Friday, December 31, 2004

News

Via email:
Why isn't it that at the time we look for news on our tv there is none? At the time we are all on holiday, we have no paper, we can listen to the radio or wait till the news at 6 as there are no news updates.

At our great tv station everyone is on holiday. We get all the repeats from the last ten years and any rubbish that can be found.

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Reinvention Starts at The Top

Why does TVNZ need to be reinvented? Because it has become everything it once held in disdain. Think back to the sixties, that time I'll call the halcyon days, and reflect on what was the key element that made TVNZ such a vibrant group. It challenged the establishment. In a good humoured and enthusiastic and naive way, it took on the conservative forces that represented in those days the social hierarchy. Through pop music shows and political commentary and comedy it confronted the social orthodoxy and through its freshness and its openness and its enthusiasm, it won the support of New Zealanders, who watched it because they new they were watching something different, that something was going down, that something was happening, and by watching it and laughing and applauding and singing along they were a part of that gentle and witty revolution.

Fast forward to the new century. 2004 and TVNZ is sludgy moribund mess, the antithesis of what it was in the sixties. There are two basic reasons for this changed condition. One is that TVNZ is now the establishment it once challenged, and two is that the people running TVNZ don't know or realise they're now the establishment.

Media has to challenge the status quo. The most basic element of journalism to my mind has always been the newspaper editor of the those old American movies wearing the green eyeshade and working at his presses deep into the night to take on city hall and tell the public what is really happening. Stripping away the self serving veneer of politician’s speeches and government press releases and showing people the truth.

TVNZ today has never been further from this scenario. Its paid money by the government to present this thing called the "Charter", a device to promote the government’s policies. The people running TVNZ are by and large people who think like the government, and if they don't support every little thing the government does, they basically agree on political philosophies. This political philosophy is shared by the establishment, the same nebulous body that TVNZ challenged so vigorously and so successfully in the sixties. Where is the challenge today? Where is the freshness, the vibrancy of the sixties?

It’s not with TVNZ, but it is with FOX News, in the US the fastest growing cable television service. Why is that? Politics aside, it’s because FOX is doing today what TVNZ did in the sixties. It’s challenging the establishment. The wheel has turned the full circle. TVNZ journalists who once challenged the politicians of the day, now runs the organisation and reports to parliament when ordered to. Helen Clark, who in her youth challenged the political orthodoxy of the day, is now the Prime Minister. Here's the question that TVNZ needs to answer. Where is the challenge to today's social and political hierarchy?

If reinvention is really the idea, then the first thing TVNZ has to do is reject the Charter. It must tell the government to drop dead with its $30 million. Second thing it has to do is rid itself of staff that are happy with the Miloslevecian status quo. Third thing it has to do is stop producing programs that echo and support the status quo, and START PRODUCING PROGRAMS THAT CHALLENGE IT.

For one thing, let’s get rid of the surfeit of political commentators soaked in the attitudes of the sixties and seventies. TVNZ’s leading political commentator for example doesn't challenge any political hierarchy. She's part of the political hierarchy. Like so many other TVNZ personnel, she thinks and speaks and holds the same political views as Helen Clark, the government and the social hierarchy. These people are not the green eye shade wearing challengers. They're the panderers and the promoters of the government’s charter. Where are the Sean Hannitys, the E.D. Hills, and the Bill O'Reilly's of TVNZ? They don’t exist.

Now the management at TVNZ may not like Bill or Sean or ED, but that of course just proves my point concerning their confusion over who the TVNZ management really is. They're the establishment, and they're running a TV network that supports the establishment. NZers don't want this kind of Miloslevecian broadcasting, this sickening obeisance to the status quo. They want the vibrancy of the sixties. They won't get it from the tired old lefties running TVNZ today, who have unwittingly become the very establishment they railed against in the sixties. Reinvention must start at the top.

Fortune Cookie

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Re Drug Testing

In response to this post came an email:

The Question: "Drug testing - apparently this was going to be on the cards. What's the truth on that?"

Ian Fraser's Answer: "Well, I saw that that was on the, ah, infamous blog site. All I can say is that TVNZ takes the view that the people who work here are grown-ups. And what that means is that what people do in their own time is their own affair. The only concern that we would have is behaviour that brings the company into disrepute, or behaviour that ends ups having an adverse effect on the performance, on the work of a particular member of the staff. And that's not a matter that will be solved by drug testing. That's a matter that we expect managers to manage. And I think every member of the staff here would expect the situation to be managed in that way."

Merry Christmas.

Friday, December 24, 2004

No Creative Talent in NZ? TVNZ Thinks So.

Via email:
My source inside TVNZ has heard mention of a research report commissioned by Tony Holden.

The report is apparently seeking to prove that New Zealand doesn't have enough creative talent to provide the quality product TVNZ needs to fulfil its Charter. In other words Ian Fraser is looking for some muscle to drop-kick TVNZ's Charter obligations and Mr Holden wants 'proof' to defend his preference for hiring Australians over New Zealanders wherever possible. If true, this report is the most scurrilous betrayal by TVNZ management towards the industry yet.

Anybody heard more talk about this report?

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Why do the Ads Sometimes Sound Louder Than the Programmes?

Via email:
Obviously enough people have asked TVNZ about this, as they've got an official reply to this query on their website.

So should there be tougher limits on advertisement audio compression? According to this article, the Australian Broadcasting Authority has been looking into the issue over there.

During prime-time (until 10.30pm every evening), programmes have 'break titles', which help a little - when a commercial break is coming up, there's roughly 5 seconds of theme music and the show's titles and imagery is shown. Helps both to 'warn' the viewer that the ads are coming up, and raises the sound in cases where the programme has softer audio levels.

But at other times the volume change is very noticeable. It's in everyone's best interests to maintain audio levels since viewers would be more likely to change channels if the ads are too loud, surely?

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

I'm not one to gossip but…

Via the comments:
A scurrilous little rumour fairly racing around the corridors of the starship Network Centre is that the divine Ms Judy is actually being paid a lot more than $800,000 a year.
Does a million a year seem credible?
Surely not.
I’d like to tell you more, but…
My lips are sealed!

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Phone Polls on 'Close up at 7'

GayNZ.com and GayWatch have made a formal complaint to TVNZ under the Broadcasting Code over phone polls on 'Close up at 7', specifically the question "should gay relationships be legally recognised?" on December 2nd. The results showed 76% of the 17,000 calls said "no".

"Viewers and the public were clearly misled into believing the poll was an accurate reflection of public feeling.

For TVNZ to get away with misleading viewers throughout the country on its flagship current affairs programme sets an unbelievable and disturbing precedent for other media."
The article quotes Leila Boyle from Auckland University who explains the biases with 0900 telephone polls:

  • The method is unscientific.

  • People are not selected randomly - they only canvass the relative minority of New Zealanders watching the programme at the time, and then only the number that feel strongly enough to vote and pay for the privilege of doing so. No allowance is made for repeat voting.

  • The questions may be worded unfairly.

  • The results are unlikely to be representative of opinions of New Zealanders in general, yet they are interpreted by the media as if they are.

“A lot of people have called in,” Wood reported, ignoring the probability of multiple calls. She described the number of people against gay relationships “overwhelming”, concluding the programme with the comment, that it “makes you wonder which polls the government is relying on to say that this Bill has support”.

On TV One’s “Tonight” news programme Lindsay Perigo was suggesting the Close Up At 7 poll may even affect the way politicians voted at the final reading of the Bill:

“I didn’t get that from the Close Up At 7 poll. Now you see that’s interesting because that margin was so decisive against the Bill...that that could actually spook another couple of politicians into the other camp, if I may use that expression, and so then we do have a really tight race. And the politicians are really really sensitive to public opinion on this matter, so that could be a last minute complicating factor.”

In at least two news items posted on TVNZ’s website, the poll was presented as an accurate representation of public feeling, referring to “people” rather than “calls”. One item included: “A recent Close Up at 7 poll found New Zealanders strongly opposed to legally recognising gay relationships.”
GayNZ.com goes on to talk about the ripple effect of this poll, and its incorrect interpretation, into other forms of media.

GayNZ.com and GayWatch have identified five codes which they believe TVNZ breached (see their article for full reasoning):

  • 4a: Programmes which deal with political matters, current affairs, and questions of a controversial nature, must show balance and impartiality.

  • 5a: Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

  • 5b: Broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting material which is misleading or unnecessarily alarms viewers.

  • 5d: Factual reports on the one hand, and opinion, analysis and comment on the other, should be clearly distinguishable.

  • 5e: Broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to ensure at all times that the information sources for news, current affairs and documentaries are reliable.



Source

Friday, December 17, 2004

Talking of silly money...

Via the comments:
A report by Parliament's finance and expenditure select committee – issued Thursday 16th Dec, revealed Ian Fraser and Bill Ralston's "Talk Television" tour to discuss broadcasting with members of the public in Napier, Dunedin and Hamilton (???) cost an estimated $173,342, including $28,166 in travel and accommodation.

I’m sure those gentlemen would like to provide the public with a more complete breakdown of actual costs. Considering both of them could have travelled around the globe a couple of times First Class for that outlay…

How long was the tour?
How much did they pay for the private jet which ferried them? (At those prices, it had to be private and luxurious.)
How many gold plated limousines did they hire?
How many hotel suites did each of them occupy?
(Do any of those towns even have decent hotels?)
How much did they actually spend on the meals?
How much on average did they pay for each bottle of wine consumed?
How many hookers/call girls/boys etc did they hire for themselves or clients on the trip?

(The last may be unkind, but I’m desperately trying to think of ways to pad out the cost of a three town trip by two people and it’s difficult without that sort of excess.)

Oh, and did they get reimbursed for actual and receipted expenses, or did they just get a very large dollop of cash in hand and told to go spend it?

Or did they just take a cash advance based on a first class trip, do it on the cheap, and then pocket the difference?

In this case, and doing the maths, what could be a considerable difference.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Blog feedback

Via email:
I'm all for people putting constructive ideas forward, but for those people who can only find things to complain about, pack up your bags and go to Canwest or somewhere else ... nobody is forcing you to work at TVNZ.
That's the point of this blog: reinvention - talking about issues in the hope that things will improve. If we had no hope, we'd leave.

More on Judy

In the comments:
I’d like to suggest a new dictionary definition.
Bailey. (Verb) To over-inflate one’s value to achieve an immoral or obscene result. As in...‘That Hawksby sure pulled a bailey getting six million bucks out of TVNZ.’
Via email:
First the senile and incompetent Holmes earning $60,000 p.m. and now this.

As a Brit, I consider Judy and almost all of her colleagues as amateurs, compared to the BBC etc equivalent professionals who almost always have a journalistic background and in relative terms earn nothing like this!

Look forward to hearing how this is justified?

What an utter disgrace and insult to everyday workers in NZ! Teachers, nurses and similar professionals are lucky to attain $50,000 p.a.

Just how is it justified ?

I am a UK trained nurse living in NZ and see many examples of this detrimental behaviour where Kiwis measure themselves by their own standards and somehow ignore the real world!

The "celebrity" culture wins again at the expense of real people!
Russell Brown says that "the most surreal element of the whole business so far has surely been Bailey herself having to introduce an item about it all on One News".

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Stuff And Nonsense

Via email:
Wouldn't it be nice if Judy and the rest of those earning over 6 figures could scrape by on a little less, so the poor little workers at the bottom of the TVNZ food chain could have a little more!

Most people given the chance would be very happy to accept $800K from anyone dumb enough to pay it, so good on Judy for seeing her chance and taking it. It will probably last only one more year, and could be seen as a 'working golden handshake'.

Has anyone asked why women from Marketing are now running almost everything in the Television Centre?

And when will the weekend papers pot the head of Human Resources - the department supposedly skilled in hiring people for all facets of Television - for not only not having a TV set, but taking pride in telling people she never watches TV? Could that be a clue to why so much bitterness in the building is generated by her department? Almost the entire HR team are snooty graduates with no useful skills other than ensuring their own survival.

Judy almost doubles her salary?

Via email:

I read with shock this morning (online story) that Judy Bailey has almost doubed her salary to $800,000:

"Bailey is understood to have asked for and been given the huge pay rise as television broadcasting's "presenter wars" heat up...more than Holmes' salary of about $740,000 before he quit...ahead of chief executive Ian Fraser...Helen Clark is paid a salary of $317,000."

God she just reads an autocute, she doesn't run a business, or the country. It's obscene!
More in a report by the NZPA:

"it's a huge embarrassment for the Government because they've campaigned against high salaries at TVNZ and despite pumping in millions and millions of dollars, TVNZ hasn't taken any notice of (Prime Minister) Helen Clark," [Rodney Hide] told NZPA.

"No state-employed newsreader is worth $800,000, and the salary level is a direct affront to every single pensioner trying to live on $250 a week. This Government promised to end the huge salaries but now obviously does not want to offend its friends in the state-owned media." [Winston] Peters said in a statement.

Monday, December 13, 2004

The destiny of Destiny TV

Via email:
TVNZ is finally getting rid of Brian Tamaki and Destiny's Church on channel two. Altogether now: "AMEN, PRAISE THE LORD!"
Update: a link to GayNZ.com which has up the following article:
Brian Tamaki's television church has had its cathode ray tube zapped - "Destiny Television" has been dumped by TVNZ in favour of an animated series for kids about the adventures of a pair of huhu grubs.

A spokeswoman for the Destiny Church says they were told the programme did not fit TVNZ's charter, and Tamaki claimed it was because of the "Enough is Enough" march. However, a spokeswoman for TVNZ said it was because the network wished to provide more children's programming.

"Destiny Television" has in the past been a vehicle for extended homophobic rants from Tamaki, including a now-infamous six part series entitled "Homosexuality, Religion & God" which the Broadcasting Standards Authority ruled last year had breached codes of fairness.

In this programme, Tamaki said the homosexual spirit was sent by Satan "to actually take out and pervert a whole nation". Tamaki revelled in the publicity created by complaints over the broadcast, and used it to promote sales of the video through the Destiny Church website, now the only place eager members of the viewing public will be able to get their evangelical fix for the moment.

Ref: Sunday Star-Times, NZPA, GayNZ.com

TVNZ - the worst of 2004

Add your worst of moments from 2004 here.

TVNZ - the best of 2004

Add your best of moments from 2004 here.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

TVNZ Soap

The broadcaster has confirmed former Grundy "soap specialist" Jason Daniels, who helped create Shortland Street has been contracted to TVNZ to develop ideas.

Tony Holden is also understood to have hired other staff to work on a new home-grown show. Holden has spoken openly about his desire for another Kiwi soap.

TV2 publicist Nicole Wood said it was too early to comment. "There are ideas being talked about, but there is no plan about making anything at the moment."

Insiders said the show would be unlikely to replace Shortland Street, which has increased its ratings over the past year.
Sunday Star Times

Saturday, December 11, 2004

It'll all end in tears, Mr Ralston

From The Dominion Post:
What is Bill Ralston head of current affairs and news at TVNZ thinking of, giving Paul Holmes' old job to Susan Wood?

Okay, so the ratings for the imaginatively named Close up at 7 were holding but come January next year when viewers have a choice between Paul Holmes, John Campbell or Susan Wood, they won't be tuning in to TV One.

Mark Sainsbury who has been appointed as Wood's stand-in would have been a far better choice for he has the common touch and doesn't take himself too seriously.
The full article

Thursday, December 09, 2004

TVNZ to instigate drug testing

God bless anonymous faxes!

Freshly leaked news has it that TVNZ is planning to introduce
workplace drug testing early in the New Year,
which should go down well with the troops, especially at this time of year....

(word has it that TV3 sacrifical P-head Darren MacDonald
may well have a bit of company at his support group meetings)

The question remains unanswered as to whether the growth hormones
Tony Holden takes in the hope of one day reaching 5 foot,
will be categorised as performance impairing...
The anonymous faxer did ask if anyone knows of any legal
personality enhancing drugs please forward info to Tony c/o TVNZ

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Alison jumps ship

A comment on an earlier post:
Neil Waka, on his Auckland radio slot this morning, got into a discussion with the other hosts about Alison Mau's coming departure for Prime TV.

Would Kate Hawkesby be slotted back into TVNZ's Breakfast show to fill the gap?
'No way,' said the jovial Neil. 'Kate leave the highly rated Late News? She's not stupid. No one watches Breakfast!!'

Uhmmm... Check the figures, Neil. No one watches the Late News, either. And as for Kate H’s IQ…?

However, Neal, an A+ for being brave. Such attempts at honesty - even if a tad unwise - should be encouraged. Honesty is in short supply around the hallowed halls of the Network Centre.

Just don’t tell Barking Bill Ralston what you said.
He might forget it’s the season of goodwill if he realises you've been biting the hand that feeds you.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Comedy or Tragedy?

Via email:
Watching "Frontseat" last night and listening to the comedians and the Network Executive was a little bit funny and a little bit sad.

Apparently 'Flight of the Conchords' could have been seen on our screens if only NZOnAir had fronted up with the money.

But I thought TVNZ was sitting on a big pile of Charter Funding? And wasn't that money given to them to enable them to take risks and provide the viewer with edgier and diverse programming like Conchords?

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Headliners

Via email:
I've just watched yet another awful review given by the film guy on Headliners (Renee refers to him as Dom).

I thought Headlners attracted a young, hip audience, yet they have this pompus guy that talks like he has carrot stuck up you know where.

The film guy on the Good Morning show (Steve....I think) is a much better choice. He's funny, seems to relate to a broad audience, and is more bearable to watch.

Just as they got rid of Holmes, maybe Dom should think about moving to Prime also.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Signature TV

Via email:
A friend who attended the recent SPADA conference was at a roundtable with Tony Holden - who was discussing the new 'Signature TV' Charter initiative. He apparently explained that it would never play on a Sunday night because they could buy 'British unwatchable crap' that had a screen value of $8million per hour for that slot - and therefore the local budget could never compete.

Close Up at 7

So the news is finally out - no surprises: Susan keeps her job.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Television Debates

Via email:
I must say, I really enjoyed the debate on TV1 last night about teenage drinking - while these debates never solve anything, it's fascinating to hear others' points of views (I'm not a big fan of talkback radio so don't normally here their debates). The frustrations I experienced last night reminded me of the last big debate I watched on TV1 (about the foreshore and seabed saga): there's just too many ad breaks which break the flow of conversation (if one can truely call it a conversation). For these types of shows, could not the advertising formats be reshuffled?

More on "that soap"

From Russell Brown at Public Address yesterday:
The Rasputin of Hobson Street, TVNZ commissioning chief Tony Holden, has brought in Jason Daniels - the Grundy soap specialist who helped develop Shortland Street - to work on a new, in-house soap at state TV. Some other people have been recruited, but anyone deemed to have been too well-connected to Shortland Street's producer, South Pacific Pictures, has not, it appears, been welcome.

So why is TVNZ trying to work up a new soap when it has previously said it wouldn't be producing drama in-house, and when it already has a well-established and popular nightly soap?

Because Holden (who had a very bitter separation with SPP) wants to "break up the big production companies", and SPP in particular, as he seems to have been happy to say to a few people? Why would that be a good idea? Where does strategy stop and personal agenda begin?

There is a long and undistinguished history at TVNZ of successive generations of management having to climb out from underneath the agendas of their predecessors. It would seem to be going strong.