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 didn’t blog previously on Woman’s Day outing Ali Mau, as frankly I thought it was distasteful and didn’t want to publicise it further. I did comment on the Journz mailing list which discussed the issue, as follows:

I think the decision to out Ali Mau is regrettable, and part of a slippery slope which points the wrong way.

I accept that if someone is in the public eye as a celebrity, then who they are dating will make the media. But when that information doesn’t just reveal who they are dating, but a sexual orientation that is not yet public, I think it should not be published unless there is hypocrisy etc. I prefer people to reveal their own sexual orientation, not have the media do it for them – especially when they may have children etc. Her kids may now have to put up with teasing at school from classmates that their mum is a lesbian.

If Ali was going to come out anyway, then it is a different matter, but as Dean said I would not want to be an editor approving such a story unless I was certain.

A few people have said they broadly agreed with my stance.

Now since then Ali has hit back at Woman’s Day with force, as reported here by Stuff:

High-profile Television New Zealand presenter Alison Mau has struck out at a magazine editor she says hired a “creepy” paparazzi photographer to stalk her children, friends and family.

Today, on TV One morning show Breakfast, Mau addressed her recent tabloid coverage during a regular slot on the show dedicated to reviewing the weekly New Zealand gossip magazines.

Holding up the latest issue of Woman’s Day magazine – opened to a story titled “Alison Mau’s sleepover” – Mau questioned when the magazine’s editor, Sarah Henry, would leave her family alone. …

Mau then said some people had said she was “fair game” because of her public profile.

“But, here’s my question, now that they’ve run this story, I have a question for Woman’s Day editor Sarah Henry and her offsider Catherine Milford.

“Perhaps you’d both be kind enough to let me know when this, when this kind of thing, will stop?

“Just give me an idea when the dogs will be called off and me, my friends and my family can go about our business without having creepy guys in Corolla station wagons following us around?

“I hope that’s a fair question, if you’d like to comment at all, being our breakfast viewers, or pose the same question, drop us a line or send it direct to Sarah Henry at Woman’s Day, she’s on shenry@acpmagazines.co.nz”

The TV show then ran Henry’s email address on screen.

And below is the video of the Breakfast show:

Now I have no problem with Ali striking back. In fact I admire her for doing so, and all strength to her. Woman’s Day deserve to be called out for what they did.

But I do have an issue about whether TVNZ should be assisting Mau with her campaign. They not only flashed the e-mail address up on the Woman’s Day editor on screen (would they do that for anyone else) for people to fire hate mail off at, they also covered the story on Close Up that night. And again, I ask if they would have done that, if one of the protagonists didn’t work for them.

So again to be clear, I have absolutely no issues with Ali Mau hitting back, and wanting to use whatever opportunity she has. Good on her. But I do think TVNZ needs to be cautious about its role in this.

The Herald reports from Parliament:

Finally it was back to the Prime Minister for the last question – this time about his holding of shares in Jackson Mining.

Asked how he could not have known the company had merged with another and was now involved in uranium mining, he began with: “There was the small technical issue – I have been busy running the country.”

He added that he would be the first to admit it was “sloppy” but said the last time he had looked they were trading at 3.5c “and when I offered them to my son, who was 12 at the time, even he did not want them”.

I was absolutely stunned that TVNZ had as their lead story that the PM had admitted he was “sloppy”, as if this was Watergate II.In fact there was nothing that came within a million miles of being a conflict of interest.

John Key had declared the mining shares in his register of interests. This is what you are meant to do.

Now a conflict of interest tends to relate to something favouring a specific company, not something that affects an entire industry.

The mining company in question is Australian, does not operate in NZ, and has no plans to operate in NZ. Anyone who thinks this creates a conflict of interest, just because the Government is promoting mining is biased or stupid.

The Government promotes agriculture. So should Jim Bolger have had to sell his family farm when he was PM?

Helen Clark was a residential property investor. Should she have sold all her houses because the Government made decisions that affected rental properties?

Of course not. No reasonable person thinks that is a conflict of interest. If you adopt that standard, then every MP would be forced to liquidate all their assets and have only cash in a bank. But oh no, wait Government can affect banks, so lets force them to store their cash under their bed.

Having shares in an Australian mining company that does not operate in NZ is not a conflict of interest. Even if they did operate in NZ, it would not be a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest would be if a decision was made to grant some licence to that particular company, which the PM took part in.

The PMs statement that he had been sloppy, simply relates to the fact he hadn’t bothered to keep track of what the company was doing, as its shares were near worthless.

Now that may deserve a couple of paragraphs in a political story in a newspaper, but to have TVNZ make it their lead story is unbelievable.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner has previously blogged much the same thing:

As for the mining story, I’m a bit nonplussed. Frankly I don’t give a monkey’s whether Key owns shares in an Australian mining company, and I think TVNZ’s pretext that it’s a story because the Government is planning to mine national parks is a little flimsy.

If owning shares in a mining company could become an issue, it should already be an issue, since there is already extensive mining in this country. And we’ve known for ages that Key’s share portfolio includes mining companies. I remember him talking about it during the election campaign.

As for the second leg of the story – that it’s a bad look for a PM of a nuclear-free country to own shares in a company that mines uranium – I’m sorry, but I don’t get that. Uranium might be a precursor to the manufacture of plutonium, which is used in nuclear weapons.

But it’s also used in a vast array of medical and scientific procedures. I’ve always thought it funny that people claim we’re “nuclear free” when there’s enough plutonium in our hospitals and universities to make your hair fall out.

This is about TVNZ promoting itself. Because the so called “revelation” was made on a TVNZ show, that means they feel they have to keep it alive as a news story.

The NZ Herald looks at the TVNZ decision to bump John Key for Robin Brooke:

It is reassuring, in its way, that the Prime Minister could not commandeer the airwaves on state television on Tuesday to tell the nation about income tax cuts and a rise in GST. It speaks of TVNZ independence and editorial freedoms that should be valued, however questionable the actual judgment of those exercising them.

The Herald also looks at the drug law reform paper:

Mr Power’s problem with the Law Commission recommendations seems to stem from from the Prime Minister’s declared war on methamphetamine and drugs. Any relaxation would be perceived as contrary to that. It could also be argued, as John Key did yesterday, that softening the law on the possession of drugs for personal use would send the wrong message to youngsters. …

Given such political reality, there was a strong whiff of naivety in the commission’s suggestions. There was also, however, a solid strain of reason and rationality.

The commission, for example, is right to note that “while the harms and costs associated with alcohol are understated and misunderstood, those associated with illegal drugs are often generalised and overblown”. There is also much to say that drug policy should focus on dealing with problematic drug-users, rather than the many people whose drug use poses no serious threat to their own well-being or others.

I agree. that the focus should be on those drug use creates problems, rather than those who do not.

The Dominion Post talks about PHOs:

On paper, the last government’s decision to establish primary health organisations had a lot going for it. Bringing together doctors, nurses, midwives and other health professionals under one roof was a way to improve access to services and reduce overall health costs by reducing the need for hospital admissions.

In practice, as invariably happens when a government opens its cheque book, the results have been mixed.

A study by Capital and Coast District Health Board last year showed avoidable hospital admissions in the district have increased since 2003, but have fallen among people enrolled with PHOs. PHOs are also credited with increasing immunisation rates in some parts of the country and making visits to doctors more affordable for people in poor areas, although the latter is more likely to be a consequence of increased subsidies than the way the sector is organised.

However, some PHOs barely exist except on paper (their purpose is to channel money from district health boards to individual clinics) and their creation has contributed to a rise in administration costs.

Not exactly a stunning success.

The Press talks about Environment Canterbury:

For the second year in a row Environment Canterbury (ECan) is heading towards an overall rate increase well in excess of inflation.

Last year it approved a rise of 6 per cent, including a 10.6 per cent general rate rise, but if that decision prompted disquiet in the region, the questioning of ECan could well be even stronger this year. …

With the local body elections looming later this year, ECan ratepayers will be closely watching over coming months to see which councillors are prepared to identify areas where savings could be found, especially in the regional council’s bureaucracy.

We should have candidates sign pledges that they will not increase rates beyond inflation without voter approval.

The ODT looks at the merger of the Otago and Southland District Health Boards:

The way is cleared for the merger between the Southland and Otago District Health Boards with the Southland board’s 7 to 3 vote in favour.

Because Health Minister Tony Ryall is likely to back the proposal, the only remaining major issue is the speed of approval and whether the Southern Board will be in place early enough for this year’s local body elections in October. …

I suspect it will be.

Incredible. The bidding for the John Key flag doodle has reached $19,238. Now I suspect the bidding is more for the morning tea with John (and Pippa) than the artwork itself – I certainly hope so!

As at 6 am:

• Top Bid $19,238
• 188 bids
• Approx 250 questions and answers – many of these are hilarious. Well done to the TVNZ staffer answering them.
• 73,622 page views

The Cure Kids charity will be pleased, especially with five days left in the auction.

The Herald reports:

Television NZ bumped Prime Minister John Key from its prime-time current affairs show so it could feature former All Black Robin Brooke saying sorry for groping a teenage girl. …

John Key’s office has refused to comment on the Close Up show’s decision not to talk to the PM about his state of the nation speech.

Instead, most of Tuesday’s show was devoted to host Mark Sainsbury interviewing Brooke about his explanation for the New Year groping incident in Fiji, a story that has featured in newspapers.

Close Up ignored the changes the PM foreshadowed to the tax system.

Mr Key’s chief press secretary, Kevin Taylor, said: “It is TVNZ’s editorial decision for the programme and we will not be saying any more about it.”

But it is understood the Prime Minister was surprised by the decision to ditch a scheduled interview with him just two and a half hours before it was due to go out live.

Such “bumping” is common in television entertainment shows when they run out of time or there are better offers.

From a ratings viewpoint, sadly I guess more people would tune in to Robin Brooke. But having already pencilled in the PM, I am surprised they didn’t find a way to include both. It is meant to be a news and current affiars show after all.

TV One News kept referring to the National Standards as being about whether a kid is beow or above the national average.

This is totally wrong. The standards are about saying this is the level we think an x year old should be able to read and write to this level.

In an ideal world 100% of kids will be meeting the national standards. This is very different to comparing people to an average, where by default around half the people will be below average.

It is not about comparing one kid to another. It is about saying whether kids are on track to leaving primary school able to read, write and do maths.

Throng blog:

Ok, so I’m not 100% sure on the math here (need to check up the tax rules) but both bulletins can’t be right here in their calculations.  Using IRD’s website, currently for a minimum wage earner, they pay $2.27 in total for their tax and ACC levies.  I’m trying to double check these figures quoted, but I think 3 News is wrong – it can’t be right thatminimum wage earners are taxed 40%!

ONE News: $10 – $2.10 in tax – $0.20 in ACC levies = $7.70 in the hand
3 News: $10 – $3.00 New ACC levies in April – $1.00 PAYE tax = $6.00 in the hand

Note: Trevor Mallard also said about $6 in his 3 News interview.

Trevor Mallard is of course wrong, and if TV3 relied on him, shame on them.

One News had is absolutely correct. The marginal tax rate for a FT worker on the minimum wage is 21% and the ACC levy for next year will be 2%, so a $10 gross increase will be a $7.70 net increase.

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:

Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman introduced a bill yesterday to repeal the charter, which was created by Labour in 2002 to require TVNZ to broadcast a wide range of programmes for all groups in New Zealand.

Under the charter TVNZ was required to have a “significant Maori voice” and broadcast programmes for people and groups not generally catered for by other broadcasters.

Under Mr Coleman’s bill, it will be told simply to screen programmes relevant to and enjoyed by New Zealanders, include some local content and “reflect Maori perspectives”.

And the charter funding has gone to NZ on Air to be contestable.

This is a huge improvement, and was election policy. One of the things you learn about Government is agencies and institutions work well with a clear focus.

The Reserve Bank works well with one task – keep inflation down. TVNZ works better with one task – be a financially successful broadcaster. We had five years of TVNZ trying to be both commercial and public service and it was a failure. And that is not my opinion but that of a passionate advocate of public broadcasting – former CEO Ian Fraser.

The charter was criticised by some for giving TVNZ an impossible task in meeting dual obligations of a strong commercial performance as well as public broadcasting requirements. The broadcaster has previously been criticised for its use of charter money when it revealed it had used some of it for Dancing with the Stars – a high-rating programme.

Exactly.

Getting rid of the charter is a good thing. There is still the same amount of money for “public good” broadcasting” but it rests with NZ on Air, rather than TVNZ.

Personally I would go radical and sell off TV2, and merge TV One, TVNZ6, TVNZ7, Radio NZ, NZ on Air and maybe Maori TV into one BBC style public service broadcaster. Their combined budgets would get you pretty close to what you need.

Damien Christie from TVNZ7 models the new official t-shirt for Television New Zealand

When I first saw the promo ad involving Bill English for a series of programmes on TVNZ7, I thought it was actually a promo ad for Bill himself

So I am not surprised Labour are upset:

Labour is crying foul over a TVNZ promotional advertisement in which Finance Minister Bill English appears as the poster boy for a series of programmes on the economy. …

The aim is to draw attention to a series of economy-focused programmes on Freeview Channel TVNZ 7 next month.

Labour’s finance spokesman David Cunliffe has questioned whether it is appropriate for the state broadcaster to use one of its shareholding ministers in what amounted to a party political broadcast. It also raised questions of editorial balance.

“It is not OK to give the Minister of Finance 135 minutes of free air time, completely coiffed and scripted, with no balancing comment.”

Even though they are advertisements, I can see Labour’s point. I doubt Nats would have enjoyed a couple of hours of ads with Michael Cullen.

He also queried whether it was appropriate for Mr English to have agreed to do the promo, given the need for ministers to adhere to strict conflict-of-interest rules. …

A spokesman for Mr English said he was invited to do the promo. He was not paid and had not scripted it himself, but had seen it and some minor adjustments were made for accuracy.

“We exerted no influence over the process.”

Oh it is silly to suggest Bill has done anything wrong. Hell what politician would turn down 135 minutes of free TV time. It would be like turning dowm Christmas.

A TVNZ spokeswoman, Andi Brotherston, said it was not considering pulling the advertisement, which is due to run until November 21.

She said the creative unit at TVNZ chose Mr English partly because of the pun on his name in the series’ title “Plain English”.

The promo went through internal approval channels, which “are set up to consider all aspects of programmes”.

When asked if it conflicted with TVNZ’s own editorial protocol, she said there was a clear delineation between news and promotions at TVNZ and the promotion had “nothing to do with news and current affairs”.

“We are not within an election time frame, so there isn’t a requirement on us to give equal time to specific parties.

“The other thing is while other parties might think it’s an ad for Bill English, if we consider it from the viewers’ point of view, they see it as the Finance Minister.

“The series is about demystifying the economy. Viewers might see it differently and they’re the people we have in mind.

“Those people may not care about the other politicians and the time they have on television.”

Yes the average person won’t care. Having said that, I do have some sympathy for Labour’s concerns. At the minimum you wouldn’t want this to become a habit.

The Herald reports:

Fresh from controversy over its coverage of psychics in the Aisling Symes case, TVNZ is deciding whether to buy another series of Sensing Murder – the commercially successful show that has been caught in a company receivership. …

TVNZ says it will not make a decision on another series until it has shown the one that it has “in the can” sometime next year.

I really hope they do not. The program feeds on human misery and tragedy, and promotes fakes who make money out of tragedy and gullibility. It has no redeeming quality.

My God, the Rugby World Cup free to air rights issue is a mess, to put it kindly. A fiasco maybe.

I’m someone who actually is supportive of the ambition of Maori TV to be the free to air broadcaster. But the sticking point is the only 90% coverage. Having 10% of New Zealanders not able to get free to air coverage of the Rugby World Cup we are hosting was never going to be acceptable.

If Pita Sharples had talked to other Ministers on the (laudable) ambition for Maori TV, they may have been able to actually help with the bid, by asking the right questions. Instead, we now have two different parties in Government appearing to back competing bids by taxpayer funded stations.

So what do the media say. The Herald reports:

Maori TV chief executive Jim Mather says the channel will continue to fight the Government for the rights to screen the Rugby World Cup, and will use money from wealthy iwi and corporate groups to outbid it.

Well that I approve of!

IRB spokesman Ross Young said the board would be open to increased bids.

I bet they are. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The Herald understands the Government’s concern about Maori TV’s coverage relates to fears about small crowds at the tournament, already expected to make a $40 million loss.

The Government and Rugby Union can make money only from ticket sales, and are worried about how these would be affected without the hype TVNZ can generate.

Well then TVNZ should have put in a bigger bid initially – possibly with support from the Rugby Union.

But Mr Mather said this was “throwing Maori TV the crumbs” and there was little chance of it being involved. The value to Maori TV was in having the exclusive rights, requiring viewers to switch over, rather than staying behind the major networks.

And this is the big pay off for Maori TV. It can take years for people to get used to checking a channel out. A month of people swapping to Maori TV for the RWC would probably leave them with a lot more viewers after the cup.

So what is the so called Govt plan:

- TVNZ leads bid to show the 16 most important games live and free-to-air, backed by Government money.

- TVNZ will show six games – two of the All Blacks’ pool games, the semi-finals, final, and third/fourth play-off.

- TV3, which has put up some of its own money, will show six games – the two other All Blacks pool games, the semi-finals, final and third/fourth play-off.

If it wants, Maori TV can put up money and simulcast the games TVNZ and TV3 are showing. It can also show the balance of the 16 games that the networks do not want.

The challenge for Maori TV is how they can do a bid that covers more than 90% of NZ.

Patrick Gower writes:

Remember the utter shambles as the All Blacks bombed out of the last Rugby World Cup because they could not organise a simple drop-goal in Cardiff?

If the failure to do the strikingly obvious that day left you horrified, then best to cover your eyes before watching the Government’s bungling of the free-to-air television rights for the next Rugby World Cup. …

TVNZ’s involvement is necessary because it has the reach and numbers to hype up the tournament over the next two years and get people through the gates, with ticketing the only way the Government and Rugby Union can make money and stem losses.

Maori TV can offer unique cultural and language elements as well as the flexibility of scheduling to be able to show wall-to-wall coverage without having to break for regular programming like the nightly news.

Surely getting the two together as co-broadcasters months ago and bargaining with the IRB was the obvious solution?

That would have been nice.

Audrey Young chips in:

The political debacle over the Maori Television Service bid for Rugby World Cup coverage rights has soured relations between National and the Maori Party more than anything else in their one-year partnership.

Yep, and it was al avoidable if Ministers talked to each other earlier on.

The Herald editorial proclaims:

The saga of Maori Television’s bid for the Rugby World Cup’s free-to-air broadcasts has taken a bizarre turn with the Government’s decision to fund a higher bid by TVNZ. The International Rugby Board, seller of the broadcasting rights, must be wide-eyed in wonder and glee that it stands to gain from a contest between two bids financed by New Zealand taxpayers. …

But it has taken a quite disturbing degree of fright at the prospect of Maori Television winning the free-to-air rights. Certainly, the Government had a right to be aggrieved that its coalition partner, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, did not consult National ministers before approving $3 million from his department, Te Puni Kokiri, to finance the bid.

The general rule of thumb is you should consult your colleagues on anything you would expect to be consulted over.

But if the taxpayer must contribute, why not through Maori Television? It is building a strong presence as a public channel for ceremonial events such as Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. Its coverage of the funeral for Sir Howard Morrison was deeply admired by all who caught it. TVNZ seems no longer interested in this sort of occasion either.

Maori Television was offering World Cup commentaries in English and Maori, from familiar faces and new. It aimed to popularise some Maori phrases through the English telecast, meeting its state-funded mission. On recent evidence it would do a conscientious and fine job. Surely a free-to-air partnership can be forged that would meet all concerns and save the taxpayer this ridiculous double bid.

I agree.

And Tracy Watkins:

In effect, we’ve got government ministers bidding against each other – and ratcheting up the cost for taxpayers as a consequence – to suit their own political purposes.

On the one side is Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples who gave Maori TV the green light for a $3 million-plus bid in a nod to his Maori constituency.

On the other are senior ministers Bill English, Jonathan Coleman and Murray McCully, who’ve given TVNZ and TV3 a nod and a wink that the Government will step in with whatever it takes to win the bid over Maori TV – presumably after concluding that their own constituency won’t take kindly to having to tune into Maori TV to watch world cup games.

I don’t think that is the issue. If done in the right way, I think one could have got the Government quite supportive of the bid. The bigger issue is achieving greater than 90% coverage, and also using TV to boost ticket sales.

The script writers for Yes Minister couldn’t have come up with a more absurd plot.

It would be a great script!

Matt Nippert writes for the HoS:

TVNZ has been accused of using the police hunt for Aisling Symes to promote its psychic-based entertainment show Sensing Murder.

The state broadcaster has received hundreds of emails since TV One reporter Amy Kelly asked police if they would investigate a tip from medium Deb Webber.

Good. The uproar may convince TVNZ in future not to blur the lines.

Former policeman Dan Thompson of Paragon Investigations said he was appalled that the broadcaster appeared to be using a criminal investigation to promote the stars of an entertainment programme. “I’m totally aghast – it seems like a totally commercial play,” he said.

TVNZ spokeswoman Andi Brotherston denied the claim: “We’re not trying to push a psychic message to make money and get ratings.”

And to be fair I don’t think it was a deliberate commercial strategy, but a series of misjudgements.

Webber said the story had been “blown out of proportion”.

“It hurts because I am interested in finding a little girl, not me. Every time I say something it seems to be twisted around to not the truth.”

I’d like Aisling to be found also. The difference is I don’t get paid to pretend I know where she might be.

Just received this e-mail which speaks for itself:

I am the brother of xxx, who was abducted in xxxx and remains a missing person today.

With regard to psychics, mediums and the like, I can tell you that in the months and years following my sister’s disappearance, my family was contacted by no less than 100 of these people.

No two of them were able to agree on the location of my sister, alive or dead.

And the police were obliged to follow up each and every one of them, on the chance that the information was real, i.e. someone pretending to be a psychic to convey something they knew about the case.

So not only do these freaks inflict profound emotional harm, they are also an enormous waste of police resources.

I too am appalled by TVNZ’s actions.

What more needs be said. TVNZ needs to be held to account for this.

The Herald reports:

Television New Zealand introduced Sensing Murder medium Deb Webber to the family of Aisling Symes just two days after the little girl had gone missing. …

Media at a police press confidence on Wednesday were surprised when a One News journalist Amy Kelley asked:

“This morning One News (and I believe you’re aware of this as well) did some filming with Deb Webber,” Kelley said.

“She’s a medium on the television show Sensing Murder and she gave us some information on what she believed happened to the little girl. How seriously are police likely to take that information,” said the One News reporter. …

Brotherston said Webber had said after her appearance that she had some information for the family.

TVNZ had approached a friend of Aisling’s family and subsequently Webber had met up them.

Asked what the public news organisation was doing introducing a TV medium to the family two days after they had lost a child, Brotherston said:

“You know what they are doing? They are being human. They have a family out there that are desperate to find their child.

“We are just being human by ringing a family friend and asking if they want the medium’s contact details. After the family friend said they would be interested in talking to her all we did was facilitate the exchange of contact details.”

No you are not being human. This is disgusting behaviour. If you were offering a counsellor that would be being human.

The last fucking thing the family needs is a medium being offered to them by TVNZ two days after their 2 year old has gone missing. It is ghoulish.

Even putting aside that the mediums are all fakes who prey on vulnerable families, the fact they appear on a TVNZ show is beyond tacky, as it suggests commercial motives in offering them.

And then to have a One News reporter ask about it at a Police news conference. Every aspect of this affair is appalling.

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.

In the Sunday News we read:

A TVNZ in-house legal adviser helped shape the confidentiality agreement between Tony Veitch and ex-girlfriend Kristin Dunne-Powell over what was later publicly revealed as a domestic violence incident, a source close to the case has revealed.

When the scandal broke in July last year, TVNZ said they told Veitch it was a private matter for him and they would help him fi nd his own lawyer.

But Sunday News has been told the state-owned network’s legal adviser Helen Wild was involved in framing the agreement “on behalf of TVNZ’’, working alongside Veitch’s lawyers to “finalise the best possible terms for Tony’’.

The source said Wild met the then-sports presenter’s lawyers Richard Burrell and Willie Akel in the days leading up to the signing of Veitch’s $150,000 payout, and offered them written advice on the agreement’s wording.

Yet in the Herald on Sunday we read:

TVNZ is fuming over reports questioning some of its executives’ roles in the Tony Veitch saga and has reiterated its full confidence in them and chief executive Rick Ellis.

A report in another publication this week raised allegations that suggested TVNZ executives may have originally been more fully aware of the Veitch assault allegations than publicly acknowledged.

This included an allegation that Veitch signed the Kristin Dunne-Powell confidentiality agreement in a second-floor TVNZ office – well before the case ever became public – and that this took place in front of company representatives.

Last night TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said the confidentiality agreement was not signed in the TVNZ lawyer’s second-floor office. “Nobody at TVNZ had any part in the negotiations concerning the confidentiality agreement.”

So how do you reconcile that? Let’s go back to the Sunday News article:

TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said yesterday: “Nobody at TVNZ was involved in any of the negotiations between them (Veitch and Dunne-Powell).

“The only statements we made at the time remain true, accurate and very careful statements of TVNZ’s understanding at the time.”

My reading of this is TVNZ is using near Clintonian definitions to cover up. They are interpreting negotiations as being only between Veitch and Dunne-Powell’s teams.

But if a TVNZ lawyer was sitting in the back room advising the Veitch team as to what to agree to, then that means they are effectively part of the negotiations – just behind the scenes.

TVNZ’s denial is missing the point. The public don’t care about the difference between advising the negotiating team and being part of it. The core issue is were TVNZ staff involved in the confidentially agreement in any way, despite the public statements it was a private matter for Veitch and did not involve his employer.

The Herald reports:

TVNZ was the big winner at the annual ceremony held in Auckland on Saturday night, winning 11 categories to TV3’s one.

The two broadcasters take turns filming and screening the awards ceremony.

This year, it was TVNZ’s turn, but the state broadcaster pulled out, so TV3 stepped in.

However, it did not screen the whole show, instead showing a shortened “highlights” version on Sunday night with many of its rival’s winners edited out.

That prompted the state broadcaster to ask for a copy of the unscreened coverage.

But TV3 has rejected the request, saying the film is its to keep.

Someone at TV3 should reconsider. This just makes them look defensive and petty.

The NZ Organisation for Rare Disorders has filed a complaint over TVNZ’s coverage of the Folic Acid debate. The complaint is here.

While I don’t support the addition of folic acid into bread, they may have a point about some of the coverage. The Q&A show where Paul Holmes was almost accusing Kate Wilkinson of giving people cancer could well have been over the line.

It will be interesting to see TVNZ’s response, and if not upheld the decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Stuff tells how and why TVNZ is trying to supress it. Silly people.

They may have taken it off You Tube, but Whale has put it on another site.

The Herald reports:

TVNZ has upheld viewer complaints against Breakfast host Paul Henry after he commented that a female guest had a moustache.

I’d take that more seriously if it wasn’t the same TVNZ whose staff very quickly got the comments out on You Tube, so 100,000 extra people could see them.

Henry had been spoken to and told on-air editorial decisions were not his to make and that he must adhere to the executive producer’s decisions.

That must be the “I’ve got a voice in my ear telling me not to read them out”!

Oh dear – as I type this he may have just done it again – but accidentially. They had a reporter in a lawyer’s office – in the photocopier room and they were talking about if any items of clothing had even been found in there. Henry then said he is sure all sorts of shenigans happen in there and that if you lift up the photocopier lid, there is probably a crack on the glass.

It took only a second for the possible second meaning of this to strike Henry, but his reaction was nothing compared to Ali Mau who absolutely lost it on screen.

I lambasted One News for their errors in a 1 March story on the 90 day probation period law.

Dave at Big News also highlighted their errors, and actually lodged a formal complaint with them.

Dave blogs that TVNZ has upheld his complaint and conceded the story was inaccurate.

Somehow I have ended up on the press release list for TVNZ News. But you see some interesting stuff, including their boast sheet of the ratings for their news shows vs TV3. This is for all viewers 5+.

The percentages are my calculation, being TVNZ’s share of the viewers watching the two channels. 50% means equal numbers watching TVNZ and TV3 News.

On a percentage basis TVNZ does best with the Breakfast slot, gaining four times as many viewers as TV3’s Sunrise.

The main news bulletin is more competitive with only a 2:1 advantage. However at 7 pm it gets more pronounced with Close Up having a larger gap over Campbell Live.

The slot where TV3 gets closest, interestingly, is the late news slot. Is this a Nightline legacy from the days of Belinda Todd?