The great think about the internet is that is was designed to route around blockades, physical or otherwise.

Good luck with that, Helen. The internet is, down to its TCP/IP core, fiercely liberal in construction and operation.

Freedom of speech.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter

Clark does not control the Internet YET…however moves will be made this year under the EFB to do just that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Neo-liberal? To me, it looks like clueless socialists playing at being capitalists, and failing miserably.

Liberals would do away with state funded channels. Thanks goodness thae state doesn’t control the internet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Molly67 – yep, that’s pretty good. Thanks for drawing my attention to these.

Hopefully there will also be some public demand and campaigns at some stage for the whole neoliberal approach to broadcasting to be rolled back. Because it’s not just the continued annual appropriation of the TVNZ dividend that is the problem, but the whole model. I agree that the Greens’ criticism of this is a decent start though.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

how about this?

More funds needed for quality local broadcasting content
Sue Kedgley MP, Green Party Broadcasting Spokesperson

28th August 2007

The Green Party has welcomed the evidence of strong public support for state broadcasting contained in a recent Ministry of Culture and Heritage survey – and has urged the Government to forego its dividend from TVNZ this year, and thus make it affordable for the state broadcaster to screen more quality local content in prime time.

“It is all very well for Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey to tout the success of New Zealand on Air in enabling more hours of local content to be screened,� Greens Broadcasting Spokesperson Sue Kedgley says.

“In reality, New Zealand’s ratio of local content still lags far behind other developed countries, and the funding arrangements have simply not kept pace with the cost of making quality local content, marketing it properly and screening it in prime time.

“According to the MCH survey, 89 percent of New Zealanders think public broadcasting contributes to the cultural and social value of New Zealand. Armed with this mandate, the Government should forego its dividend this year, and thereby enable TVNZ to absorb some of the cost of marketing and screening quality local context in a time slot where more New Zealanders can see it.

“Similarly, the Government should be putting more funds into New Zealand on Air, to ensure that local producers do not have to tailor local content to the lowest common denominator, in order to get it funded and scheduled,� Ms Kedgley says.

“ Until Government tackles the issue of how quality local content can be adequately funded by NZOA and supported by the networks, the current digital television conference at Te Papa will be mere window dressing. .

“As things stand, the Freeview digital platform is looking like a niche venue for recycling old local content, and any new local content screened on it appears as though it will have to be made on a shoestring. There is a real risk this process could help to undermine the local production industry’s wages and conditions.

“The MCH survey shows that the public want quality local content. At present, the Government is happy to pay lip service to that concept, while requiring commercial returns from TVNZ that regularly consign quality programmes to the outer regions of the schedules, � Ms Kedgley says.

or this?

Government needs to scale back its money grab from TVNZ
Sue Kedgley MP, Green Party Broadcasting Spokesperson

13th April 2007

If TVNZ is to retain any semblance of being a public service broadcaster, the Government has to stop pillaging TVNZ’s accounts every year and allow it to invest in the staff and resources needed for it to become a genuine public service broadcaster, Green Party Broadcasting Spokesperson Sue Kedgley says.

Ms Kedgley was speaking in the wake of the first round of redundancies at the state broadcaster, which will see 59 staff in news and current affairs lose their jobs, amid some 160 jobs in all by the end of the process.

“In the latest TVNZ annual report, the board chairman warbled on about TVNZ’s talented staff and the ‘loyalty, professionalism and commitment’ they had shown to the organisation. Well, that loyalty has now been repaid with their jobs being axed,� Ms Kedgley says.

“Ultimately, the Government has to take some of the blame. It needs to stop treating TVNZ as a cash cow. In the 1990s alone it extracted over $250 million from TVNZ in dividends, which left TVNZ ill-prepared to compete with Sky in the digital realm.

“Last year, the Government again ignored the warning signs. Last June, it took out $70 million, and then came back to TVNZ as late as September 2006 for another $14.5 million. This, despite the fact that the TVNZ annual report says the outlook was ‘uncertain, given the struggling economy and negative outlook for retail sales.’ TVNZ staff are now paying with their jobs for the fallout.

“Reportedly, Treasury seeks from TVNZ a 9 percent return, and takes out all the operating cash flow in dividends. This may have been feasible in the balmy 90s. It is no longer viable in the current competitive broadcasting environment.

“Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey should be telling us what level of dividends from TVNZ – if any – would be fair and justified now. He might also consider apologizing to the sacked TVNZ staff for the contribution the Government’s raid on the books last year has made to their current plight.

“The only solution left now is to allow TVNZ to re-invest any earnings in shoring up its position, as a state broadcaster. The worry is that it may now have shed the senior staff able to make public service broadcasting anything more than a hollow slogan,� Ms Kedgley says.

or this?

TVNZ inquiry shows charter sacrificed on commercial altar
Sue Kedgley MP, Green Party Broadcasting Spokespersom

8th March 2007

The Green Party says the report on the Inquiry into Television New Zealand Limited, released today, shows that it is ludicrous to expect a supposedly public service broadcaster, to return a 9 percent return on shareholder funds, and to disperse all its cash flow by way of dividend.

Former TVNZ Chairman Craig Boyce told the inquiry that the result of this was that unless TVNZ was given further funding from government, it was going to have to sacrifice the Charter to give priority to commercial imperatives.

“Its time for government to waive this requirement and instead allow the broadcaster to invest the dividend instead back into innovative New Zealand programming,� Broadcasting Spokesperson Sue Kedgley says.

“Mr Boyce’s comments demonstrated that the inherent conflict between the commercial and public service objectives of TVNZ has become untenable, and that any public service aspirations TVNZ had are being sacrificed on the altar of commercialism.

“It’s time to acknowledge that the dual and conflicting mandate the government gave TVNZ has failed,â€? Ms Kedgley says.

“This conflict was highlighted recently when TVNZ paid a $73 million dividend to government and then, a few months later, announced plans to make up to 160 staff redundant because they hadn’t met their income targets.

“Shedding 160 staff at the very time that TVNZ is about to launch a new digital channel is ludicrous. Setting up additional new channels will mean TVNZ will have to significantly increase the content it provides – with 160 less staff.

“Clearly TVNZ is so cash-strapped that the new digital channels it is about to launch will primarily be repeat programmes, and there will be very little, if any new content on them.�

A passing glance at the Greens’ website will provide you with many more exaples of what I think it would be more honest to describe as a long term commitment to public broadcasting and critique of the Labour-led government’s lack of action on this issue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

TV in NZ is in general absolute garbage, and that is a direct result of having a fully commercial TV sector with no publicly funded TV to compete against.

Also, there is no such thing as an independent media; all media serves a master, and that extends to editorial influence into news.

I know its trendy to knock The Beeb, but at least the (publicly funded) BBC have the distinction of having really p*ssed off every British government for as long as I can remember. Some folks like to think the BBC is a loony left organisation, but measured by their actions, almost all of the time the Beeb is actually anti-government, every government, which if you are going to have a bias, that is the bias to have.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

joy: “It is my understanding that public broadcasting is often used to show documentaries and drama programmes that are considered to have less ‘box office’ appeal, and for me that would be a good thing”

That means few people watch them, but the minority who do insist that the majority still pay for them.

Again, these points will be moot in a few years time. With the fusion of online with television, economies of scale will kick in and quality programming will be readily accessible and cheap as chips.

Unless the government gets involved, of course….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m not sure why this “need” must be served by the public sector.

There are quality news and documentary channels on Sky. The cost is so low that most houses in the low income suburbs feature dishes, so clearly price isn’t a barrier.

Ari – Television news ratings are at their lowest in almost seven years, and the trend continues down. This is not just a New Zealand phenomenon – Canterbury University’s head of political science Jim Tully, said “this was likely to be linked to the fact more Kiwis were using the web as their source of news”.

The point will be moot in a few years anyway. The big advertisers will have abandoned broadcast and we’ll have more pay-to-watch mechanisms via digital. Ad-free news may cost a couple of cents, or the taxpayer will subsidize it in that “national interest”.

Hopefully it will be more balanced, rather than left leaning, as it is today.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bluepeter: Youtube and search engines are fundamentally different to television, as they allow self-selection of content, and that it doesn’t necessarily take large sums of money for any individual youtube video or search engine hit to reach a viewer.

Basically, the reason for having a public broadcaster is so you can assure that useful content that doesn’t earn cash has a place on the airwaves. This includes potentially unbiased news reporting, public service announcements, educational content like extended documentaries, non-personality current affairs, (though C Live is pretty good at that) etc…

That said, I do have to agree with some of the other posters that the public/private hybrid delivers the worst of both worlds. It contaminates the network with commercial interests without guaranteeing good public service programming- in fact, the commercial programming distracts them from this, as they need it far more urgently to turn a profit.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I am also think TVNZ is a shame, I’m not sure how much the government puts into it but it has as many adds as tv3 which is a private channel, not to mention the morning show they make is Terrible, abysmal, worst in history.
As for the charter, why pay for bad programs even if they are made in NZ, they need more comedy and NZ music programs

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes, we certainly do watch One News at 6.0pm, but would much prefer it to be advertising free.

The TV hybrid public/private is probably doomed to fail.

It is my understanding that public broadcasting is often used to show documentaries and drama programmes that are considered to have less ‘box office’ appeal, and for me that would be a good thing. I have an email friend in the States and he has quite often commented on what he has seen on the public broadcast channel. I think a similar programme may also be run in Canada.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t know why the state “must” own a TV channel, either.

Should they own a YouTube clone? A search engine? An internet news aggregating service? A blog network? These sources give access to interesting and informed news and opinions.

More’s the question: does anyone still watch “One Network Weather/New Idea With Pictures ” anyway?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You want to know why the govt is scrapping assignment? thats easy.

They know they will come under increasing pressure from the media this year, they know the media do not like the EFB and in true socialist style they are trying to silence each and every group that might not agree with them.

Why the hell do we even have a charter and why the hell does the state own TV and radio stations anyway.
The media must not only be independent but they must be seen to be independent, a state owned broadcaster cannot be independent.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Yes – this media release is a good one. Unfortunately it’s nearly four years old! So the Greens don’t appear to have kept the pressure on Labour about this one! If the Greens cared about the state of the media in NZ, they’d be prioritising and campaigning for a proper public broadcasting system. In propping up Labour for so long, it seems the Greens have let any fights to roll back neoliberalism go by the way side…

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

like this press release from Green MP Sue Kedgley?

Government dividend demand undermines TV Charter
Sue Kedgley MP, Green Party Broadcasting Spokesperson

31st July 2003

Green MP Sue Kedgley is questioning the Government’s insistence that TVNZ return a dividend, in light of major cuts to the state broadcaster’s news and current affairs budget.

Ms Kedgley today challenged the Minister of Broadcasting to waive any dividend requirement, in order to avert a $4 million cut from TVNZ’s news budget.

“The Minister replied that the Government did indeed expect some dividend from TVNZ, at a rate yet to be determined,� said Ms Kedgley, the Green Broadcasting spokesperson.

“It is a ludicrous situation that on the one hand, the Government is pumping-in $60 million to help TVNZ meet its Charter obligations, yet on the other hand is demanding a dividend. All this at a time when TVNZ feels impelled to slash its news budget by up to 10 per cent.

“TVNZ has an obligation under the Charter to provide independent, comprehensive, impartial and in-depth news and current affairs coverage. I question how it can possibly meet its Charter obligations when it is axing its award-winning current affairs flagship, Assignment, sacking up to 14 senior editorial positions and chopping up to 10 per cent of its news budget.

“It is time for TVNZ to come clean and explain exactly why it is seeking to making these cuts, when it is expecting record advertising revenue in excess of $300 million this year, as well as a Government grant of $15 million.

“I also call on the Government to re-assess its demand for a dividend from TVNZ, if such a payment comes at the cost of undermining the very Charter that it established only a few months ago.�

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Yes – all this commercialism seeping into news broadcasting is deeply problematic. But rather than just seeing this as being due to a poor decision of the TVNZ management, I think you have to understand it as a consequence of the Labour Government’s Broadcasting Charter for TVNZ. While there’s some good things about the Charter, the Government continue this neoliberal orientation towards public broadcasting, which means that TVNZ remains primarily a commercial broadcaster. Not only that, but as well as Labour expecting TVNZ to make a profit, it expects them to return a dividend to them.

It’s worth noting that TVNZ is the only national public broadcaster in the world that’s required to deliver a dividend to the government. *That’s* what the Greens should be criticising.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)