by frog
I see Jim Anderton has found his own little election niche by calling for compulsory free-to-air rugby. Now I’m a cricket fan, and not against the concept of free to air sports. But I’m not really convinced that if we were to sit down and draw up a list of events and programmes that needed to be broadcast and freely available to everyone with televisions, that we would put the All Blacks and the Black Caps right at the top of the list.
It raises some interesting dilemmas – who defines what a big event is that deserves the cultural status of protection from pay- per-view telly? Do any women’s sports teams make the cut? Does ‘big event’ just mean it is likely to get large audience, or does it mean it has important cultural, political, social or economic significance? Would we ban Sky Television from getting the exclusive rights to broadcast the budget reading? What if, heaven forbid, a rugby game broke out into a violent brawl – would we decide that part no longer had cultural significance and allow it to be broadcast on pay-per-view? Isn’t the atmosphere of cricket better enjoyed on the radio anyway?
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Thu, July 10th, 2008
Tags: all blacks, black caps, cricket, Frog, frogblog, green, Jim Anderton, new zealand, party, pay per view, Rugby, sky television
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Banderton at it again, eh.
“Sky said it could not comment last night, but TVNZ spokesman Peter Parussini welcomed Mr Anderton’s move. More than one million viewers watched All Blacks tests when they were broadcast free-to-air, but that had now halved, he said.”
Given that most matches are available free-to-air via delayed coverage, it suggests to me people just aren’t as interested in rugby any more. Media has fragmented, we have more choices, and the All Blacks have made a career of failing to win the World Cup.
Good riddance to the mono-culture. And user-pays is fair enough – I don’t see why I should subsidise rugby, any more than I’m forced to already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog asked: who defines what a big event is that deserves the cultural status of protection from pay- per-view telly?
Perhaps that’s a role we could delegate to big bro, frog. It will be interesting to hear his opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well it would certainly help them fulfill their local content quota. as for questions of who decides cultural value, that sort of decision is being made all the time with regard to government spending, & rugby would be a whole lot more relevant to nz culture than most of the stuff it gets spent on
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In a perfect world all sport would be available on free to air TV however that is not (and never has been) possible, TV one just simply does not have the time to cover all the different sports that we currently enjoy on the various Sky channels.
Like it or not we have left the days of amateur sport far behind us, if Anderton succeeds in pushing this through then the result will be that Rugby and Cricket will suffer major financial losses.
At the moment we have a competitive tender process for the rights to cover Rugby and Cricket, because it is competitive the price remains reasonably high (by NZ standards) if you legislate to make that coverage free then the market value for that product is drastically reduced and ultimately the only ones who suffer will be the NZRU and NZC.
Cricket in particular is already under serious threat from the Asian cartel, NZC simply cannot afford to lose any income, I might be wrong but I am sure that the game already runs at a loss in NZ, the only way they survive is by way of Television rights.
It is a pity that all Kiwi’s do not get the chance to watch their national teams play but the reality is that there is not much that can be done about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With essential services I’m not a great fan of user pays (because some users can’t afford to pay) but I don’t rate television sport in that category, so tend to agree with you on this one BB. I’m quite happy to fork out my Sky sub each month so I can watch live sport.
I don’t expect to get into the ground for free to see the match, so why should I expect to see it free on television?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with Toad.
A rip in the space/time continuum will follow shortly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agree with toad,
Why should some mebers of the community get to watch for free when the rest either have to pay through the turnstiles or pay to view television.
Heck if you were that desperate to watch a a game for free, go to the pub or local club.
At the price of a pint of beer you get to see any amount of free sport.
Remember those days when free to air live sport was full of adverts. In cricket you miss the first and last ball of every over. In rugby the inevitable try. Which would then have to be replayed so you would miss even more of the live game.
Since when has free live sport been an “inalienable right”?
Who issued that “right”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Since when has free live sport been an “inalienable right??
It becomes one in election year, for crusty old socialists
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In a twisted kind of way the “right” to watch free sport on TV represents the welfare state.
Where if you cant afford it you get it for “free” , thanks to those who can afford it.
That “free” view is not free. It is paid for by the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit is dead right.
One thing Sky sport has done is vastly improve the coverage of live sport, remember the days of TVNZ cricket coverage, the test might be poised on a knife edge, NZ needs two wickets to beat Australia and Sir Richard is bowling at his devastating best, the batsmen edges one through to Ian Smith and the catch is taken, all we need now is one wicket to win the test……..at this stage coverage stops because its six o’clock and nothing gets in the way of TV news.
Give me sky anyday of the week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How extraordinary. Green, Nat, ACT supporters all taking the same position. It’s a pity the Progressives don’t appear to have any supporters to come here to defend their position.
Does anyone agree with Anderton on this? Roger Nome, what’s your view?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its not that extraordinary Toad, it sport!
I have played sport with criminals (some very famous/infamous) Police, Lawyers, Politicians (even the odd socialist/communist)and Doctors, when we crossed the white line we all became part of the same team with one common goal.
Looking back on it now it is interesting to think that a Doctor and a Lawyer would take instructions without question from a Truck driver, I guess that just shows what society can achieve if we work together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>How extraordinary. Green, Nat, ACT supporters all taking the same position.
Seem to have hit the sweet spot. Now lets try it on economic policy!
We’re through the looking glass here, people….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bp & bb, sport is a meritocracy. Of course you have achieved cross-party agreement. Everything else is democracy. Doomed to fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This story gets worse!
Apparently Anderton wants to make up the difference (the loss suffered by NZRU and NZC) with tax payer money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it’s imporant to have free to air coverage of national sports teams – as long as the focus is to help inspire people, especially kids, to take up sports themselves. Less kids will play rugby/cricket/netball if less kids dream about becoming an All Black/Black Cap/Silver Fern, and how will they develop those dreams if they can’t see NZ’s best in action? It’s a health issue, not just an entertainment issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Banderton”
ha!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big bro: Eww. Why should we compensate monopolies for their losses?
I think Anderton is, at the least, aiming too high. Free-to-air same-day coverage would be fine, and it would allow us to include netball and soccer and such too if we so desired.
Kevyn: Calling something a meritocracy is like saying it’s “good”. The problem is when you try to define what makes it a meritocracy, and then you start to get into issues like “can players be called skilled due to having superior genes?” and so on. Better to just stick to Anderton’s proposal I think, as like most of his “social” policies, it’s a bit of a laugh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If Anderton was true to form he would set up an opposition Rugby Union (Kiwi Rugby perhaps?) so he and his mates can watch it at taxpayer’s expense!
“Does anyone agree with Anderton on this? Roger Nome, what’s your view?? who cares?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick, I only asked Roger (who hasn’t come here) because I wanted someone to argue the alternative position, and though he perhaps might.
There is a strange political synergy here between people (like you and me) who don’t usually agree with each other, and no-one has come here to defend Anderton’s position. Surely, Patrick, someone can come up with an argument to at least give us a challenge!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Point taken Toady, but I dont think you’ll find Roger will back Anderton anyway,….. unless of course he feeling particularly belligerent tonight, in which case he usually resorts to insignificant links, or just plain porkies
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari, Meritocracy means people are chosen on merit, based on past performance. Why they perform better is irrelevant.
Democracy pretends to choose people on merit but actually chooses people because of their popularity. Why they perform better is central when it should be irrelevant.
It’s no coincidence that the Crusader’s home stadium (and, inevitably, the World Cup finals stadium) is in Anderton’s electorate. ’nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well -just mention sport and out the bloggers come.
My memory tells me that once upon a time in the dim past I could watch most sporting events on the Tele for free. Then along came Murdoch and spoilt it all whilst making himself Billions. ( in the UK admittedly – don’t know how it was here then)
Once again we have a call from the free marketeers to step in and distort the market. They never seem to realise the irony of it all. They love the market until it interferes with their whatever, sport in this case, then they want to regulate the hell out of it. Sick really !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn, the ”World Cup finals stadium” is Eden Park!
bigblukiwi, maybe read the post and the responses again?
“Once again we have a call from the free marketeers to step in and distort the market.”
Jim Anderton??
“along came Murdoch and spoilt it all”
You have a right to watch taxpayer funded, low quality, sports coverage??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
cynic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)