More on public broadcasting

I've often wondered why we don't bother with a proper TV public broadcaster. We do pretty well with Radio New Zealand (which now has, at last, a decent website).

There's no particular reason why we shouldn't. There are two major things which one would change, in my view, about TVNZ to make it a "proper" public broadcaster:

• Remove all advertising from One, and limit the way advertising is treated on Two. Don't let it drive the ratings race. Yes, the stuff needs to be popular and quality TV on both channels, but there'd be no need to bid to the lowest common denominator by chasing ratings endlessly.
• Fund TVNZ through taxes. You do not spread money around if you want a decent public broadcasting service; you keep it in the public broadcaster. So NZ on Air would not hand out TV funds any more - TVNZ would get that money. NZ on Air would do radio etc. There'd need to be more tax payer funds as advertising revenue would decline - it would not vanish but it would decline.

More money worth spending. Telling our news and stories and life in our own way, in our own voices, unmediated by commercial values, is an integral part of every sustainable national culture in the world. Some countries have this with commercial systems: US stories and values dominate their media thoroughly. That isn't the case in a small country on the edge of the world. It's not even true of a big country like the UK which spends billions on the BBC.

I'm not proposing a new BBC. Any public service network would still play overseas TV; still use other networks for news etc. The difference would be in what was driving it: values, not dollars, to pervert an ACT slogan from 1996. We are not going to create a worldwide broadcasting and publishing empire like the BBC, we don't need it and we cannot afford it.

We can afford to invest in our national future. A public service TV broadcaster is a key part of that. If New Zealand wants to accelerate the amazing cultural progress of the past thirty years, then we need to build on those foundations and expand the space where our stories, in our voices, are heard.

 

Comments

[Ross Browne]

Turning TV1 in to a true public broadcaster isn't a bad idea. I could even live with reduced advertising. TV2 is essentially a pure commercial station now. Sell it off and let TV1 do the public broadcast role.

[Jordan]

That'd be another option, I suppose, but it could also just be "rented" to a private operator, or split into a separate company. (Or given how TVNZ is now, a separate company could be started for the public broadcast channel..)

[Ross Browne]

Nope, sell it. Make a clean break and let the existing organisation refocus on its now clearly defined core business. Put the profit back in to the public coffers for public broadcasting. Retaining ownership and renting the network out would create a distraction.

[Mr K]

It would also be quite a good idea to have something along the BBC's 'producer choice' guidelines, so that independent production companies get the chance to bid to make programmes for the network.

Much higher quality news and current affairs programmes would be my top priority from a revamped TVNZ.

[Geoff Hayward]

I concur . I think that the formatting of the two existing channels makes it difficult to change eithe, although if one had to change it would be TV One. I have been a long time supporter of having a completely commercial free station, that fufilled the charter requirements and provided more services such as parliament debates, a combination of pbs and c-span in the US. The key problem is that there will always be a political bias in any government involved station, irrepsective of the degree.

[tim barclay]

An impossible thing really. You have something with public good objectives but the Government wants it to make money commercially. You have a Board that is not supposed to meddle but then the Government appoints political stooges who are there to meddle. The public have got wind of all this and have migrated to TV3. So they push the panic button. because if the news product loses its integrity then the public will say forget it. But the Board wants to meddle in salaries because the Labour Government is sensitive about big salaries. But then when you meddle with salaries you meddle in the integrity of the news product. Oh what a tangled web.

[Ross Browne]

One solution would be a bi-partisan commission on public broadcasting. Like the Electoral Boundaries Commission, make sure that both the government and the opposition have representitives.

[David Farrar]

I also could be persuaded to support TV One as a public service TV station. But you would need to remove TV2 from them alltogether. The current mess comes from trying to be both.

And with TV One public service, no need to own a commercial TV2 which competes with TV3, Prime and Sky.

I think Labour would be surprised by how much support they could get if they followed that path.

[M'lud]

Do you REALLY want taxpayer dollars spent on winning bidding wars for the quality overseas programs, when that money could actually be spent on something important, like health?

TV really isn't that vital.

And what would "Telling our news and stories and life in our own way, in our own voices, unmediated by commercial values" mean in reality? It sounds like fluff to me.

[sagenz]

is there any particular ideological reason why people who are watching/listening to public service programming should be spared ads? I doubt you would get much argument on revising the charter to raise the quality of programming. Centralising production means only those meeting the PC agenda would get made. check with your mates in media and ask how many would prefer a one production company model. great security if you are in. no chance if you are out or on the fringe.

[Paul]

Tim,

not everyone lives and breathhes political conspiracy like you do.

Viewers wswitchhed to TV3 because the quality of the news is far suuperior, simply the prodct is good.

Labour set up SOE's with a commerical imperative, Naitonal continued them and now we are quuite righhtly starting to debate the merits of suuch institutions.

TV one could be a very very good public broadcaster, TV2 bye bye who gives a toss.

No or far less commericals, sorry if the produuct is any good, with guality local and ov erseas material, it's a no brainer, I'd watch it.

Does anyone watch telly for the ads, despite what the broadcasters say?

[tim barclay]

Paul the Labour Party lives in a little world of political conspiracies - witness anything said by Mike Williams or Helen Clark and all the rest. But when you analyse TVNZ and the fact the Labour Party simply cannot leave it alone, it is no wonder the public are losing confidence in its news and now they are in full panic.

[Aj]

Tim from an earlier thread:
"Of course there will be nothing about TVNZ on this site"

[SPC]

I prefer ads to British style fees. Sky taking our sport off free to air, is bad enough.

I like the fact that TV 3 also shows our society from On Air sources.

It's good that there is a Charter and that we have good profits from this asset.

It ain't broken.

TVNZ tried to compete with celebrity "mainstream" network television as TV3 and Prime inevitably grew into market presence.

Ratings will get worse - fragmentation of the medium and society itself.

All that can be done is to maintain standards in news reporting - from the regions and Auckland (more than chasing crime stories - why did was one in TVNZ or the Herald aware of the street scene in south Auckland until now?).

Too much on the "stars" - not enough on the ground.

[Paul]

Tim

the general public doesn't even know that TVNZ has a board let alone if the people on it are "political hacks".

Having said that, to the masses $800.000 a year for a news readers salary is more than enough to turn them off.

Quality TV will always solicit an audience, as would formats and "talking heads".

Take the news. Judy and Richard with Jim Hickey was a quality package.

Judy + her salary & an assortment of guy smilies to front the weather is not a winner.

TV3 private broadcaster is not above criticism (what shock horror a private company not holier than thou). Local content? Augie Auer, the first true weather front man and the dear ole sod is put out to pasture, and Carol - I can prounounce a sentence without screwing it up and squinting at the teleprompter.

Panic, is this the same public outrage & panic that you predicted around the labour party before the election?

what did happen to that ACT hack at Otago Uni who was going to bring down the govt with her allergations of GBH against a Labour minister?

[SPC]

All that can be done is to "improve" standards in news reporting - from the regions and Auckland (more than chasing crime stories - why as no one in TVNZ, or the Herald, aware of the street scene in south Auckland until now?).

Too much on being no one through the "stars" - not enough solid performance on the ground.

[Clint]

Paul,

You mean Madeline Flanagan? She isn't in ACT mate. But as far as I have heard nothing has come from her little incident with Hodgson in Dunedin.

Cheers

[tim barclay]

The Government's fingerprints are all over TVNZ. There is a Minister and he is getting a report and they just cannot stop going on about salaries being paid to key staff. Now the Board is directly involved. But if you have the Board getting involved in salaries. How does that stop editorial content being compromised?? Of course it does. That is why the Government is kept out of salaries of Judges who have their salaries protected by law so we can have judicial independance. It is not about overt interference, it is all the subtle stuff that goes on beind the scenes.

[Tom S]

Here is a plan: Sell TV One, keep TV2 as a specialist semi-commerical state broadcaster. Semi-commercial means 3-4 advertising free nights, sponsorships allowed and government funding. Take the money from the TV One sale and use it to establish a cash base for the new state broadcaster.

Because TV2 isn't worth as much as TV1 you remove the contradiction of the charter vs. maximising profit by letting the big two (TV1 and TV3) go head to head.

[Sam]

Jordan,

I have no real problem with your model (although I think a commercial free TV1 is unnecessary - businesses should be encouraged to support these initiatives, much like the Festival of the Arts).

I think of the revitalised kiwi music scene, which has taken place largely through commercial b-net stations that fill a market niche - because the demand is there. Sure, govenrment funding has been involved, but assistance from the National Radio has done little to drive the change (despite the very good 'Homegrown' slot).

What I am interested is in your justifications, especially the term "sustainable national culture". I can't for the life of me see how a national culture is sustainable if it has to be propped up by government funding - and if it is done this way, then isn't it simply an ideological expression of the governing party? And just what is unsustainable about popular culture (which even though it might be sourced elswhere, is still our own). The public broadcasting debate can so easily be dragged into an elitist cultural snobbery through the dismissal of pop. culture.

I probably have got this wrong - are you able to provide a clear definition for this justification?

[Matt]

I think making TVNZ purely a public service broadcaster would be good. The ABC in Australia doesn't cost a fee and produces some really good telly, but it doesn't stop the commercial channels also investing in good local content too. I think at the moment the chief problem for TVNZ in terms of its commerial side is the effect that it has on news and current affairs - the fight for ratings has led to really crap news and current affairs on TVNZ (sensationalisism and self promotion over good reporting and analysis). The ABC and the BBC both show how good news and current affairs can be when it is released from the constraint of making advertising money (and the interesting thing is they both rate very well).

[James]

Sell the bastard! The State has no business in broadcasting except monkey business....using it to decive the people..(see last election)

[rightkiwi]

Jordan : I am surprised to see a lefty talking about cultural "progress" over the last 30 years. Surely you are cultural relativist who believes one cannot judge one culture superior to another? And therefore can't judge a latter culture superior to a former one.

[Russell Brown]

Just a word about viewers departing to TV3. It needs to be put in context: TVNZ (One News included) still has the lion's share of viewership. But TV3 is picking up more viewers in advertisers' target groups, which has a bearing on revenue.

But Tim, you've got a nerve complaing about interference in salaries. It was Georgina Te Heuheu who demanded that Labour call for "heads to roll" on the board after Judy Bailet got her pay rise, and Katherine Rich demanded that Helen Clark publicly condemn it.

It's Opposition - where one of the few consolations is that you can always have it both ways - but it's not very consistent.

I maintain that the worst decision by a TVNZ board was the strange firesale of the holding in Sky in 1999. Things might have been looking a little different now (ie: charter programming would be on a third, less commercial digital channel) if the Roseanne Meo board hadn't done that.

Cheers,
RB

[Brian Boyko]

If I were to do the thing up from scratch, I'd have publically funded news hours twice a day and lease out the rest of the time to private broadcasters who are permitted to resell up to 10% of that time as commercials. Each lease would last 13 weeks and would stagger. The government breaks even from the lease, private business makes a profit from the sale of commercial time, and a wide variety of views and entertainment can be seen.

[Brian Boyko]

If I were to do the thing up from scratch, I'd have publically funded news hours twice a day and lease out the rest of the time to private broadcasters who are permitted to resell up to 10% of that time as commercials. Each lease would last 13 weeks and would stagger. The government breaks even from the lease, private business makes a profit from the sale of commercial time, and a wide variety of views and entertainment can be seen.

[Brian Boyko]

If I were to do the thing up from scratch, I'd have publically funded news hours twice a day and lease out the rest of the time to private broadcasters who are permitted to resell up to 10% of that time as commercials. Each lease would last 13 weeks and would stagger. The government breaks even from the lease, private business makes a profit from the sale of commercial time, and a wide variety of views and entertainment can be seen.

[Brian Boyko]

If I were to do the thing up from scratch, I'd have publically funded news hours twice a day and lease out the rest of the time to private broadcasters who are permitted to resell up to 10% of that time as commercials. Each lease would last 13 weeks and would stagger. The government breaks even from the lease, private business makes a profit from the sale of commercial time, and a wide variety of views and entertainment can be seen.

[tim barclay]

Russell how did Judy Bailey's salary get out in the first place???

[Matt]

TVNZ's annual report has slaries over 100K in bands of 10,000. It isn't hard to work out who the top earners are.

[SPC]

If they want my advice

Offer Bailey and Dallow and Wood $400,000 a year each.

Make these the salaries of the "positions" for the next 5 years with no further review. This reduces them to $300,000 each, over that period.

Offer Bailey a "6 month" job as presenter each year and "3" months in other one off roles - presenter of a documentary/one off current events show
or two - some special news reporting assignments and maybe a few ("if" she wants it) times fronting Agenda). This in the other 6 months.

They need to connect Bailey to people reporting contact and current events/documentary. Many have no knowledge of her time in Auckland regional news.

Have Dallow with 6 months on the news and 4 of 6 months on Agenda.

Wood has 4/5 days on Close Up.

If Bailey and Wood are gone on such terms and salaries, so be it.

Then offer Dallow $400,000 to read the news.

Offer 2 people $200,000 to have turns fronting Close Up across the 12 months.

They also co-host Agenda - also for $200,000.

[SPC]

In the two "new"
cases - $200,000 for each for their two jobs (total of $800,000pa for the 3 positions), there could be upward annual review (or release from contract) aeasduring the 5 years depending on performance /ratings.

[SPC]

We the taxpayers, should choose directors on the board of TVNZ - via elections. This deals with the politics and accountabilty side. The public delivering a politically balanced board "impresssed by those with real management and media background.

The thing with Woods, is that while the board has to approve an annual salary over $300,000 - they did this when the $450,000 was determined last year.

If that was for a permanent employee - the issue may not be of an "annual" contract up for renewal and pay review.

Most people get the same pay, or an increase in pay, for doing the same job from year to year.

It is thus, a mistake to give a pay increase because of immediate and temporary commercial factors (Holmes going to Prime) without moving the person (or the extra pay component) onto contract or annual bonus.

One wonders what was going on here, whether the whole "system of pay" is such, anything that happens will inevitably seem this poorly handled.

If this is because of the party in government being attacked because of high pay and now because of cutting abck on high pay (GT of National attacking Labour for both these things), then changing the way the board is appointed is important.

The board could do worse, than asking the government to ask the public service to give them pay management advice. Treasury would volunteer. Others would need to be invited.

[Rich]

We *do* choose the directors of TVNZ (and all other SOEs) via elections - just indirectly - we elect a government and they appoint the directors. If they had elections for the TVNZ board it's likely that very few people would vote (just like DHB elections).

[tim barclay]

Wodds is a pretty dumb frankly. She was offered a 1 year contract and because it was short term it carried a higher fee. She is now being offered a permanent position. However there is one comment that may assist her in that fraser offered her $350,00 because he believed that is the max he believed the board would wear. Not whether he thought that figure was right. Fraser then resigns. Still Wood now looks to be greedy. I think she is dumb and piss useless and arrogant to boot. Hope they dump her. No one would care. Brand Susan is worth $0 and she has now made it negative.

[Paul]

Wood?

does anyone really give a flying fuck about that cow.

My folks would have to work for 13 years to earn 1 year of her income, and she gets that for being a smaray cow who gets all smitten with any male guest.

Any and all talk about stress and taking it out on her kids.

Take it out on her ass I say and fire the cow. Fuck her! yeah - really stressfull loosing 100K. My folks wonder how they are going to pay the next power bill, now thats REAL stress.

[SPC]

tim

If she was on a one year contract - she should be laughed out of court.

TVNZ should then re-offer the $350,000pa for a 5 year term - with no further pay review.

Offer Bailey $350,000 (over 5 years no pay review) for 6 months work + some other part-time duties over 3 months. And Dallow the same for 6 months and being on Agenda etc.

If Bailey goes, they have the option of Dallow or Waka and a female (possibly one from the TV3 stable). If Wood goes too, Dallow could share Close Up and Agenda while remaining news back up.

Within 5 years one has the 3 leading "positions" values at $350,000 (given 5% pa, a fall to say $275,000 in todays terms).

It still seems high - but these are the peak earning ones in our public media (public relations and political press officers also earn well) - and there is the issue of being public property celebrity and privacy factors.

rich

Yes but given the "media" and politicians factor I(and the playing of political perceptions), it would be better if the party in government held less sway.

[Roman Eos]

from afar..

I watch only Election Night coverage.
my spot pricing say presenters overpaid and valued.. except maybe the consultant man, James

talkfests, me-toos need tougher controls.. but also I disagree with some commenters.. a world status is possible from enzed.. and so much money..

arrivederchi.. RE.

[Roman Eos]

afar.. oops!

last words my post to read:

and not so much money

RE

[Rich]

I just wrote an analysis of what it might cost to have an ad-free TVNZ - if anyone's interested.