NZ is facing some tough challenges as it has been told it will not be getting an increase in funding. Now, as costs do rise, that does put some pressure on, and there may be job losses which are always regretable.

But as I have said before, when a recession knocks $50 billion out of the economy, that has real world effects. Most companies would love to have a guarantee of stable funding.

Take Television New Zealand – also a state owned broadcaster, but one without the benefit of direct state funding. The Herald reports:

All Television NZ programmes will be up for constant review as the state broadcaster faces tighter budgets and falling advertising revenue.

Figures released yesterday show TVNZ’s profit halved to $8.9 million in the six months to December, compared with the $18.3 million of the previous year. Total operating revenue fell 16.6 per cent to $186.9 million.

Now I don’t mean to be insensitive to staff at Radio NZ, who are facing pressures. But hell I’d much rather be in the state owned broadcaster with guaranteed stable funding than the state owned broadcaster which has had its revenue drop by a massive 17%.

I blogged twice previously on the Radio NZ staff going to radio workshops in Iran. My position was that the Iranian Government was effectively paying for the staff to take part in an event hosted by their in house propoganda arm.

Apart from the issue of accepting the money from the Iranian Government, there was the issue of having a “good” public broadcaster like Radio NZ having its reputation associated with a state controlled broadcaster that doesn’t speak truth to power but instead speaks lies on behalf of those in power.

In the comments section I said:

The way I read it the conference organisers are the IRIB, and they are the ones paying all the costs. I welcome clarification if that is not the case, but regardless think there is an issue about having a state sponsored enemy of the free press, paying for even part of the costs of RNZ staff

Russell Brown replied:

It’s not true, and you’ve rushed in with an endorsement of a “scoop” written by someone who didn’t even bother to check her “facts”.

The two RNZ staff members were sponsored by the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union. The sentence in the newsletter was hilariously wrong. End of story.

And you wonder why people say bad things about blogs.

We also had RNZ Comms say:

Two Radio New Zealand staff members have been invited to take part in an international radio festival and conference in Iran, but the invitation came not from the IRIB organisers but the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, the umbrella agency for public broadcasting in our region. Our staff are not representing Radio New Zealand, but are attending on behalf of ABU, and if that organisation had not issued the invitation, they would not be attending.

All the costs of the trip will be reimbursed. No programme-making or gathering of content for air on Radio New Zealand will be done during the attendance at the event.

But nowhere in that statement did they back up the assertion by Russell on who actually is paying. I it APBU or Iran?

Well I have a copy of a statement from Radio NZ, which I believe has or will be supplied to media. In it they say:

Under a separate arrangement between the ABU and IRIB (Iran), the costs of all ABU representatives attending the event are covered by the host broadcaster.

In other words we are right – Iran is paying for two Radio NZ staff to travel to the workshop. Who ever told Russell it is not true, led him wrong.

We also have the issue where Radio NZ keeps insisting the are not representing Radio NZ, but instead the ABU. However their statement again says:

They will not be taking leave to attend

So they are being paid their normal salaries by Radio NZ while they are there, and Iran picks up the travel costs. And I have no doubt their affiliation with Radio NZ will be referenced at the workshops.

Now I have nothing against the two staffers in question. I am sure they do an excellent job. And if the ABU was holding the workshops elsewhere, there would not be an issue – even if a country with a semi-free press such as Singapore.

But Iran has pretty much no free press at all. The host broadcaster is beyond doubt an enemy of free media – their chairman accused the BBC and CNN of manfacturing tapes of the Iranian girl being killed. This is not a regime you want to accept money from, and lend credibility to.

Their global press freedom ranking is 181st= out of 195. Only 13 countries or territories rate lower.

The Chief Executive of Radio NZ has to approve the attendance under the conflicts of interest policy. Why does he not think associating with a regime which is an enemy of public broadcasters like Radio NZ, is a conflict? Just because the ABU has agreed to do workshops there does not mean Radio NZ has to agree to have its staff participate.

The Herald says RNZ savings are not worth it:

Radio NZ’s budget last year was just $38.2 million, of which $34.2 million was public money. That points to the swingeing nature of the Government’s programme. While it is reasonable that all state-funded bodies should tighten their belts, it seems excessive to be waving a big stick at organisations where the potential savings are trifling.

The same penchant was, however, evident in last year’s Budget. Most controversially, cuts were made to adult night school programmes.

Again, the savings seemed hardly worth the trouble. Community education takes just 0.6 per cent of the tertiary education allocation, and the canned programmes provided value for money, if only because they gave hands-on instruction at schools that would, otherwise, not have been in use.

The Herald may be right that politically it might not be smart to take a lot of political heat, for relatively small fiscal savings. However I think it is more complex than that. If the Govt goes soft on one or two state agencies, then it is harder to keep fiscal discipline with the rest of them. State sector CEOs will find ways to live within means if they think everyone is doing so. But if you start giving into media campaigns for more funding, it incentivises other agencies to do the same. And then you end up having to borrow even more than $240 million a week.

The Press talks protecting police:

In response to the weekend violence the Government is considering introducing extra penalties for offenders who assault police officers, as is the case in Western Australia. Such a move might not deter drugged or drunken offenders from attacking officers, however.

Yet, it is still worth considering, as it would reinforce the special position the police have in our society to uphold the rule of law. It would also acknowledge the real, every-day risks faced by officers as they perform their duties.

If the Government did move to strengthen penalties it would have to be determined whether the new law would apply to off-duty officers who intervened in an incident. But because the public expects off-duty officers to respond to crimes they come across, and they would not be wearing anti-stab vests, they too should have the protection of such a law.

I favour increased penalties for assaults on Police. The Police get assaulted, basically on our behalf. They deal with the criminals and risk their lives often doing so.

The Dom Post flicks at Wellington parking wardens:

Of all the low-down, mean, sneaky tricks … While football fans were cheering the Wellington Phoenix to a nail-biting victory at Westpac Stadium on Sunday evening, parking wardens were ticketing the vehicles of 61 fans who had exceeded the maximum parking time outside the ground – because the match went into extra time, then a penalty shootout.

To its credit, Wellington City Council has waived the tickets, which threatened to turn the Phoenix’s triumph into a public relations disaster. But coming on top of other recent instances of over-zealous ticketing, the incident suggests something is amiss with parking operations. Proposals to install Big Brother-style parking surveillance cameras in Courtenay Place add weight to the theory.

The purpose of parking restrictions should be to ensure that as many people as possible can park in city and suburban streets, do their business and be on their way. It should not be to fatten the coffers of Tenix, the private company which manages Wellington parking, Parkwise, the Armourguard subsidiary to which Tenix contracts ticketing, or the council itself.

Hear hear. The incentives are all about revenue maximization, not giving parkers a fair go.

And the ODT looks at water woes in Canterbury:

Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury’s regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.

The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented. …

Yet some argue no change is needed.

I’m still not clear whether or not Iran is paying for the Radio NZ staff to attend, or the Asia-Pacific Broadcasters Union is. But the issue of paying, is for me, the lesser issue.

Radio NZ is a public broadcaster. While at times I may have issues over the diversity of views on Radio NZ, they are one of the “good guys” in that their role is to speak truth to power, as the old saying goes. They act as a critic and check on Government.

The Iran state broadcaster is almost the polar opposite of Radio NZ. It does not speak truth to power. It speaks lies on behalf of the power. Rather than be a critic and check on the Government, they are a propaganda arm of the regime.

Having Radio NZ staff at a broadcasting conference hosted by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Alliance, lends legitimacy to the IRIBA.

I’d like to see Radio NZ staff attend conferences dedicated to media freedom, and the need for a free press. Not give legitimacy to a broadcaster which stands opposed to everything good about Radio NZ.

The Chief Executive of Radio NZ must have approved the attendance of the staff, under RNZ’s conflict of interests policy. Does he not think supporting a broadcaster whose practices reflect everything Radio NZ professes to be against, is a conflict?

Busted Blonde has a great scoop. She has found out two Radio NZ staff members are being sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting agency to attend some sort of broadcasting event in Iran.

So taking money from evil capitalist businesses in New Zealand is wrong, but from the Iranian Government (a known bastion of free speech) is fine.

The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting agency is the man who told the world press last July that videos of Neda Agha-Soltan’s death were fakes manufactured by the BBC and CNN.

UPDATE: In a comment below, Radio NZ says the staff are not representing Radio NZ, and that they would not attend if the IRIBA had invited them directly but somehow it is okay because it is through the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union. What is not yet clear is who is paying for the travel – IRIBA or the APBU, and also whether the staff are being paid to attend, or taking unpaid or annual leave]

My God, what a band of precious wee souls there are when it comes to Radio NZ. The country is recovering from a massive recession, and the Government is borrowing $240 million a week just to pay the bills. So not surprisingly, Radio NZ has been told they have to live within their budget and won’t get more money.

A former Labour Party press secretary sets up a Facebook group to Save Radio NZ and 3,000 lemmings rush to join up. You would think the Government was planning to close it down, rather than merely telling it to live within its budget.

Of course Radio NZ would like more money. So would every state agency and business in NZ, and every household. Businesses all over NZ have had to endure a reduction in revenue over the last two years. Many of them would love to have had their funding guaranteed to not decrease, as Radio NZ has.

The tens of thousands of households who have had someone lose their job, know how hard it is to cope with a drastic reduction in income. They also would love to have a guaranteed non decreasing income.

The rest of the state sector have been told that there are no increases for general operational expenses for some years to come. Many of them have admirably managed to come up with plans to reduce costs, but not outputs.

Adding to the hysteria, we have this quote:

Ms King said it would be like living in a Third World country if National Radio had to shut down between midnight and 6am.

What effing elitist nonsense. Go jump on a plane to Haiti and tell them how NZ empathises with their situation, as gasp horror we may not be able to listen to a Radio NZ host at 4 am in the morning.

As I have said before, I am a fan of National Radio. I am glad the Government has not cut its funding. But while the Government is having to borrow $240 million a week just to pay the bills, I am damn sure not going to advocate that Radio NZ be getting a funding increase. Radio NZ is part of New Zealand. We just lost $50 billion in a recession. That means there is less money for everyone, and they can damn well play their part by living within their budget.

The Herald reports:

Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman is considering sacking the Radio New Zealand board if the public broadcaster cannot shift to a new business model in an effort to save money. …

Among options floated to save money were moving out of its Auckland premises, seeking commercial sponsorship for Concert FM, scrapping its $200,000 advertising budget or shifting back to an AM frequency, except in Auckland, which would save $750,000.

I think that National Radio provides a good service as a public broadcaster. While at times I may have issues over the lack of political diversity amongst hosts and guests, I am overall a fan of National Radio, and think we would be poorly served without it.

However Concert FM is another matter. I don’t see a need for taxpayers to provide classical music for free over the airwaves. There are now numerous ways where lovers of classical music can access it.

So why not sell off, or disestablish Concert FM, rather than just seek advertising for it. That would leave Radio NZ to focus just on National Radio, with increased resources.

Fun summer reading can be decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Some recent decisions:

1. They reject four complaints against TV3 for Ali Ikram’s satirical piece of Maori TV getting the Rugby World Cup rights. It wasn’t that funny a piece of satire, but no way should it be illegal!
2. They also turn down two complaints against TVNZ and Paul Henry over his comments re the Maori flag.
3. ACT member Peter Taskhoff is sucessful against TVNZ for a story at an arms show than unfairly portrayed him in a negative light.
4. Kerry Bolton wins against Radio NZ for Chris Laidlaw’s programme which made holocaust denying accusations against him withotu verifying them.
5. Henk van Helmond loses against TV3 for door stopping him at is home in relation to threats about Sue Bradford.
6. A complaint against TV3 for coverage of the Boobs on Bikes parade was not upheld.
7. A complaint fron a Patty Towl against Solid Gold FM for the joke that Ellen DeGeneres is the second most powerful lesbian on the planet, and Chris Carter being the first – was not upheld.

The Herald reports:

Radio New Zealand Morning Report host Sean Plunket was “distressed” at being told to find another job if he didn’t like his employer’s decision he could not write a column for Metro magazine, he told the Employment Relations Authority.

Plunket took RNZ to the authority after he was refused permission to write the column, along with being refused permission to moderate two televised debates, for TVNZ and TVNZ6.

The TVNZ6 debate was one on Internet issues, and probably had a viewership of a few thousands. I was amazed that Radio NZ could somehow think this was a threat to them.

Plunket disagreed with RNZ’s claim that the secondary work was a conflict of interest, saying his employer was not in competition with the other media, and the work would have helped raise his profile, and, in turn, RNZ’s.

Exactly. As a taxpayer who funds Radio NZ, I object to their behaviour to act as if they were commercial radio. They are not. They are funded by the taxpayers to provide a public service, and locking their staff up does not serve the public interest.

At a meeting with RNZ’s chief executive Peter Cavanagh earlier this year, Plunket was told he was part of the broadcaster’s “brand”, as though “anything I said or did anywhere would reflect on Radio New Zealand”.

He said Mr Cavanagh later told him “you might find the offers stop coming if you don’t have the profile of Morning Report” and “if you don’t like it, get another job”.

And this was over a once a month column in Metro. Sure if Plunket wanted to go on NewstalkZB every week, I could understand some reluctance – a but a Metro column?

Plunket said he believed he was being treated differently to other RNZ reporters and presenters, who were given permission to do similar secondary work.

RNZ journalists Chris Laidlaw, Kim Hill and Brent Edwards gave evidence this morning that they had done work for other media while employed by RNZ.

But RNZ said Hill and Laidlaw were entertainment presenters, whereas Plunket was a news presenter, so there were different ethical responsibilities in their roles.

Kim Hill is entertainment? Wouldn’t want to tell her that.

Political editor Edwards had appeared on TVNZ’s Agenda, but said he understood he was representing RNZ in that role and had not been paid.

And this is the bizarre argument from RNZ. They claim it is about ethical issues, but then here they claim it is about whether you get paid. Are they saying Plunket could write the column if he did it for free?

Brian Edwards blogs on the F word, and how often it is used on TV now. I’m not that interested in that (I hardly even realise when the word is said), but on his quoting rules from various radio and TV networks.

Radio New Zealand’s programme rules state: ‘In general, senior managers will never approve the word “motherfucker”, and the word “fuck” will only be approved in rare circumstances where context justifies its use.’

But what if one is talking about a Tasmanian?

The Radio Network has an even stricter policy.  ’Fuck’ may not be used by its programme hosts or talk-back callers. Like all talk-back stations, the ZB network operates a 7-second delay, allowing hosts to delete unacceptable material before it is broadcast.

So Radio NZ is slightly more liberal. I’m on the Panel this afternoon so maybe I’ll see if I can slip it in – just kidding Noelle

TV3 will allow limited use of obscene language after 8pm but takes a much more relaxed approach after 9.30. (Outrageous Fortune and Seven Days are both TV3 programmes broadcast after 9.30.)

Wasn’t the Ralston Group on after 9.30?

TVNZ takes a similar position. Though it will on occasion broadcast the f-word after 8.30pm, it prefers to restrict its use of the word until after 9.30. If the word is used more than twice, the programme will be preceded by a viewer warning.

I love how they have a quota. More than two fucks and you get a warning!

Most New Zealand newspapers will not print the word ‘fuck’ in full, preferring to use asterisks as in ‘f**k’. This always struck me as rather silly, since there are very few New Zealanders who would not be able to fill in the missing letters.

It is silly, but I sometimes do it myself. It is a way of conveying what was said, without perhaps repeating any offence.

I blogged yesterday on how the Radio New Zealand CEO Peter Cavanagh informed all his staff that they would not be entering the Radio Awards this year, as the costs of submitting entries is too high for their constrained budget.

Roar Prawn reports that the same CEO has just returned from Amsterdam where he had been attending the International Broadcasters Conference. Rooms at the closest hotel are 310 euros or $630 a night.

An e-mail sent to all Radio NZ staff today:

2010 New Zealand Radio Awards

This is to advise you that due to budgetary constraints Radio New Zealand has – reluctantly – withdrawn from this year’s New Zealand Radio Awards. As you know, Radio New Zealand’s funding was frozen in this year’s Budget and we have been forced to implement a range of cost-saving measures to offset an increase in non-discretionary overheads totalling $1.5 million in the current financial year.

Unfortunately the New Zealand Radio Awards carry significant entry costs for Radio New Zealand and the decision to temporarily withdraw has been made to protect expenditure on core services. This decision will be reviewed after the 2010 Budget.

Peter Cavanagh
Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief

I understand the staff are less than impressed.

Denis Welch talks about the NZ political blogs and the Tumeke ratings on Nine to Noon. Ten minutes of audio.

He covers the new Red Alert blog, and how “experts” such as Paul Buchanan and David Beatson (former Listener editor) are now blogging.

I was interviewed by Radio New Zealand about ACT’s stance on the Maori Seats. The interview was here.

There were in fact two interviews. The first I was not at all critical of what had happened. As I have said on this blog, I think it is quite appropriate that Rodney says he could not carry on as Local Government Minister if it means introducing a bill he does not agree with.

They then rang me back half an hour later and said that Rodney was now saying he would quit all his portfolios if the Government went with Maori seats. This appears to not be a correct interpretation of what Rodney actually said – I understand he said it would be up to the PM if he kept his other portfolios. On the basis of what Radio NZ told me, I said that a threat to resign all portfolios would be a significant upping of the stakes and unhelpful.

In a later part of the piece, they quote me saying that while ACT supporters may be pleased with Rodney’s strong stand, the way he has gone about it is somewhat disappointing. I want to make clear that was in relation to the reported comments to resign all portfolios, not the decision (made back in June) to relinquish Local Government if there were Maori Seats.

I am also quoted as saying “It is generally preferable that negotiations happen behind closed doors and without ultimatiums about resigning portfolios”. This gives the perception I am blaming Rodney for this issue going public. I am not.

As I wrote for NBR on Friday:

Act also suffers from the publicizing of the leaked e-mail. …

I think that is unfair on Rodney as he was not the one who leaked the National Caucus e-mail – I doubt he is that happy this has been made public.

I in no way think Rodney was responsible for taking this issue public. I have specifically pointed out they have suffered from it being made public.

I don’t know who leaked the e-mail, but as it was sent by a National MP to his colleagues, the logicial conclusion is it was a National MP or staffer. I doubt Rodney has hired Nicky hager to intercept the Nats e-mails

So in summary my position is:

1. I think it is entirely appropriate that Rodney has said he would not continue as Local Government Minister if he seriosuly disagrees with a Local Government bill or law proposed or passed by the Government
2. I think it was someone in National who leaked the Henare e-mail
3. I do think it would be a bad thing, if Rodney was threatening to resign all portfolios, rather than just Local Government, in relation to this issue. However it is not at all clear he has done so.

Today’s politics segment with Laila Harre, Matthew Hooton and Kathryn Ryan was a very interesting lesson. I enjoy it because both participants are willing to praise MPs from the otehr side of the spectrum, and disagree with MPs from their own side.

I found Laila Harre’s words today very interesting, especially as Laila has been a Minister in a Labour-led Government and is the head of the reasonably militant National Distribution Union:

I have to say sitting through the summit, I found it difficult to imagine the Labour Party under Helen Clark really taking a risk like that which was to give a group of people an open brief in a very public way to propose some ideas and solutions. …

I don’t think there was ever a willingness [by Labour] to take those kinds of risk. … Labour’s objective at the Knowledge Wave conference was to keep it as tight as possible.

I actually felt that in terms of my political experience anyway this was the first time I personally been engaged in a genuinely tripartite process at a New Zealand level … I’ve never seen anything looking like that in New Zealand.

That’s generous praise. It shows that you can disagree with some of John Key’s policies but praise him for his leadership style which is very different to what we have had in the past.

Both Hooton and Harre praise the national cycleway proposal.

Hooton also ripped into borrowing $2 billion a year to stick into a savings fund. Harre declares she has never been much of a supporter of the Fund as future superannuation provision will always depend on economic health of country. Says it is a no brainer to suspend contributions.

Hooton also says the 2010 and 2011 tax cuts should not occur if we still have large deficits. I think it all depends on how large the deficits are, and how sucessful one has been in clipping low priority spending. At this stage, it is very premature to be making declarations, as Matthew does, about the future tax cuts. The time to decide would be early 2010. And from my point of view suspending or cancelling the tax cuts would be your last resort – only if the deficit was on a track to disaster.

I had great fun on National Radio yesterday. One topic was the ranking of Abe Lincoln as the all time best President by Historians.

I pointed out that Lincoln was very unpopular with many at the time he was President. He invaded the independent Southern states as they were a security threat. He went far beyond the Patriot Act by suspending habeas corpus. He acted unconstitutionally in many ways, justifying it by the ends justify the means. He imprisoned 10,000 Americans without trial and spent money before Congress had appropriated it.

Yet despite all that, 150 years later he is ranked the greatest ever President.

Therefore is it not possible, I postulated, that in 2150, historians will rank George W Bush as the greatest President of all time

No I wasn’t being serious, but according to the producer I suceeded in lighting the lines and text messages up.

Another topic discussed was the story of the German woman who had the Armed Offenders Squad rescue her from an Internet romance gone bad. Now that is what you call a bad date!

There’s been quite a bit of media interest lately about the Australian Government’s daft idea to force Australian ISPs to install compulsory filters that will ban sites the Government deems undesirable.

Radio NZ did a piece this morning:

The Australian government plans to force Australian ISPs to filter out more than a thousand websites with content including child pornography, excessive violence, crime and drug information as well as promoting terrorism.

The policy, dubbed the ‘Great Aussie Firewall’, has been met with a storm of criticism across the Tasman.

Internet New Zealand board member David Farrar says much of the banned content is traded over peer-to-peer networks which won’t be caught by filters.

He says the filters will also cause a sharp fall in download speeds for Australian users.

Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand president Jamie Baddeley said the policy is insane and unworkable.

But he says it is symptomatic of pressure coming on ISPs to do more to police the internet.

One can also listen to the full item, at the bottom of the linked page. Jordan Cater is also interviewed.

I’ve also just been interview by TV3 for their 6 pm news tonight on the same issue.

I commented that luckily in NZ we have far smarter MPs, and I doubt more than a handful here would back some sort of compulsory government filter.

Also put in a plug for Netsafe, who provide really great resources for those worried about Internet safety.

Poneke is in Brisbane and has discovered it has the buzz of prosperity:

On the surface, the prosperity can be seen in the world-class infrastructure of roads and electric rail lines that Auckland in particular has not been able to achieve despite decades of talk; the very high standard of housing, commercial buildings and public facilities; the wages that really are stunningly higher than at home; the many job vacancies in the papers even on the Saturday after Boxing Day. Australia has not had a single quarter of negative growth this year while we have had three (though the Aussies fret about it and fear recession might still happen). I could go on.

MacDoctor shares some first hand experience of emergency clinics:

An article in the Weekend Herald (not yet online) entitled “High cost stopping Kiwis visiting the doctor” tells us that over two thirds of New Zealanders over 20 have avoided visiting a doctor because of the cost. I didn’t need any research to tell me this is true, because these people pitch up to emergency departments throughout the country with the line, “I couldn’t afford to go to my GP”  or it’s alternative “I owe my GP too much money”. …

I view these two excuses with a great deal of cynicism. Many who use these lines are drunk or have nicotine stains on their fingers (or both). They drive up in expensive cars and sport MP3 players (many are genuine iPods). They typically arrive not long after the GPs have all closed for the evening, or over the weekend. These are the “milkers of the system”  - They know how to work the health system to their advantage and they use Emergency Departments like a GP clinic. …

I suspect most of the two thirds of New Zealanders who said that they do not go to a doctor because of cost, are really saying that they would rather spend their time and money on something other than their health. It has nothing to to with lack of access and much to do with lack of interest. Until we, as a society, start to see that health is important and worthy of investment, this problem will not go away, regardless of the amount of money governments may throw at it.

Hear hear. I think all bar the very poorest should pay something towards their healthcare.

Bernard Hickey recommends a Kim Hill interview with JJ Joseph – a man who used to beat his wife. It’s a very moving interview that shows people can turn their lives about.

And finally Lynn Prentice at The Standard manages to link Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme to National’s planned repeal of the EFA. The hilarious part is:

based on recent experience of their autocratic, arrogant, and undemocratic behavior in the house, we will probably see some opaque, badly written, and badly thought through legislation pushed through under urgency.

What does he call the EFA if not badly written and badly thought through? And he ignores of course that unlike Labour, National has said it will consult all parties over the replacement legislation. It was Labour that tried to use bipartisan electoral law to screw over its enemies.

Was on the phone to Radio NZ being as part of The Panel discussion with Jim Mora and Brian Edwards. We were discussing John Key’s options with Maori Party and ACT, then suddenly I heard some bells in the background, and it seems the fire alarm went off at Radio New Zealand.

As they said they had to go, I told them I hoped it was a false alarm!

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

Sean Plunket expounds on why he is looking to leave Radio New Zealand:

Frosty relations between Plunket, 44, and his Radio New Zealand bosses came to a head when they refused to allow the broadcaster to host an election debate on TVNZ7.

An election debate on Internet issues of all things. Hardly a commercial threat to Radio NZ.

He believed appearing on the TVNZ show as a public broadcaster would only enhance the brand of Morning Report and Radio New Zealand.

Exactly. Exposure is good, if done in a complementary way. And this would have been very complementary.

Then in the full interview we get:

It’s not the first time he’s left a job on a matter of principle. In 1995 he quit the Holmes show over stories he was doing on New Zealand First allegedly using parliamentary staffing money to run the party.

Well some things do not change.

Plunket’s favourite fable is The Emperor’s New Clothes. The role of the journalist is to point out that the emperor is naked, he says, not to “weave the cloth that makes someone nude. The worse censorship is self-censorship within an organisation”.

Indeed, and within a country. Read this article in The Australian about losing the battle for free speech.

The TVNZ7 debate with InternetNZ between four parties on Internet and ICT issues in on tonight starting at 9.10 pm. The first hour is on TVNZ7 and the second hour (plus the first hour also) is webcast at debate.net.nz.

It is a fully interactive debate and you can ask questions online, vote for the party (via website or text) with the best policies and have fun discussing it in a chat channel.

The MPs taking part are David Cunliffe, Maurice Williamson, Rodney Hide and Metira Turei.

The two journalists on the panel are Fran O’Sullivan and Russell Brown. The moderator was to be Sean Plunket but he has been replaced by Damien Christie.

The Herald reports on why Sean will not be doing the debate. Despite it being as small and un threatening as you can get, the Radio NZ Chief Executive refused permission for Sean to do it. This has led to Sean announcing he is planning to leave Radio NZ and is looking for a new job after 11 years there.

Damien will do a very good job, but I am annoyed Radio NZ has refused to let Sean do the debate – are they not meant to support public good broadcasting? I suggested Sean as the moderator, and never had any idea that it could lead to problems with Rado NZ.  Some questions should be asked about whether Radio NZ are being too precious here.

The Fijian Government complained about an interview with Michael Field on Nine to Noon on 7 March 2008. Radio NZ rejected the complaint so they went to the BSA. And they won.

They’ve sent me a copy of the decision: bsa-decision-28-8-08 (large pdf) that upholds four complaints of inaccuracy.

Now I have been a pretty strong critic of the Commodore and his Government myself. But there is no reason to make things sound worse than they really are there. The four items the BSA upheld were:

1. Radio NZ were wrong to state the management of Fiji Broadcasting was military appointed (the Board is unchanged from before the coup)
2. Radio NZ were wrong to broadcast that a journalist had been given just 8 days notice to leave Fiji when it was 21 days
3. Radio NZ was wrong to state a Judge who got mugged had publicly criticised a report which upheld the legality of the coup. There was no evidence the Judge had done this, yet alone if it was linked
4. Radio NZ were wrong to state the Judge’s house was burnt down, when it was not

Radio NZ do not have to broadcast a correction. The publication of the finding is meant to be “punishment” enough. The BSA hasn’t actually got around to putting it up on their website yet despite the decision being made on 28 August 2008.

National Radio is going to have me on at around 4.40 pm today (during Jim Mora’s panel) to report on impressions from the Privileges Committee hearing with Owen Glenn. It might be earlier if things wrap up earlier.

I doubt I can update from the hearing (which is a pity) so NZ Herald and Stuff are probably best places to look for reports.

The hearing may be not very exciting. Winston is not appearing. Owen Glenn will repeat what he has said in his earlier statements. He may not have documents to prove it, because receiving a phone call by its nature tends not to be documented, and it did happen three years ago. What will be interesting is whether the Labour MPs aggressively go after Owen Glenn and try and discredit their largest donor in order to protect Winston.