Phew! Lucky our own media are always impartial, eh.

"The sudden resignations this week of BBC director-general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness has focussed minds on the role of the media. It has been startling – and grimly predictable – to watch senior figures at the BBC scrambling to defend their failures by muttering darkly about ‘right-wing conspiracies’ and ‘inside jobs’. Few, if any, have paused to consider whether the real problem might be their own cowardice.

"The same rot runs through mainstream media across the world. In Ireland, I’ve met too many well-paid figures at RTÉ, the 'Irish Times' and the 'Irish Independent' who seem serenely proud of their refusal to touch anything remotely controversial. ... [appearing] particularly self-satisfied, even self-righteous, about [their] ability to avoid difficult issues. ...

    

"I’ve thought a lot about how these individuals can so confidently defend their inaction. Most, when pressed, admit they knew everything all along and that, when it mattered most, their courage failed them. It raises the question of how long high-status professionals should serve a system they know is doing harm. How long before they find the courage to break ranks and refuse to comply?"

~ Stella O'Malley from her post 'The trans reckoning has arrived'

"Readers will be aware that the BBC’s current travails over impartiality stem from the leak of a 19-page memorandum by the journalist Michael Prescott who was for three years an advisor on editorial standards to the Corporation. Prescott’s dossier includes the revelation that President Trump’s remarks were falsified in a BBC documentary before the 2024 presidential election ... The memorandum, brought to light and published by the 'Daily Telegraph,' can be read here:

"In a full discussion of many of the BBC’s distortions, one page of the nineteen is devoted to [our] History Reclaimed [website]. In 2022 Alex Gray compiled our own dossier of the Corporation’s historical mistakes and prejudices, based on four programmes and two news bulletins over the preceding two years which covered subjects including slavery and the slave trade, the restitution of the Benin Bronzes, the Irish Famine of the late 1840s, the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 and the imputed racism of Winston Churchill. History Reclaimed called for accuracy and impartiality, the presentation of the full range of historical interpretations, the use of experts rather than ‘presenters,’ and the establishment of a panel of qualified historians to advise and assist the BBC. You can find our report here:

"We did not receive a direct reply, but the BBC put out a dismissive response accusing us of ‘cherry-picking a handful of examples.’ We now discover that Mr Prescott thought our points ‘fascinating and compelling’ and also ‘reasonable,’ and that he encouraged a meeting with us, but this was ‘judged inappropriate’ by the BBC.

"History Reclaimed notes that like so many other organisations and people in British life, we too have been ignored by the BBC when making accurate criticisms of their content and modest proposals for its improvement. We take heart from Mr Prescott’s endorsement of our points. We will watch with interest to see if the presentation of history on BBC radio and television improves. Given that we were brushed aside then and that the BBC is trying to deny its systemic failings now, we are not optimistic. Perhaps President Trump will have better luck."

~ from the History Reclaimed blog post 'BBC Scandal Confirms History Reclaimed’s Warnings'

"My strong preference is to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority..."

"Early this year the Ministry of Culture and Heritage issued a discussion paper on media which included a statement to the effect that as the Broadcasting Act 1989 did not cover internet radio like entities such as The Platform, the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s scope should be extended to them. ...

"Instead of waiting for the government to decide on whether to proceed down this route the Broadcasting Standards Authority decided existing law did give them jurisdiction over The Platform and presumably Reality Check Radio. This is extraordinary.

"One might have thought [Media + Communications] Minister Goldsmith would have said that, as we do not believe it has that authority, it should await a government decision. But no ... he told RNZ’s Media Watch programme: ... 'I’m happy to let that flow through the system and see how it goes.'

"I hope the Minister will regret these words because they won’t be career enhancing. ...

"My strong preference is to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority and allow all media entities to decide whether or not to come under a voluntary entity such as the NZ Media Council ...

"ACT and NZ First have laid out their positions. Is it too much to hope the National Party will end its dismal 80 year record and do the right thing? Or will it be more muddle through?"

~ Barry Saunders from his post 'The BSA power grab: Post 2' [His 'Post 1' is here]

"The Broadcasting Standards Authority is a creature from the past which should not exist in a free and democratic society."

 

"In 1966 there was a watershed event. A National government, under Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, tried to stifle nascent private radio [by barring broadcasting by then pirate-radio Radio Hauraki]. It failed: the government monopoly was broken.

"The present National government can atone for its 1966 sin against freedom by joining its coalition partners to overcome the attempt by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to impose censorship on [Sean Plunket's] The Platform, an online media outlet. ...

"Today, a new type of freedom, the freedom to exchange information online without government censorship, is under challenge from a government agency. ... [T]his could be another watershed moment. National should join with ACT and New Zealand First, to abolish the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It is a creature from the past which should not exist in a free and democratic society.

"The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s actions have called public attention to the insidious role of the administrative state, the significant power of government agencies to write, interpret, and enforce their own regulations. Creative interpretation is little different to writing the regulations.

"Perhaps the Broadcasting Standards Authority has performed a service by demonstrating not only that it should be abolished, but also why other government agencies with similar powers should either be abolished or have their powers severely curtailed to restore democratic accountability."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'Are we experiencing another watershed event?'

"The suggestion is that the loss of Newshub and associated jobs is tantamount to the Last Trumpet. It is not."

"[Playwright] Eugene O’Neill said that by using the title 'Mourning Becomes Electra,' he sought to convey 'that mourning befits Electra; it becomes Electra to mourn; it is her fate; black is becoming to her and it is the colour that becomes her destiny.'
    "Newshub went off the air on Friday 5 July 2024. This was reckoned to be a sad day. Sad because a mainstream media platform was no longer being supported by its owners. Particularly sad for those who lost their jobs. In fact the outpouring of grief on that front has been repetitive to the point of banality. ...
    "I have always wondered at the media’s fascination with itself. It is, as [one commentator] suggests, 'an unedifying orgy of self-aggrandisement as Newshub journalists and broadcasters very publicly and ostentatiously mourn the imminent loss of their jobs…..
    "The suggestion is that the loss of Newshub and associated jobs is tantamount to the Last Trumpet. It is not. The Newshub closure represents a certain inevitability that those who worked for it have failed to recognise or understand. [Ironic for an organisation allegedly reporting the news.]
    "The communications landscape has changed utterly. ... Their self-absorbed narrative [has not.] ...[L]ike Elektra’s, [it remains] one of grief."

~ David Harvey from his post 'Mourning Becomes the Media'

" 'The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sector.' This is both an unprincipled and a stupid decision."

"'The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sectors, while it develops a long-term reform programme, Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith says.' ...
    "This is both an unprincipled and a stupid decision. I can handle principled stupid decisions and even unprincipled smart decisions but this is neither.
    "It is unprincipled because it is forcing successful companies in one industry (social networks and search engines) to fund failing companies in another industry (media). The only rationale for this is that Google and Meta have money and Stuff doesn’t. Will we see Netflix levied money to fund home video rental stores? Will we see Foodstuffs levied money to find Whitcoulls?
    "It is also a very stupid decision. ... The Government is going to pass a law to fund a media that will oppose almost everything that supporters of the Government believe in.
    "Even worse, it will set up a structural incentive for the media to become even more left leaning. ... [to] insist the levy be doubled ... [to] create an institutional bias in favour of the parties that will benefit media the most."

~ David Farrar from his post 'Stupid Government backing Willie’s bill'

"...the Minister for Broadcasting has been silent. She has been criticised for this approach. In my view she should be applauded."

"Throughout the recent turmoil surrounding news media difficulties the Minister for Broadcasting has been silent. She has been criticised for this approach. In my view she should be applauded. Without any State intervention a solution for the problems surrounding Newshub was found – by the industry and the market. That is as it should be. There has been far too much State interference with the media. The Public Interest Journalism fund ... provides an example."

~ A Halfling's View, from his post 'Dealing with State-Owned Media'

Compare and contrast

"When it comes to the TV business," says TV interviewer Jack Tame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"When it comes to the CD business," says CD maker Jack Vame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"When it comes to the typewriter business," says typewriter maker Jack Wame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"When it comes to the horse-drawn carriage business," says horse-drawn carriage manufacturer Jack Xame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"When it comes to the steam-engine business," says steam-engine manufacturer Jack Yame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"When it comes to the hand-loom business," says weaver and hand-loom manufacturer Jack Zame, "it’s clear the traditional economic models are no longer fit for purpose."

"It’s time to ask why New Zealand needs the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Just another Big Government censor to tell journalists what they can say."

    "Izzy Cook is the 16 year old version of Greta Thunberg in New Zealand. She unravelled spectacularly as a political leader and a climate star during a radio interview last September....
    "But now some government Watchdog in New Zealand has declared it was an unfair joke and the broadcaster was reprimanded and has apologised. Apparently the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) thinks radio interviewers must not deter 'passionate young people' from making fantasy declarations and issuing vaporous wish lists live to air...
    "It’s time to ask why New Zealand needs the BSA? Just another Big Government censor to tell journalists what they can say and interfere with what New Zealanders are allowed to hear ....
    "New Zealanders who see biased, offensive, unbalanced and inaccurate reporting can complain to the BSA. New Zealanders who think the BSA is a parasitic Orwellian threat to free speech and decent radio can complain to the Minister of Broadcasting and Media — Willie Jackson."

~ Jo Nova, from her post 'Hiding behind teenage girls again — so they can’t be ridiculed for saying silly things'

 

Your ‘right’ to free rugby [updated]

Okay, let's do a quick exercise.  Grab yourself a paper and pen, and write down all the useful things on which the Ministry of Maori Affairs, aka Te Puni Kokiri, spends around $200 million of your money.

Finished?  Now, let’s compare notes.  Does your list look anything like mine:

1. vaev
2. vesvb
3. bsreb
4. brb
5. br

So given what it does waste your money on, isn’t it better that it spends $3 million of your money on something you’d actually like to watch, like the Rugby World Cup on Maori TV, instead of what it might otherwise waste your money on?

Frankly, I’d be more interested in people whinging about that money being spent to show the World Cup if I heard them complaining about all such taxpayer-funded wastage. Like Te Puni Kokiri itself.  Or taxpayer-funded broadcasting.

And I’d be more interested in their complaining about their “right” to watch the World Cup on free-air TV if they were more interested in the actual right here: of taxpayers to keep their own money.  Which is the point my colleague Mr Watkins makes at his SunLive blog today:

    “John Key said that Te Puni Kokiri are allowed to spend my money on a broadcasting rights bid. According to this, whether you and I like rugby or not, I and you have to pay for it anyway.
    “Worse than that though is what Key thinks constitutes a ‘right.’ Says that nice Mr Key, ‘It is our view that every Kiwi has a right to watch the main games of the Rugby World Cup for free.’ WTF?!? A ‘right’ to free rugby on T.V.!  What Key forgot to mention is that in waving his ‘rights-wand’ and bestowing rights on people to watch rugby for free, he has to breach other people’s real right to keep their own hard-earned money; but hey what’s the right to property in comparison to a game of kick & clap eh...do we get free beer too?”

Taking your money to pay for something you wouldn’t pay for voluntarily is wrong. And it’s pretty damn clear you wouldn’t spend your money on this so-called “right,” since the government has to take your money by force to make you pony up for it.

But how does it make any difference down which particular state-funded black hole it’s poured?  TVNZ and TV3 show programmes funded by your taxes. Maori TV is funded by your taxes.  Why complain about one but not the other?

UPDATE: The Herald reports “The Government has scuppered Maori TV's bid for exclusive free-to-air rights to screen the Rugby World Cup.”  And how, pray tell, has your enlightened Government done that? Answer: “By putting up enough money for TVNZ to outbid it.” And these, dear readers, are the people who say they “run the country.”

 

Dear Galt.

 

If this looks like we (the taxpayers) are outbidding ourselves, then it’s because we are. 

 

And there are people who take these people seriously – who thing they know what they’re doing. They never did, and they never will. 

 

Frankly, if you want a long and involved mess, then you can always rely on a committee.  If you want want a performance of arse-covering and finger-pointing, it’s a bureaucracy you’ll be wanting. But when you’d like to ensure even the simplest thing is turned into a dumbarse tax-funded clusterfuck, then you really need a Government.

 

A Government with as little principle as this one.

Take the nutbars off the air

I've heard the much vaunted 'independence'of state-run radio pointed out many times.  The reality of course is very different -- most employees of State radio are of course big supporters of state radio.

Take state radio's political reporter Liz Banas for example, who Friday's release of Libertarianz' 'Take the State off the Air'  broadcasting policy went bananas and responded with the view that the Libertarianz are "nutbars."

Liz seems to have forgotten who pays her wages, and how those wages are collected.  In any case, this  shows the absolute fraud that is the 'independence and impartiality' of state radio, which is only interested in respecting the view that it continue to suck on the state tit, whether people listen to it or not.

"Banas is entitled to her personal opinion," said Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton in response, "but it is unacceptable for a broadcaster we are all forced to pay for to have a political editor who isn't willing to treat all political parties in an independent, impartial and balanced way."

"What other political parties does Liz Banas dismiss as nutbars? How does that influence her editorial decisions about who to interview, what policies to profile and the time given to different politicians?"

"All parties other than Labour ought to be concerned when a week away from the election, it is clear the RNZ political editor isn't afraid to let her political views get in the way of her job."