Friday, November 15, 2019

Die MSM, Die 2.5 - New Zealand edition

And now - The News!
It's been heading this way for twenty years...
The fate of RNZ and TVNZ may soon be in the hands of Cabinet ministers, with a proposal to disestablish both broadcasters and create an entirely new public media entity.
Another NEW public entity! Be still my beating heart!!

Kim Hill in full warpath mode

No longer will Kim Hill's worshippers have to pleasure themselves only to her dulcet tones: under this new arrangement they'll be able to look at her face while they do so.
It was you that enchanted the mortals,
Child of Aphrodite,
You the best of stars
And whiter than milk…



So what's the proposal then?
The advisory group concluded the status quo was “unsustainable” and “collectively recommended the government agree to disestablish TVNZ and RNZ and to establish a new public media entity”. 
There are guidelines for how it would operate, including having a “clearly defined public media mandate and purpose, with the core functions of a globally recognised public media entity".  
It would provide public media services across a variety of platforms, “some of which may be advertising free”. TVNZ earns revenue from advertising but RNZ is commercial free.
In other words it's just more of the "mixed funding model' bullshit that's already failed. What this means is that private sector outfits like TV3 would continue to try and compete for advertising dollars against a government-backed TV-Radio network. That's part of the reason TV3 is in the shit now, although all the old broadcasters worldwide are under the same pressures from the likes of Facebook and Google.

Less of this...


If the entity has even part of its model funded by advertising it's going to act commercially: it has to.

And that means less Panorama (BBC), NOVA or Frontline (the latter two being US PBS) ....





And more of this...


... and more "Trans-Wives of Remuera".


If you want a picture of where the Left really want this to go, have a wee shufti at dear old Chris Trotter's achingly nostalgic view of the NZBC and NZ broadcasting in the 1970's:

To Save Democracy, We Must Make The Media Our Own.

Oh yeah, Chris. Speaking as a Right-Winger I'm sure I'd really feel it was "our" media. Of course Chris knows exactly who he means by "Our": he means his side of the ideological fence, and he says it without even thinking about it. It's just an automatic assumption. Witness Chris unloading yet another sad paen to a part of our destroyed Glorious State Owned Past:
The [1970's], which coincided with the introduction of a second publicly-owned television channel, witnessed an extraordinary flowering of news and current affairs, documentary, drama and music programmes. 
For this very reason, the enemies of public ownership spare no effort in casting the 1970s as the decade that taste forgot – notable only for its flared jeans and disco. Obliterated almost completely from New Zealanders’ collective memory is the amazing collection of creative talent which was all-too-briefly assembled in the purpose-built Avalon television studios situated ten miles north of the capital. If this period is recalled at all it is only for the purposes of laughing at the posh pronunciation and absurd hairstyles of the era’s ridiculously clunky (by contemporary standards) broadcasters.
Really? Did Chris ever actually watch that painful succession of "sit coms" turned out over the years. The only funny one I can recall was Gliding On, and that was lifted from a successful play, using some of NZ's more talented actors. And even it sagged when it tried to get with the times of Rogernomics. Everything else had critics asking why there were no good comedy script-writers in NZ.

More Karyn Hay nostalgia

Now I have to admit that we always got a hell of a laugh out of Karyn Hay turning up stoned on Radio With Pictures. Now that was great TV: glorious punk television.

In Trotter's world you'd end up with basically one newsroom that would combine that of TVNZ and RNZ, which would dominate the NZ media news industry. TV3 would be even more dead than now.

Admittedly, in terms of reporting, this would be little different to our current situation.

Which is to say - and this is where I love hearing once again from Lefties about how it's all down to corporate ownership - that the journalists don't change. The large group of reporters that currently stick it to Right-wing ideas - which occasionally intersect with National Party policy - and mostly cover for the policy failures of Green-Labour, will happily shift to this new structure, where they'll "report" exactly as they do now.

At best you can hope that occasionally they'll attack Labour, but only when they fail on some Left-wing idea, such as when John Campbell attacked Helen Clarke in 2002 based on Hager's anti-GE screed or more recently when #MeToo finally went feral inside Labour.

But aside from those Left deviations it's all good as far as 95% - possibly more - of our "journalists" are concerned. Oh don't tell me: Mike Hosking! As if he's anything more than a reactionary, and he's pretty much all alone on most issues, as Lefties constantly remind us, which rather proves my point.

You don't believe me? You're one of those who goes around screaming about Hoskings and "But Rupert Murdoch"? Well I'll let Trotter speak a truth:
TV3, by some unanticipated quirk of late-capitalist cultural logic displayed more creativity, innovation and independence than the ideologically straightjacketed TVNZ. For the past 30 years, the privately-owned TV3 network has, heroically and paradoxically, filled the vacuum created by the deliberate destruction of public service broadcasting in 1989.
The Paradoxical John Campbell
Except it's a truth he clearly does not understand: hence his gobbledygook about "some unanticipated quirk of late-capitalist cultural logic" - whatever the fuck that means - that paradoxically produced TV3's heroic existence as a corporate-owned entity that pushed Leftist ideas in news and current affairs 24/7.

No really! As hard as it may be to believe, John Campbell,  a journalist who has waxed poetic over Noam Chomsky and John Pilger for decades, really did not take editorial direction from profit-minded owners.

The paradoxical Carol Hirschfeld









Well he did get fired eventually, but again that had nothing to do with his ideological reporting and everything to do with TV3's general toilet swirl on eyeballs and advertising revenue.

And in any case all these inter-connected loveys have already fallen on their feet into the existing world of TVNZ and RNZ. Even Carol's hubby, Finlay MacDonald, whose hoarse flatness now fills the afternoons of RNZ.


These are the people - together with Kim Hill and god knows how many more minions of like-mind - who would actually control any such "public media entity" funded by your taxes.

The paradoxical Finlay MacDonald
Chris and company need to look around the world, because there's a fuck-load of Giant Capitalist Corporations that are stuffed to the gills with Lefty ideas being put into action, starting with the two great predators largely responsible for destroying the MSM as we've known it - Facebook and Google.

Sure, they still retain that classic capitalist idea of making huge amounts of money: that core philosophy remains locked in place and God-forbid anyone who disturbs it, but aside from that they're pushing every Left idea there is.

Having said that, even The Stupid Party in the US are beginning to talk about some Teddy Roosevelt-style Robber Barron busting. The Silicon Valley mega-rich may soon find themselves being disembowelled by both Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren.

And BTW, the guy who owns Amazon, Jeff Bezos, literally the richest man in the world, also owns the Washington Post. Meanwhile, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, effectively owns the New York Times, the paper that's been pushing the whole narrative about the US being founded on slavery starting in 1619, not to mention a ton of stuff that's extolling the wonders of trans-genders, the terrors of Global Warming, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Funny how that works with "Right-Wing" billionaire owners.

I happen to still love the sort of in-depth documentaries produced by the likes of Panorama in Britain and Frontline in the USA. And certainly the comparison of TVNZ's news and current affairs  to such programmes or the BBC and PBS generally is a source of hideous shame for New Zealand.

But over the years I've realised that the slant of those shows only trends in one direction - to the Left - and I have even less confidence that a New Zealand "public media entity" could achieve even those standards of quality or ideological balance: that it would not be captured by the Left as represented by the Lovies shown here. Chris Trotter pretty much lets the cat out of the bag on that:
The truly radical insight of the Kirk Government was that a genuinely independent public broadcasting system, driven by a desire to serve the public good, and insulated from the tutelage of the advertisers’ almighty dollar, would always end up serving the interests of the citizens it empowered – and hence the interests of the political party most dedicated to their welfare
Perhaps we can call the new entity Radio With Pictures - although it won't be anywhere near as much fun as 1980's Karyn Hay.

20 comments:

George said...

Drop them all.
Theres so much fake news and political posturing by socalled announcers its time to try something else.
Like the Net where if you dont like it and dont watch it it wont survive

Judge Holden said...

“...and hence the interests of the political party most dedicated to their welfare”. Well quelle horreur! ROFL, Tommy sees political parties dedicated to the welfare of citizens an insidious evil to be resisted at all costs in order for his political ideology, which is dedicated to the opposite, to thrive. Thanks for the admission, idiot.

Tom Hunter said...

Trotter clearly means just one party - the Labour Party, or of that won't do, then any Left Party. Trotter, like you can't imagine the possibility that any other party than a Left-Wing party could be "...most dedicated to their welfare.

And the reason both he and you think that goes back to a basic difference between Left and Right ideology: Leftists think that people's welfare can be best provided by government, and the bigger the government the better it is. And welfare usually doesn't mean jobs it means actual welfare: free money from the government (meaning taxpayers) and the more free money is handed over the more the goverment can be said to "care"

And with that thought locked in place it's just quite natural for Trotter and you to desire a wonderful state-owned and controlled media entity that constantly pushes all such left Wing dreams and schemes.

How could any alternative Right-wIng idea be even allowed up for debate given that, by definition - the Left's definition of course - they're not ideas dedicated to people's welfare. For you and Trotter that's a basic assumption: no need to re-visit or re-think it even when your idea of the people's welfare is sent down poverty-filled ghettos of misery.

Roj Blake said...

I am sure Tom had a point in mind when he commenced his blackening of the metaphorical page, but by the end of it, I don't have a clue what it is. I doubt Tom does either.

What a waste of 430 seconds of my life.

Tom Hunter said...

It was written for people who can think and who like debate.

Not for the "Roj Blake's" of the world.

Judge Holden said...

Trotter old-right these days, Tommy. Keep up. And you can debate how your “alt-right” (again you’re explicit about this) ideology is good for the general population all you like on any forum and you do. You just get constantly owned because your ideas are poor and you’re bad at constructing an argument, so you resort to hysterics and conjure up a world where quality public services lead to “poverty-filled ghettos”. That’s not Radio New Zealand’s fault, it’s your laziness and the way you were raised.

Tom Hunter said...

Judge Holden is so bereft of education and intellect that he unleashes these free-range rants to a world that he thinks has forgotten the collapse of countless Far Left governments, societies and systems that he brainlessly promoted. He fully supported the idiotic policies of his thuggish heroes Castro, Chavez, and Morales, and will fully support such idiocies in the future somewhere else, including New Zealand. Confronted with the evidence that such ideas made things worse for the poor and the oppressed he'll simply retreat to classic Far Left norms of trembling denial and hysteric, screaming attacks on everybody else for having failed him and his ideology.

Naturally Sludgy wants a state-owned and state-controlled "public" media where he and like-minded creatures will be the only ones allowed a voice and whch will be broadcast 24/7 across the entire nation. As is always the case in Sludgy's violent, sociopathic world, everybody else will be told to sit down and STFU.

Tom Hunter said...

quality public services

One more Judge Holden entry for Wikipedia's section on begging the question.

To any other readers, my apologies - but these are the Judge Holden/Roj Blake levels of "debate" that they've used here at NoMinister and elsewhere for years. Showing no inclination and no ability to actually have a debate, they simply point and hurl assertions endlessly, so I figure one might as well just throw the same level back at them.

Judge Holden said...

A prize for the person who can spot all the lies Tummy has casually thrown out in his past two comments. There are 15, believe it or not. He’s obviously been taking lessons from the Second Coming of God, and his hero, who is currently in the process of being impeached for blackmailing a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents on baseless corruption allegations concocted by his batty lawyer. That has Tommy a little on edge.

Tom Hunter said...

I've very glad that Sludgy, as usual, skates away from his previous assertions when they fail to get defensive response and moves on to...

.... hurling new assertions.

And I'm especially glad that he brought up the subject of Trump's Impeachment, which shambles I had fun with some days ago and which is even more relevant now in the wake of the shambles that Schiff-head made of his first two "star" witnesses, as you can read here with:

"If we don't impeach this President, he wins relection".

Oh yes! I'm so "on edge" about that.

As "iPrent" of The Standard said of your vitriolic contributions there:

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were a troll. So you have nothing to say? Nothing to contribute? No intelligence..

Oh well you will probably get swept away in a moderation sweep.


Fortunately I'm not Big Brother and I love having a Far Lefter on record here who is a troll with nothing to say or contribute.

And no brains either. 🤣

As John Campbell would say: Marvellous

Judge Holden said...

You’re weird, Tommy; truely obsessive. I’ve become this sort of boogeyman for you onto which you project all your odd phobias and fears, a bit like Emmanuel Goldstein. I suspect that’s therapeutic so keep doing it, please.

Tom Hunter said...

You're projecting again Sludgy - as you almost always do - with the Emmanuel Goldstein crack.

Of all the commentators at NoMinister it's you and Roj Blake that most use this place for your mindless, repetitive and dull Two Minute Hate outbursts.

Oh - and perhaps you should consider dropping the High School attack line of "You're weird, Tommy...". Quite overused sweetie, though I can see the challenges you'd have in coming up with something better and original.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for Tom Cunter to respond to Roj's condemnation of death threats made to an 87 year old shoa survivor.Seems anyone is fair game for the Reichsmeisters he so adores.

Judge Holden said...

Well they are anonymous. This is a take no-prisoners culture war Tommy is fighting.

Accusing me of a sophomoric lack of originality whilst playing the “I know you are but what am I?” projection card is pure projection, Tom-Tom, my far-right freak. You’re losing your temper, and resorting to wild hysterics, like a bitchy Milo Yiannopoulos. Not pretty.

Tom Hunter said...

Alrighty then....

"Tom Cunter". Ah. Such sophisticated wit! At least it's a new hurty word.

Anyway, as much as I appreciate the extra pageviews this has provided my article and the comment count, it must be quite obvious to casual readers that - as usual - Sludgy Holden has absolutely nothing to contribute to any discussion or debate about the subject of a post - in this case a combined RNZ-TVNZ media entity.

Instead it's just another forum for him to indulge in what he does here every single time: witless abuse and hysterically over-the-top accusations and finger-pointing, moving the goalposts along to issue after issue unrelated to the post, before finally collapsing exhausted with the usual claims of Secret King winning where he claims he has manipulated his opponents into mindless rage.

It's possible that this behaviour is trained, arising from years of pulling this stunt with other bloggers, both here and on other blogsites such as our opposite numbers The Standard - where people also obviously tired of it and where Sludgy thrills at being deleted and banned.

However, more likely it's simply his natural state of existence behind the bars of his cage.

Sludgy really is a tiresome, grey dull little Lefty and not even the incandescent core of his hatreds and his sometimes colourful language can change that fact.

So while it's been fun I've now finished reading and it's time to go do some real-world work, so I'll give him the final word and I can add to my collection of NPC comments for How To Write Like A Snowflake.

Judge Holden said...

Christ. I know you are, but what am I?

As I say, you’ve imbued in me everything you’re afraid of and you find infuriating. My point, which any simpleton could understand, is that Trotter’s prosaic quote about the value of public broadcasting was, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreted by you in an attempt to indicate it’s the first step to the Gulag. That you’re too fuckwitted to get that makes me think your confusion on this point is genuine. In which case at least you’re not being dishonest for once. Oh and, to quote you; cunt.

Anonymous said...

AHH, the good old days with 'Radio with Pictures', and other notable imports like 'The young ones'.

We rarely watch TV these days for the same reason we don't read newspapers anymore.
Objective news it ain't.

Oddball

Tom Hunter said...

Excellent comment, Oddball, that's the spirit.

I was hoping someone might reference Ms. Hay's great show, her accent ( :) ), and so forth or comment on other aspects of why they thought Public TV was so great (as Trotter did) - but from an 80's perspective perhaps. Or why it was crap.

And so on - and why it would work now. Or why it wouldn't and why even Labour probably know that and will (hopefully) refuse to create and fund such a dinosaur. Or whatever.

Some argument and playful debate actually connected to the post in other words.

Thanks

Judge Holden said...

Oh, well if that’s what you wanted you shouldn’t have tried to argue that public broadcasting is Stalinism. Pretty simple really; don’t say obviously stupid shit.

Anonymous said...

Alas, the younger generation don't know what they missed and have miserable lives as a result.
Phillip Sherry -actual news reported very objectively
The Young ones -guidelines on how to behave?
The Goodies -comedy that we used to watch religiously
Radio with Pictures -cool
RTR -main stream music for main stream people
Gliding on -a guide on how it is in the public service.

Perhaps we should bring back the 80's, and all will be good with the Universe again?

Oddball