Posts by Tom Semmens
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Which ones would the government order should be handed over to a trust? How do you define a "news magazine"? Will we have a special government panel that defines what "news" is? Will the government then decree how editorial websites may operate?
The idea I've been mulling around would be akin to giving the word "newspaper" a legal meaning. You can't just set up your shingle and declare yourself a university in this country, the word has a meaning in law. What if you were to do something similar to the word newspaper, or news magazine or whatever? The administration of qualifying for the title of newspaper would be self governing or via a non-government standards body. You can still publish what you like, only if you want to call yourself a newspaper you have to meet the criteria.
The most avowedly right-wing newspaper in the country, the NBR, is privately-owned.
You seem to be making assumptions that such changes would be designed primarily to deliver bias that I can live with, but they are not. they designed to bring the focus back to the important democratic function of the news media. As you've noted, if you want bias we can just stick with the status quo. I don't care if the Herald is the mouthpiece of the Remuera elite. What bothers me is there isn't an Auckland Star to bring another POV to the citizen. The news media is quick to arrogate to itself the privileges of their freedoms, but it seems they are seldom interested in their responsibilities in the modern democratic state, which I doubt can actually function in the long run without a strong and responsible media. The whole point of media ownership laws is to ensure they perform their function at all, not tell them what to say or do.
WRT the Australians who own our newspapers, would you be proposing forcible sale to local interests? I'm sure Barry Colman would be pleased to enter such a buyer's market.
When the government changes the regulatory environment people are always forced to do a whole lot of things. There was precious little sympathy for farmers when subsidies were removed, and if GST goes up I doubt the media will cry to many tears for those living on fixed incomes. What makes the media so special on that front? And besides, if the only allowable ownership model precluded being run as a foreign owned profit making business would Mr. Coleman still be interested?
As for a financial Quisling like Ron Brierley - I imagine he would laugh at the quaint idea of labelling him from anywhere other than Globalmoneystan.
-
As for Deans' moaning; if he doesn't win this weekend he's going to have to come up with a new strategy to deflect attention from his inability to get something out of the Wallabies.
The current Wallabies are a poor outfit with significant frailties. They are carried by a couple of aging and increasingly injury prone players (Mortlock is the prime example) and if those players are missing they are exposed as very average.
They are living on the reputation of past players and they are consistantly talked up for marketing reasons, not their ability on the paddock.
The great Wallaby era has been an anomaly, like the Hadlee era in NZ cricket. They are reverting to business as usual.
Deans must be regretting taking over a country whose side is in such obvious systemic decline.
-
You really think that is even possible in New Zealand?
Well, you could get elected on a centrist platform, appoint Keith Locke as minister of broadcasting then be forced to intervene to stop his plan of complete state control of the media...
-
Only if your trusts have a new way of making their income. Staffing decline is a response to pressure on the whole business model.
Well, I guess it depends what you mean by pressure on the business model. A not for profit NZHerald could have employed 200 journalists at 100k each and still turned a six million profit.
It isn't the profitability that is the issue yet. It is the return on investment.
-
Are you in favour of a change to the system at all, Tom?
I would like to see the threshold lowered to 4%.
But politicians respond to what gets them votes. We are going down the British route of the surveillance state of CCTV and DNA databases because we've got a hollowed out media that has been reduced to ratings-driven ambulance chasing, sensationalist crime reporting and interviewing a cacophany of opinion.
To me, if we want to change political discourse we have to change political culture. Clemenceau said war was to important to be left to the generals. I believe the media is to important to be left to the market. Strong reform of media governance laws - in particular in relation to ownership models (would it be a good idea to legally require all newspapers and news magazines published in N.Z. to be owned by not-for-profit trusts and the like?), in relation to forbidding foreign (read rent-extracting Australians and Canadians) ownership and in having anti-monopoly laws to break up oprganisations like Sky TV would go a long way to naturally re-populating our newsrooms with actual journalists.
-
As for Goff, I'm less worried. I really think it is irrelevant what the polls say this year or the next. New Zealand voters have at best a 12 month memory and mostly closer to 6 months.
It all depends on if they are getting sound advice. It may be that the labour polling has picked up the negative perceptions of Goff and they are planning to re-launch him in 6-9 months...
Of course, Occam's razor doesn't leave me feeling optimistic.
-
We have a President.
No we don't - we've got a brand. John Key is a creature of MMP. Under MMP it's the party vote that counts and so MMP is all about the nation-wide campaign. In a nation wide campaign a presidential style leader is central to what is largely a branding battle. Look at how Key is described, or the questions pollsters ask. It is all like an ad agency pitch - he "connects". Dispite being a multi-millionaire who spends his holidays in a Hawaiian gated community he is "down to earth". "Reliable". "Trustworthy". These phrases are branding buzz words, not political policy differences. Key is hugely popular right now because everyone from the Herald down is besotted with brand Key to the point where the abuse of the house isn't a problem for, say, Colin Espiner because Colin is to busy writiing about how the taxpayer should buy his hero an aeroplane.
Key is popular because his brand is, right now, whatever you want it to be.
Goff conversely is unpopular because at the moment he has branded by his opponents in unflattering terms.
MMP is a great system for increasing diversity and making sure everyones vote counts. But it sucks when it comes to elections, because it has reduced them to Cadbury's vs. Whittakers.
-
Well, that was an anti-climax to end the season. Hawkes Bay didn't fire a shot.
I think the team gets talked up far to much down in the bay - they are often guilty of turning up to games with the match already won in their heads.
Oh well, the rugby season is over for another year. Summer is almost here, time for the distant drone of lawnmowers on somnolent, sunny Sunday afternoons and saturation cricket commentaries on the radio, as Brian Waddell describes nothing happening for a hour in Central Districts vs. Otago in stultifying heat and under a Cathedral blue sky in Alexandria...
-
I'd like 'good at their jobs' to be the prime requirement for employment.
But surely, having some idea of the country you are coming to beyond a generic love 100% pure LOTR is part of being "good at your job"?
But I accept that the state broadcaster is such in name only. It should be sold off, it fufills no public function any longer.
Eric Kearley's nationality is so far from being even remotely relevant
It is relevant because he was clearly unaware on Morning Report as to why people might think his "ad" was a party political broadcast.
This ignorance was born in the fact he hasn't clue about this countries history beyond about 2007. To me, this ignorance is an obvious outcome of the recruitment process that led to his employment.
-
I'm not demanding an audit of people birth certificates. However, I do believe that the obvious ignorance Mr. Kearley had of the nature and tone of National Party advertisments within the last eight years is an obvious consequence of selecting someone who is from offshore to a senior programming role, and to me how and why these people end up the jobs they end up in is germaine to the debate.
It seems to me to be obvious that a state institution at least nominally charged with some sort of cultural guardian role should be programmed by people with at least some passing knowledge of the history of the country they are programming in. Mr. Kearley is not even a long term resident, let alone a New Zealander. I believe that when recruiting for roles such as his, within a state institution with a cultural focus, a criteria should be an understanding of the local culture, and it social and political history.
The fact the we don't means we end up with clear errors of judgment such as this one and with a state TV news and current affairs flavour that could have blown in from Wisconsin. Everyone here lauds the way MTV reflects Maori culture, without making the obvious connection that they do so with a staff recruited almost entirely from the community they serve, and that that is seen as important part of the job description within that organisation.
This should all be common sense observations, but when it comes to "pursed lipped professional offense takers" Craig seems to pretty much fill the bill with his usual intemperate finger pointing accusations of racism.