Kiwiblog

Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

Public broadcasting channel TVNZ 7 is to be wound up after just three years.

The commercial-free channel has cultivated a niche audience since its inception but Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman confirmed yesterday its funding would not be extended beyond next year after it failed to live up to expectations that it would support itself over time.

This is not some spin made up by National. Here is what then Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey said in 2006:

The government will support TVNZ’s proposal to move into the digital era with funding of $79 million over the next six years, Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey announced today.

“The government is backing TVNZ’s plans to strengthen its public broadcast offering as it makes the transition to free-to-air digital,” Steve Maharey said. …

Funding for TVNZ’s digital content proposal will be released to TVNZ over the next six years, with the intention that the services become self-sustaining over time.

So Labour never promised to sustain taxpayer funding of TVNZ7. The funding was for a transitional period, and the sad reality is that the viewing numbers for TVNZ7 were miniscule.

I’m personally a big fan of some of the shows on TVNZ7. I think Media 7 and Court Report are important shows, as they are about scrutinising the actions of powerful institutions. Likewise Backbenchers plays an important role in having MPs actually debate issues of the week with each other. I think NZ will be the poorer, if these shows disappear.

However that doesn’t mean that a dedicated TVNZ7 channel was the best way to have shows like that on TV. I believe that the value associated with channels is rapidly declining in a Tivo and My Sky world. I record programmes I want to watch – I don’t view channels anymore. I record content from One, Two, TV3, C4, Comedy Central, TVNZ7, Stratos, History Channel etc. Half the time I don’t even have any idea what channel something has played on. And the future will be more and more people like me – choosing content not channels.

So for me, the challenge is how to keeps non-commercial shows like Court Report, Media 7 etc on the airwaves, without TVNZ7. In my mind, there are two ways forward:

1. As previously advocated, set up a unified public broadcaster like the BBC or ABC. Sell of TVNZ to generate the capital for the “NZBC” and use the current operational funding for Radio NZ, Maori TV and NZ on Air for ongoing costs.
2. Have TVNZ apply to NZ on Air to fund the shows from their contestable fund. I would hope that the shows would have a reasonable chance of success. In an ideal world it would be nice to be able to increase funding for NZ on Air, but that is unrealistic in the next few years. We just have to get back into surplus first.

Chris Hipkins blogs:

I was sad to see TVNZ announce today that the Good Morning TV show will be relocated to Auckland at the end of the year. It’s the only show of any substance to be produced at Avalon at the moment and probably marks the end of an era for New Zealand TV.

Avalon is an iconic landmark in my electorate, towering over the neighboring suburbs since the late 1970s. It used to be the home of TVNZ, and heaps of legendary kiwi TV was made there (at one stage almost all Kiwi drama was made in the Hutt). Then TVNZ abandoned any pretense of public service TV, moved to Auckland chasing the almighty dollar, and Avalon has been on a downward slide ever since.

Like Chris, I am sad to see Avalon go. It’s been the traditional home for leader’s debates and many other shows. And in the deep past, it was the centre of TVNZ news.

Or perhaps it’s time to start afresh? Let TVNZ go off and be a commercial broadcaster and setup a new public service channel? Avalon wouldn’t be a bad place to start…

I broadly agree with Chris. Trying to have TVNZ as a commercial and a public service broadcaster is an impossible task. Just ask Ian Fraser, who tried.

I’d sell off TVNZ (the state doesn’t need to own commercial broadcasters) and use the capital from the sale to set up a unified public service broadcaster which does television, radio and web.

iPredict have launched a range of stocks on who will be the next Breakfast host. As of this morning the favourites are:

1. Tm Wilson 35%
2. Oliver Driver 17%
3. Tamati Coffey 11%
4. Sean Plunket 10%
5. Greg Boyed 9%
6. Mike Hosking 8%
7. Paul Holmes 7%
8. Jack Tame 6%
9. Jeremy Wells 6%
10. Dominic Harvey 5%
11. Matty McLean 2%
12. Peter Williams 1%
13. Mark Sainsbury 1%

If you think anyone is over or under priced, then make some money if you are right and buy or sell some stock!

Rachel Glucina lists the possibilities:

Riddle me this, amigos: If Oliver Driver killed his own television breakfast show why would TVNZ bosses hire him for theirs?

Replacing the right leaning politically incorrect Paul Henry with left leaning Oliver Driver would be a sure fire way to piss off viewers. Driver was okay on TV3 as he fitted that channel’s liberal brand. But the brand for TVNZ Breakfast is way different.

The new Pippa

Bernadine Oliver-Kerby
Heather Du Plessis-Allan
Joanna Hunkin
Kate Hawkesby
Rachel Smalley
Stacy Daniels
Renee Wright
April Ieremia
Charlotte Ryan
Shavaughn Ruakere
Kate Rodger

If Paul Henry was still hosting Breakfast, then I think Heather DPA would be a great match for him. She wouldn’t take any of his shit, but wouldn’t be offended by what he says. Even without Paul, I think she’d be good in the role.

I liked Kate Hawkesby when she did it with Mike Hosking. Also Bernadine Oliver-Kirby displays a good sense of humour.

The new Paul

Paul Holmes
Jeremy Corbett
Dominic Harvey
Duncan Garner
Jack Tame
Mikey Havoc
Greg Boyed
John Tamihere
Jeremy Wells
Jay Reeve
Rod Cheeseman

If Paul Holmes can handle the early starts, I think he’s be an obvious choice. Paul’s style would be a very good fit for Breakfast, and he is well versed at being entertaining and amusing.

Jeremy Wells would be hilarious but I imagine he would get sacked for saying something outraegous soon or later.

TVNZ reports:

A ONE News investigation into a study that claims alcohol is cheaper than water has found that’s not always the case.

The report by the University of Otago, based on Department of Statistics figures, found a glass of water costs 67c, while a standard drink of beer costs 64c and a standard drink of cask wine costs 62c.

At the supermarket, the cheapest water ONE News could find came in a three litre container, which cost $2.57.

The cheapest wines in the same quantity on the other hand were priced at $22 and the cheapest beer, in a 12 pack and about five litres in quantity, was $18.40.

Applying the same calculations used in the Otago study, the glass of water cost less at only 21c, while the beer pack cost $1.10 for a glass and the cask of wine cost 71c for a standard drink.

The Otago study author, Associate Professor Nick Wilson, blamed price fluctuations for the difference.

“When you look at some specials, [alcohol] is actually cheaper than bottled water in some cases and at other times it may not be.”

Wilson is also sticking to his call for increased taxes to push the price of alcohol up.

I’m really pleased that TVNZ, unlike most media, didn’t just report the so called study as gospel and repeat it unthinkingly. They went out and tested the results and found they are bunkum.

The study seems to have cherry picked data so it could compare the most expensive bottled water to the cheapest ever alcohol, and come up with a conclusion that alcohol is now cheaper than water.

TVNZ have shown this is crap – that bottled water is under a third the price of the cheapest wine. Will other media report this as they reported the original study?

Also they are not comparing apples and apples. Water is in fact almost free as a product. when people buy bottled water they are buying it for the convenience. The correct comparison to bottled water would be the cost of alcohol in an on license – where you are also not paying so much for the alcohol, but for the convenience also.

Why did he go and what does it mean for TVNZ and Henry?

Why did he go?

What changed, so that it went from a suspension offence to resignation. I think there were four factors.

1. The Dikshit name mockery by itself would have been no big thing. Other NZ broadcasters have done exactly the same thing as Paul Henry did, and it was reported that in India her name has been made fun of for many years by some. But the problem for Henry was it occuring just before his awful comments on Sir Anand not being a real NZers. This made it look like Henry was prejudiced against Indians, rather than just making fun of her name.
2. The official complaint from the Indian Government. While it is preposterous that they turned it official, the reality is they did. Suddenly this makes the comments a major liability.
3. A growing realisation that Henry’s brand has been so damaged by this, that he would never be able to restore his reputation with many NZers.
4. Perhaps most importantly the “scandal” effectively destroyed his chances of ever grabbing the coveted Close Up hosting spot. It is no secret he had wanted this for many years. With that now ruled out, he had no future in TVNZ except to stay where he is.

So what does it mean for TVNZ:

1. In the short term they get out of the political bonfire that was threatening to burn them
2. But also in the short term they face a backlash from the many Paul Henry supporters (up to 70,000 now on Facebook). And do not under estimate how many people watched Breakfast only because of him. I was certainly one of them. Don’t get me wrong – other presenters do a competent job, but Paul makes you laugh and is so entertaining that you really enjoyed tuning in.
3. As I understand it Breakfast has never been highly profitable. It is possible Breakfast could become a loss leader, and in these tight times may be an expense TVNZ can not afford.

And where now for Paul Henry:

1. If I was TV3 I’d be picking up the phone to Paul. However I wouldn’t necessarily stick him on at Breakfast – that time slot is never highly profitable. Maybe give him the 5.30 pm slot that TVNZ were looking to develop for him.
2. A return to radio is possible. That was where he started. However I have to say that I think seeing Paul’s antics is a big part of his appeal, and radio may lessen that.
3. Paul could always become a blogger

Dear Commissioner Broad,

This is a complaint alleging that Television New Zealand Ltd broke S140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 with their 6 pm One News bulletin on Tuesday 5 October 2010.

A video of the particular item can be found at http://tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/court-appearances-over-alleged-voting-scam-3818752/video

The item showed the arrest of a man in relation to alleged enrolment fraud in Papatoetoe.

At around 50 seconds into the item, the reporter speaks to the camera with a Labour Party billboard in the background, showing photos and names of three candidates for the local elections. Slowly the shot zoomed in until the only two things visible were the reporter and the photo of the candidate on the right. At this stage his billboard photo is almost as large as the reporter. It is not an obscure background image.

The candidate prominently focused on was Daljit Singh, who was one of the two men arrested. At the time of the broadcast his name and identity was subject to an interim suppression order from the Auckland District Court.

The inclusion of the billboard featuring Mr Singh, and the extended close up zoom onto his image was obviously a deliberate decision by TVNZ to indicate or hint that Mr Singh was the person arrested. They did also show some images of other candidates and billboards but they were extremely rapid fire.

In the recent case of Police v Slater, the judgement of Judge Harvey made it clear that it is not necessary to actually name the person with name suppression, to be in breach of an order. Judge Harvey states:

The information can be decoded in the same way that an aggregation of information may lead to the identification of a person by way of a process of elimination – another form of interpreting a particular code or solving a puzzle.

The focusing on his name and photo allowed people to “solve the puzzle” of who had appeared in court. Presumably, this must have been the intention of TVNZ, otherwise they had no need to film their item in front on Mr Singh’s billboard.

I should note that personally I strongly disapproved of the situation where Mr Singh was able to get interim name suppression. I would even go so far as to say that I thought TVNZ provided a public service by implicitly identifying him before the deadline for posting in votes.

But I do not believe one can expect other “publishers” to obey the laws around name suppression, if they are not applied equally.

Therefore I reluctantly file this complaint.

Faithfully,

David Farrar

(complaint was sent by e-mail on Saturday 9 October 20110)

Paul Henry has offered his resignation from TVNZ and the CEO has accepted it.

Will he move to 3? Or radio? And who will replace him?

UPDATE: 75 comments in the hour from when I blogged this (which was while waiting for my luggage at the airport) and making it into my hotel room. I think that must be a record.

UPDATE2: You can vote in my blog poll in the left hand sidebar as to whether or not you think TVNZ did the right thing by accepting Paul Henry’s resignation

I thought TVNZ’s One News tonight was just as blatant a breach of a name suppression order, as anything Cameron Slater did.

It was calculated and deliberate to identify one of those given name suppression.

Now I have to be honest and part of me was wildly cheering on TVNZ for their defiance of the court order.

But the other part of me wonders if the Police and Crown Law will treat TVNZ to the same standard as it did a blogger?

UPDATE 1225: TVNZ have taken my advice and suspended Paul Henry without pay until 18 October. Okay, may not be on my advice, but I do note that most people were calling for either just a better apology or outright sacking. As far as I know few people advocated suspension as the appropriate response.

A sacking would make Paul a martyr. The suspension both is humiliating for him, but also sets a very clear boundary. If he does similar in the future, then clearly the response needed from TVNZ will be stronger than suspension.

ORIGINAL: I’ve been thinking about what would be the appropriate response from TVNZ in relation to Paul Henry’s comments yesterdays. A “sorry if you were offended” apology does not come close. However I’m not in the camp demanding he must be sacked, and never work in broadcasting again. I do respect greatly the decision of Ben Gracewood to quit his beloved spot on Breakfast reviewing gadgets – a very principled gutsy call which will have far more impact on TVNZ than the few hundred people who have joined the anti Paul Henry facebook group (his pro one has 35,000).

What TVNZ should do, is the same as radio stations do when a “shock jock” steps over the line. They should suspend Paul Henry from on air duties. That sends out a very clear message about what is acceptable, without being commercially reckless. It may also serve as a learning exercise about boundaries.

I enjoy Paul Henry’s humour greatly, and think he is remarkably talented broadcaster. However what he did yesterday was not humouous. It was simply ugly. And I don’t think TVNZ (or Paul) have realised how different this is to other incidents.

If humour is sincere, you can get away with a lot. For example when friends ring me up and tell me awful Jewish jokes, I don’t mind a bit – because I know it is 100% humour and they don’t really have an anti-semitic bone in their body. If however some neo-nazi skin-head was telling the joke, it would be creepy as genuine dislike or contempt or even hatred is what motivates them.

And that is the challenge with watching Paul Henry in future. He no longer will be that funny offensive guy Paul Henry. He will be that guy who looks down on people with a different skin colour, and you will wonder if what motivates his humour is racism?

There’s a fair bit I don’t agree with Joris de Bres on, but his quotes in the Herald are spot on:

Mr de Bres said Henry often said things to challenge or shock people “but this one was off the planet”.

“What he was saying was that if you were an Indian New Zealander and you were born here, you went to school here, you went to university here, you practised law here, you became a judge, you became an ombudsman and you became a Governor-General, that a key presenter on national television still thinks you don’t look like or sound like a New Zealander.”

Mr de Bres said Sir Anand probably knew Henry well enough to ignore his comment, “but I know that it does have an impact on other Indians and other New Zealanders”.

This is the truly sad thing. We should celebrate Sir Anand’s achievements. He was born in New Zealand to immigrants from Fiji. He succeeded at school, at university, was a successful lawyer, became a Judge and then a hugely respected Ombudsman. Finally he is appointed Governor-General. But despite all of that, some people think he is still not a real New Zealander. Now think about the awful message that gives to young New Zealanders who have immigrant parents. It is that no matter how well you achieve, there are some New Zealanders that will think you are not a real Kiwi because of your skin colour.

This is not about offending a singer from the UK. This is about a statement that really will affect  lot of Kiwis. This is not an issue of freedom of speech – because that is not the same as freedom from consequences.

TVNZ issued a separate statement defending Henry – a release that Mr de Bres said was more “discouraging” than Henry’s original one.

Issued by spokeswoman Andi Brotherston, it said: “The audience tell us over and over again that one of the things they love about Paul Henry is that he’s prepared to say the things we quietly think but are scared to say out loud.”

I agree that the statement in defence was disgraceful. TVNZ badly miscalculated. This is very different to Paul’s other complaints.

A stronger response is needed than an apology. I think an on-air suspension would be the appropriate response. Anything less, and TVNZ looks like it condones racism. Because this is not just about Paul Henry, but also about TVNZ’s initial response defending him as saying he is prepared to say out loud what we think quietly.

I cringed when Paul Henry asked the PM this morning whether in appointing a Governor-General would “choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?”.

I have a lot of time for Paul’s humour, even his offensive humour, because humour is often offensive.

But this was not a joke, this was not even comparable to Paul Homes with his “cheeky darkie” comment, which was meant to be a parody.

This was a blatant statement that NZ born Sir Anand does not look and sound like a New Zealander because his parents are Fijian Indians.

What Paul really meant is that he does not sound like a white or British New Zealander.

If TVNZ don’t take firm action on this one, they will find themselves in a very umcomfortable position. They should also arrange for an apology to the Governor-General. He was born in New Zealander, and is every but as much a New Zealander as Paul Henry.

UPDATE: Paul Henry has apologised:

I sincerely apologise to the Governor General, Sir Anand Satyanand for any offence I may have caused.

I am aware that Sir Anand has made an outstanding contribution to New Zealand.

Anyone who knows anything about me will know I am a royalist, a constant defender of the monarchy and the role the Governor General plays in our society.

If my comments have personally offended Sir Anand, I regret it deeply.

I am sure it will still be the lead item on the news tonight, and in newspapers tomorrow.

The Herald reports:

More than 470 of its 900 or so staff have had cards, and in the six months to January this year – a time of cost cutting – they spent $3.18 million. Almost 100 of the cards had a monthly cap of at least $10,000.

Mr Ellis racked up more than $140,000 on his own company plastic in two years – including $32,000 entertaining.

He and senior executives will be among those losing their cards, and soon there will be as few as 50 left at TVNZ.

Staff will now have to apply to get work-related expenses reimbursed, though some field staff will retain their cards.

Having half the staff with credit cards was excessive.  Most companies have very few credit cards issued, and other staff are on a reimbursement system.

I’ve never had a company credit card in my life, yet in certain roles have had tens of thousands of dollars of expenses – I just file expense claims.

Fran Mold has today quit as Deputy Political Editor for TVNZ, according to well placed sources.

The reason is an agreement in principle that she will replace Kris Faafoi as Chief Press Secretary to Phil Goff.

However the timing of this is very is interesting. You see Labour have yet to have their “democratic” selection process. Yet the outcome seems certain enough that Fran has quit prior to the 18th of September when the selection is made. I guess, the head office delegates are not going to be listening to who makes the best speeches on the night.

My God. One News had a segment yesterday in the 6 pm bulletin on the Australian election, and they decided to explain how the system worked. What a pity they got it so wrong. Simon Dallow, who fronted it, should send an angry-gram to whomever produced that item.

They correctly described the House of Representatives as having 150 seats, and you need 76 to form a Government.

But then Simon went on to say Australia uses the Single Transferable Vote, or STV, electoral system. No, they don’t – well not for the House of Representatives which the item was on.

They use the preferential voting (often called Alternative Vote) system.

Even worse Simon went on to say they get two votes, and showed a mock ballot paper.

That has no resemblance to an Australian ballot paper.

This sample ballot, taken from Wikipedia, shows that you rank the candidates in order. You do not tick them, there is no second column.

This is basic stuff. Someone at TVNZ should have checked the story.

John Drinnan writes:

Radio New Zealand faces a big makeover next year with the Government expected to merge the public radio operation with non-commercial TVNZ 7.

The plan is to create a new public broadcasting institution. Labour is understood to be broadly behind the merger.

Such a move is being challenged by TVNZ, which wants to keep government funding within its otherwise commercial focus. But surprisingly the biggest sceptics are within RNZ management.

A merger would mean a revamp of RNZ which has been caught in the cross-fire with Government demands that it works within existing budgets.

It would require the transfer of some TVNZ staff, and possible pay rises for some at RNZ, sources say. The new body would provide both radio and TV, though it is understood the Government is not yet convinced TVNZ should not be allowed to continue to provide some TVNZ 7 content.

A combined radio and TV operation makes sense, removing public service from the increasingly commercial focus of TVNZ while injecting fresh energy into RNZ.

I have been advocating this for well over a year. It is good to see both the Government, and Labour, looking favourably on doing this.

We spend a fairly large amount of money on public broadcasting – RNZ, NZ on Air, Maori TV, TVNZ 7. If you combine it all together you have the ability to have a pretty good budget for a combined public broadcaster. I recognize Maori TV won’t merge in at this stage, but no reason they can’t become a semi-autonomous channel within say the NZ Broadcasting Service?

Once the public broadcaster is established, I’d look favourably at floating some or all of TVNZ. It is effectively a fully commercial company and is not a public broadcaster. Radio NZ is. TVNZ 7 is. TVNZ as a whole is not.

Jonathan Marshall at the SST reports:

TVNZ boss Rick Ellis has racked up more than $140,000 on his company plastic – including $32,000 entertaining – during a time of major redundancies at the broadcaster, a Sunday Star-Times survey of more than 100 public-sector chief executives has revealed.

I’ve not been jumping on the bandwagon for most of these disclosures, as they seem reasonable. But hell $140,000 is a lot of money – even over two years.

Ellis’ liberal spending over the 24 months to June this year coincided with a period of plunging profits and savage job cuts at the state-owned enterprise, which has been hit hard by the global financial crisis.

TVNZ’s 2009 annual profit was 89 percent down on the previous year. Some 215 TVNZ staffers have lost their jobs since 2007. Between June 2008 and June 2010, Ellis, who earns between $710,000 and $840,000 yearly, spent $140,768.19 on his TVNZ-issued credit card.

The expenditure may be legit, but that does not mean it was prudent. I am glad to see the Minister asking the Chairman for a please explain.

But assessing just how Ellis spent $140,000 of TVNZ’s money was difficult. Citing commercial sensitivity, the broadcaster refused to hand over anything more than a grand total, broken down into broad categories. This included $11,765.52 on “miscellaneous” items. The broadcaster last night refused to say what they were. The ombudsman is investigating.

TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said TVNZ would release only limited details of Ellis’s expenditure because “we are a commercial operation in a highly competitive, not to say cut-throat global industry. The kind of detail government departments may care to release is damaging to our competitive position.”

Richards said it was unfair for TVNZ to release its data when bosses of private companies Fairfax, APN, MediaWorks and Sky were not forced to.

But Maori TV CEO Jim Mather, also a state-owned enterprise boss, happily provided his credit card statements and receipts. Mather spent $19,632.53 in the same 24-month period.

I may be wrong, but I suspect the privately owned MediaWorks will have a massively smaller bill on their CEO’s credit card.

The Herald reports:

TV3 and Television New Zealand have been punished following breaches of Parliament’s rules, including one cameraman entering and filming inside Labour MP Chris Carter’s suite of offices in his absence and without his permission.

Lockwood Smith withdrew parking entitlements for their networks in Parliament’s basement carpark after they failed to get permission to film in the corridor and stairwell. However he also noted a cameraman had entered an MP’s offices without permission – a clear breach of parliamentary rules.

This is a fair call. MPs are publicly accountable, but it doesn’t mean their offices are public space.

At 7.30 pm tonight, it will be 50 years since the first TV programme in NZ. Some selected milestones from 18 pages TVNZ sent to me:

• 1936 – BBC began television broadcasts
• 1939 – NBC (US) began
• 1956 – TV begins in Australia
• 1960 – 1st transmission from Shortland Street studios at 7.30 pm 1/6/60, shows included Robin Hood and Howard Morrison
• Aug 60 – Alma Johnson (photo below) becomes 1st female TV presenter
• 1960 – a TV set cost the equivalent in 2010$ of $5,935
• 1963 – first televised election coverage and Close Up debuts with Ian Johnstone
• 1965 – over 50% of households now have TV
• 1969 – first network news bulletin with Philip Sherry and Dougal Stevenson
• 1972 – 1st live All Black test
• 1973 – introduction of colour TV
• 1975 – 1st Telethon
• 1976 -Nice One Stu with Stu Dennison and Roger Gascoigne
• 1977 – Fair Go starts and “A week of it” political satire
• 1979 – 95% of homes have a TVand Bill Ralston joins TV2
• 1984 – Karyn Hay fronts Radio with Pictures
• 1989 – Holmes starts and TV3 starts
• 1997 – start of Breakfast TV

TVNZ have also provided some of the shows on in each decade. Ones I recall watching are:

1. 1960s – Lassie, Bonanza, Mr Ed, Dr Who, Get Smart, The Avengers, Man from Uncle, Bewitched, Mission Impossible, Ironside
2. 1970s – Dad’s Army, Monty Python, Two Ronnies, Alias Smith and Jones, M*A*S*H, Six Million Dollar Man, Kojak, Basil Brush, It’s in the Bag, Top Town, Starsky & Hutch, A Week of it, Are you being served, I Claudius, The Professionals, Happy Days, Soap
3. 1980s – Mork & Mindy, Fawlty Towers, Minder, Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas, To the Manor Born, Benson, Billy T James, Gliding On, University Challenge, Hill Street Blues, Battlestar Galactica, Ready to Roll, After School with Olly Olsen, Brideshead Revisited Love Boat, Hogan’s Heroes, A Team, Night Rider, Blind Date,
4. 1990s – Holmes, Sale of the Century, Frontline, On The Mat, Counterpoint, Eyewitness, Assigment, Ralston Live, Flying Doctors, LA Law, Cheers, Young Ones, The Bill, Simpsons, Married with Children, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Thunderbirds, Dastardly & Mutley, Family Ties, Magnum PI, Star Trek, Doogie Houser, Macguvyer, Cosby Show, Beverly Hills 90210, 21 Jump Street, Casualty, Roseanne, American Gladiators, Seinfeld, The Nanny, Friends, Ally McBeal
5. 2000s – Brothers & Sisters, Go Girls, Shortland Street, Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, The Apprentice, American Idol, Two & a half men, Unauthorised History of NZ, Eating Media Lunch, Big Brother

That’s a lot of shows, but I guess its has been a lot of years!

When TVNZ ran their story tonight on Victoria University closing off enrolments, did they not know the student they interviewed (Caleb Tutty) talking about his anger was the International Secretary of Young Labour, and Judith Tizard’s former electorate agent?

Or did they just decide it wasn’t relevant?

Brian Edwards blogs:

But the eagle-eyed little bird had spotted something strange in the Close Up story. In it reporter Daniel Faitaua interviews David Henshilwood and his wife Sally about their problems with Serepisos. Referring to the interview, Faitaua says in voice-over, ‘That was them four weeks ago when they told us of their frustration trying to get paid for installing screens in Terry Serepisos’ Century City Hotel.’

Whoa there! Four weeks ago! You interviewed the Henshilwoods four weeks ago, but you only approached Sereposis’ office yesterday to seek a response. Isn’t that just a little strange?

The eagle-eyed little bird thought so and made a few discreet inquiries. ‘I’m told,’ he tweeted in my ear, ‘that Close Up was instructed not to run the story because it would embarrass TVNZ for not doing proper checks on Mr Serepisos before accepting him for the show. It’s only hearsay of course.’

I am sure normally Close Up do not wait four weeks before following up a story. It would be good to know if they were ordered to wait, to avoid damage to The Apprentice.

Well, if my eagle-eyed little bird has it right, it’s kinda sad isn’t it.  For a network to instruct or  even suggest to  a current affairs programme that it ought to abandon or delay an item of public interest on the grounds that the item might damage the reputation or ratings of one  of the network’s other programmes, really isn’t journalistically or morally defensible.

And if it didn’t happen like that, I’m happy to retract and apologise to TVNZ. As for my eagle-eyed little feathered friend, he may have to watch out for passing birdshot.

Sounds like a good topic for Media 7.

Have just received this response from Television New Zealand in response to an OIA request I made:

Dear Mr Farrar

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

I refer to your request under the Act dated 8 April 2010.

Following an exhaustive search, and enquiries to the usual suspects, it appears that only one pair of pink handcuffs was purchased by Television New Zealand during the period of 1 March to 7 April 2010.

As I am sure you are aware, the handcuffs were purchased as a novelty prize for Back Benches. They were purchased from an undisclosed location in Wellington, and cost $24.99. I cannot confirm whether this represents a fair market price, or whether we paid over the odds for them.

Yours sincerely

Brent McAnulty
General Counsel/Company Secretary

I am intrigued by the reference to “the usual suspects”. Does Damien Christie make a habit of purchasing such items for TVNZ?

The HoS reports:

Glenn Sims, managing director of Redflame Media and producer of The Apprentice, last night defended his star: “I’m not worried about Terry’s credibility because all these attacks are Tall Poppy syndrome.”

All the stuff/rumours about Terry’s past are probably tall poppy syndrome. But the inability to pay his bill is not an attack – it is a matter of fact.

TVNZ was also standing by the top-rating show. Spokeswoman Megan Richards said: “Serepisos’ private affairs are his own business, and we will not be commenting.”

What nonsense. When you are promoting him as one of the most successful businessmen in NZ, and someone who people would aspire to work for, then it is absolutely relevant whether or not he can pay his bills or not.

TVNZ had undertaken due diligence prior to Serepisos’ being picked for the show.

Did that include a credit check?

TVNZ wants people to to mark on a map where they lost their virginity, and what it was like.

The site is a promo for Go Girls.

I wonder if one could demand under the Official Information Act (which applies to TVNZ) the IP addresses of all those who map their virginity loss!

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.