My understanding is that French film is strong because it's well funded by the state.
Is that not the roll of New Zealand on Air? I think it's safe to say New Zealand on air has had some definite wins.....it's biggest problem is it seems to follow the current left leaning trends of the rest of the mainstream. Not sure how you get around that but is there not some room for public finded content creation?
I agree that there have been some good programs funded in the past but I don’t see the State as a solution. Because it has been the first port of call (rather than the last) it seems that has become part of NZ’s DNA when it comes to problem solving.
My comment is offered purely as a consumer of media. I (and arguably most others in a similar position) only want two things from a news medium:
1. To be told what's happening, in NZ and the rest of the world, without any political bias -- and certainly without the unmonitored promotion of what are later revealed to be outright lies. Even a few actual lies leads to widespread, long-term use of the off switch.
2. Not to be bombarded by incessant bloody ads!
The first of these desiderata is more important than the second, but the second IS important.
Excuses notwithstanding, the current death-by-off-switch of the legacy media in NZ is caused entirely by the fact that neither of these desiderata -- and particularly the first -- has been fulfilled for some years. In fact, the last time I remember their being fulfilled, at least wrt radio and TV, was back when the government of the day ran the show, but with (a) hard blocks in place that prevented their influencing what was broadcast -- and (b) at least partial funding of the system from a broadcasting fee, payable by individual citizens and enforced by little vans that roamed the streets with aerials searching for active TV sets ! I'm sure the little vans wouldn't work these days, given the increasing blanketing of said streets with radiofrequency emissions aka electrosmog (more on that later, perhaps) and the widespread use of mobile watching on smart phones. But surely some sort of Public Broadcasting Service could be funded from tax revenues. Perhaps the money that currently pays for committees aimed at preventing "disinformation" could be diverted to fund media that ignored the neologisms mis-, dis- and malinformation and broadcast verifiable truth, not propaganda.
Anyway, the most important thing is that whatever entities FUND this new public broadcasting service should be prevented, in a legally enforcable fashion, from controlling the products of that service. Ownership of the media by private enterprise is clearly not the way to achieve this. But neither is unchecked government ownership and hence control. Either of those models would completely prevent the re-establishment of a genuine The Fourth Estate in NZ. (And by the way, can we please skip the "Aotearoa New Zealand" thing now -- it's NOT ON to change the name of a supposedly democratic country without asking the permission of its citizens by way of a binding referendum).
Anyway, I sincerely hope the whole situation will be sorted out soon, with these desiderata in mind. Simply not having a news media that's trusted by the public is a HUGE step backwards.
And the irony is that if Melissa Lee had spoken or offered opinions she'd likely have been lambasted for political interference by at least some members of the media.
You propose a radical solution indeed.
My understanding is that French film is strong because it's well funded by the state.
Is that not the roll of New Zealand on Air? I think it's safe to say New Zealand on air has had some definite wins.....it's biggest problem is it seems to follow the current left leaning trends of the rest of the mainstream. Not sure how you get around that but is there not some room for public finded content creation?
Country Calendar probably being a good exemplar.
I agree that there have been some good programs funded in the past but I don’t see the State as a solution. Because it has been the first port of call (rather than the last) it seems that has become part of NZ’s DNA when it comes to problem solving.
My view is let the market decide.
My comment is offered purely as a consumer of media. I (and arguably most others in a similar position) only want two things from a news medium:
1. To be told what's happening, in NZ and the rest of the world, without any political bias -- and certainly without the unmonitored promotion of what are later revealed to be outright lies. Even a few actual lies leads to widespread, long-term use of the off switch.
2. Not to be bombarded by incessant bloody ads!
The first of these desiderata is more important than the second, but the second IS important.
Excuses notwithstanding, the current death-by-off-switch of the legacy media in NZ is caused entirely by the fact that neither of these desiderata -- and particularly the first -- has been fulfilled for some years. In fact, the last time I remember their being fulfilled, at least wrt radio and TV, was back when the government of the day ran the show, but with (a) hard blocks in place that prevented their influencing what was broadcast -- and (b) at least partial funding of the system from a broadcasting fee, payable by individual citizens and enforced by little vans that roamed the streets with aerials searching for active TV sets ! I'm sure the little vans wouldn't work these days, given the increasing blanketing of said streets with radiofrequency emissions aka electrosmog (more on that later, perhaps) and the widespread use of mobile watching on smart phones. But surely some sort of Public Broadcasting Service could be funded from tax revenues. Perhaps the money that currently pays for committees aimed at preventing "disinformation" could be diverted to fund media that ignored the neologisms mis-, dis- and malinformation and broadcast verifiable truth, not propaganda.
Anyway, the most important thing is that whatever entities FUND this new public broadcasting service should be prevented, in a legally enforcable fashion, from controlling the products of that service. Ownership of the media by private enterprise is clearly not the way to achieve this. But neither is unchecked government ownership and hence control. Either of those models would completely prevent the re-establishment of a genuine The Fourth Estate in NZ. (And by the way, can we please skip the "Aotearoa New Zealand" thing now -- it's NOT ON to change the name of a supposedly democratic country without asking the permission of its citizens by way of a binding referendum).
Anyway, I sincerely hope the whole situation will be sorted out soon, with these desiderata in mind. Simply not having a news media that's trusted by the public is a HUGE step backwards.
Yes. Particularly the bit about the dosh going to the snoops.
And the irony is that if Melissa Lee had spoken or offered opinions she'd likely have been lambasted for political interference by at least some members of the media.