Kiwiblog

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This is to advise you that due to budgetary constraints Radio New Zealand has – reluctantly – withdrawn from this year’s New Zealand Radio Awards.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.

First listen to Bob Jones here.

Jones explicitly says Peters has lied to Parliament, as he is not happy with the information he has received to date.

Then listen to Winston Peters here.

Peters reveals he has been speaking to Bob Jones to reassure him about his donation to the Spencer Trust, and that it has been properly accounted for. But if Winston knows nothing about the Spencer Trust, how can he give that reassurance?

He went onto to say he had made inquires and is satisfied the money conclusively demonstrably ended up in NZ First.

If so, then why was no donation from either Bob Jones or the Spencer Trust declared in NZ First’s annual donation return to the Electoral Commission?

The entire interview is pathetic with Peters grasping for straws. He could give no credible answer to the question as to why he was not concerned that Owen Glenn was telling the PM of a donation he claimed to know nothing about. Any sane person would have contacted Owen Glenn and asked him why does he has this belief?

We also know that Peters and Glenn had talked after Feb 2008. Are we expected to beleive that having had the Prime Minister of NZ tell you that Owen Glenn thinks he donated $100,000 to you, Winston Peters would not have raised the issue with Owen Glenn when they were talking on other issues?

Karl du Fresne has a look at National Radio’s Mediawatch:

There was never much room for doubt about the politics of Russell Brown, who originally hosted it. Peacock, who took over, seems an affable and intelligent sort of bloke and I couldn’t claim to know what his politics are, other than to repeat the observation that his programme has a tendency to assume ulterior motives for just about everything the privately owned media do. But the recent recruitment of two other contributors to Mediawatch raises some questions.

Jeremy Rose, like Peacock, is a likeable fellow (well, he’d have to be – he’s a mountain biker), but I’m sure he’d be the first to acknowledge that his politics are more pink than blue. He was closely associated with City Voice, a markedly left-leaning free paper founded by Simon Collins (now of the New Zealand Herald) which struggled heroically but unsuccessfully to find a niche in Wellington during the 1990s.

I remember City Voice fondly. It was indeed markedly left-wing, but was a good read all the same as a newspaper focused on Wellington City. And while talking matters media, I should praise the work Simon Collins does on the Herald. Simon is I am sure, still left wing. However the reporting he does for the Herald I have found to be very balance, and if one didn’t know Simon from his City Voice days, you might struggle to guess his leanings – which is how it should be

More recently, Mediawatch has started carrying contributions from Adelia Hallett. Hallett has a respectable background in journalism but also happens to be a former media officer for the EPMU, the union that covers journalists (or at least those journalists who have chosen to remain unionised). It strikes me as slightly odd that of all the people who might work for Mediawatch, Radio New Zealand happens to have chosen two with leftist associations.

Others might say it is not odd at all!

Today’s programme featured an item in which Hallett editorialised disapprovingly on an arrangement whereby a reporter for The Radio Network sits in on the daily editorial conferences of the Northern Advocate, which is owned by the same media conglomerate (APN) – the implication being that by sharing news, the two arms of APN are reducing competition (and ultimately threatening jobs). The item included critical comment from Tony Wilton, whom Hallett described as an “industry veteran”, but who is far better known these days as a long-standing official of … why, the EPMU.

In the “interests of full disclosure”, Mediawatch revealed at the end of the item that Hallett was a former deputy chief reporter of the Northern Advocate. But it evidently thought it not worth mentioning that she was also a former employee of the EPMU, a fact some listeners might have found just as interesting.

This is not to say that the arrangement between The Radio Network and the Northern Advocate was not a legitimate issue for Mediawatch to investigate. But when a programme consistently plays up stories that reflect badly on privately owned media while appearing to treat its host broadcaster as immune from criticism, when it appoints reporters with leftist political connections and doesn’t make all relevant disclosures, you have to suspect there is an unbalanced agenda at work.

A programme that sets itself up as a media watchdog – and a taxpayer-funded one at that – has to be squeaky clean. It has to ensure that it meets all the standards it demands of other media outlets in terms of fairness, balance, consistency and integrity, and then some. Can this be said of Mediawatch? Sadly, I don’t think so.

I think it is a fair call, that Mediawatch, of all programmes, has to be cleaner than clean.

The ODT editorialises on National’s broadcasting policy:

TVNZ was to operate a dual mandate.

It was required to make market returns to the Government in the fiercely competive ratings-driven commercial environment, but it would be expected to make and screen Charter programmes.

For this, it would receive an annual hand-out in the region of $15 million – in addition to the contestable funds already allocated to New Zealand on Air for local content.

There are those who have long said that such a system was doomed to failure – that the two aims were so incompatible it could only end in tears.

Among them was former CEO Ian Fraser.

End in tears it has.

Whatever is to be made of the National Party’s new broadcasting “policy”, it has to be said that in the nine years it has had to get public broadcasting policy right, Labour-led administrations have singularly failed to do so.

It has been a failure. Ask anyone in TVNZ. The status quo is not viable, regardless of who is in Government.

The first of these, perhaps more profound in its implications than in its impact, is that TVNZ will be freed from its Charter shackles. The $15 million alotted to it specifically for its charter programming will go into the contestable New Zealand on Air fund for local programming – available to a range of independent producers.

Critics have pointed out that this can only mean a reduction of an already sparse complement of “blue-chip” Charter material – the high-cost documentaries, history series, and arts programmes.

Except that charter money did not always or arguably even often go towards these.

And that eventually, in effect, the “State” broadcaster would become another commercial channel like any other.

They also argue that with a less stringent mandate, more of the contestable funding will find its way on to the screens in the form of low-cost local content of the “reality TV” variety.

Others maintain that the funds will still be there for the same sorts of programmes, only TVNZ will no longer have preferential access to it.

Indeed. It will be just like the rest of the NZ on Air money – allocated on quality of proposal regardless of who is the broadcaster.

So under National’s policy it is a little unclear in what way this State asset will remain a public broadcaster – and exactly how the free-to-air digital channels TVNZ 6 and 7, with their predominance of local content, will be funded when the currently allocated money – $79 million – runs out in 2012; and, that being the case, why the company should remain in public ownership at all.

TVNZ at present isn’t a public broadcaster on One and Two. They are a 95% commercial broadcaster. I don’t think there is a lot of halfway house between being a public broadcaster and a commercial broadcaster. That is why I would like to see TV2 get sold as fully commercial and look at merging TV One, Radio NZ into one public broadcaster.

As for TV6 and TV7, I imagine they will be evaluated at the time on how successful they have been.

Given the paucity of detail in the policy, opponents, including Broadcasting Minister Trevor Mallard, have been able to revive the spectre of a lean commercially driven TVNZ being fattened up for eventual sale.

Heh I think Trevor would have been suggesting that no matter what the policy.

The second directive that might sound warning bells for those who like their radio waves unadorned by the jingle of cash registers is the “regular publication of rating/audience/household penetration data for any broadcasting entity receiving state funding”.

This may be harmless enough, but, again, in the absence of any qualifying explanation, inferences, rightly or wrongly, may be drawn: public radio – that is to say Radio New Zealand – could be held to account against the sort of ratings and audience share it receives.

There are two issues here. The first is the right of the public to know how many people are listening to the programmes they are paying for with their taxes. The second is how that information is used.

I don’t think there is any acceptable reason for the taxpayer to not know how many people listen or view to the programmes they fund,

And the fear must be that commercial models will be used to evaluate performance.

Of course, the very point of public radio is that it should operate free of such considerations across a spectrum of genres and programmes that are ignored as uneconomic by commercial radio.

This is too simplistic a view. National Radio may not have advertising, which means all programmes are in theory uneconomic. But it is useful to know how many people listen to a programme. If a programme costs $500,000 a year and has only 500 people listen to it then one may be able to deliver better radio to more people with a programme that costs $700,000 and has 10,000 people listen to it. Ratings are not the only measurement for public broadcasting – but they are *one* of them.

Certainly, it is in the medium of radio that arguably the starkest differences between commercial and public imperatives emerge.

For few of the core activities of Radio New Zealand – documentaries, classical music, current affairs, in-depth interviews, and the magazine formats of shows such as those presided over by Kim Hill, Chris Laidlaw, Kathryn Ryan and Jim Mora – would survive under the fiscal ruler of the market.

But many would argue they constitute the very heart of public broadcasting and, as such, perform a vital role in sustaining the nation’s intellectual and cultural capital.

But if no-one is listening to them, they are not performing any role.

The Hive notes that Radio New Zealand has removed from its website, the audio of Monday’s Focus on Politics.

It has been suggested that Nicky Hager is threatening Radio New Zealand with defamation over the item – presumably over Matthew Hooton’s comments rather than Laila Harre’s.

I am not sure if it is true, but imagine if it was Nicky Hager being threatened with defamation. We’d probably hear all about how big monied interests are trying to silence him.

A defamation case would be fascinating. I’d love to hear testimony on how the e-mails were not stolen, and the ability for this to be cross-examined.

Radio NZ has a four minute item on Internet campaigning, You Tube etc. They talked to myself, “Steve Pierson” from The Standard (who used his real name for the interview which is commendable), Darren Hughes, and Jo de Joux. Won’t have any revelations for those already online but will have been interesting to the wider listeners I hope.

When I read that Foreign Ministers could not get an election timetable out of Fiji, but are hopeful there will be one next month, I am reminded of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Each time he goes for it, Commodore Lucy pulls it away!

Talking of Fiji, The Press reports a complaint from Fiji Solicitor-General Christopher Pryde regarding a recent interview on Radio NZ regarding Fiji. While I am far from a fan of the Fiji administration, I would not assume their complaint is without merit. I understand there were a reasonable number of straight out factual inaccuracies in the interview.

Just been listening to yesterday’s politics segment on Nine to Noon:

•  Matthew Hooton spoke on how Maori Party may have overhang of six seats, and well placed to help choose the next Government
• Laila Harre says Labour can not form Government without the Maori Party and without an overhang for the Maori Party. That will doom MMP in my opinion if a Government only gets a majority because of the overhang
• Harre  says if there was a credible alternative to Clark her leadership would be under threat, but there is no credible alternative
• Hooton points out Goff is 0% in preferred PM polls, and he will be grateful for that because if he was at 5% or so, then he might be pressured to stand.
• Best lines were Hooton saying “I always support any sacking of any District Health Board” and “if he wants to be bold, he should sack them all”
• But went on to say that sacking a board just 72 days after it was elected seems unwise, especially with allegations which involve another Government Minister.
• Also funny was when Matthew asked Kathryn Ryan and Laile Harre who the voted for on their local DHB and let’s say there were no quick answers. Hell I doubt I can even recall who I voted for without checking.
• Harre doesn’t support DHB amalgamations

Always my favourite Nine to Noon segment – but I am a politics junkie.

What I find interesting is I listen to half a dozen Nine to Noon items a week – but none of them live – all from their website.