sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Chris Trotter says the end of one era in New Zealand broadcasting, and the beginning of another, is being met with widespread public indifference

Public Policy / opinion
Chris Trotter says the end of one era in New Zealand broadcasting, and the beginning of another, is being met with widespread public indifference
trota1

By Chris Trotter*

A sign of the times every bit as telling as Paula Penfold’s shock at anti-vaxxers’ hatred for the mainstream media. That the folk who once cried “Hands off National Radio!” have greeted the imminent demise of Radio New Zealand with … silence. The folding of Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand into “Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media” (ANZPM) an “autonomous Crown entity”, is supposed to be complete by 1 March 2023. This, the end of one era in New Zealand broadcasting, and the beginning of another, has so far been met with widespread public indifference.

Over the past five years, Radio New Zealand’s hitherto ferociously loyal listeners have lost almost all their passion for public radio. Some, aggrieved by the “Maorification” of National Radio, have simply stopped listening. Others, aware that there is nothing better on offer from the private stations, have continued to tune-in – albeit in a mood of sullen resignation. That the station’s programming is uninterrupted by advertisements offers some small consolation.

These listeners skew decisively towards well-educated members of the Pakeha middle-class over-55 years of age. Given the average New Zealander’s longevity, they have another twenty years of “loyalty” in them before they, and Radio New Zealand’s core audience, give up the ghost. The key challenge facing ANZPM, therefore, is to formulate a schedule that will attract and hold the ears and eyes of the post-Baby Boomer generations.

This is not going to be easy. Historically-speaking, the whole point of public broadcasting – both here in New Zealand and across the Western World – has been to mould the political consciousness and cultural tastes of the middle-class in such a way that they become the state’s most reliable reservoir of “common sense”. Though values and tastes change, the existence of this group – the prime generators of reliable “public opinion” – has, until relatively recently, constituted public broadcasting’s greatest achievement.

At the heart of their success lies the public broadcasters’ preservation, and occasional renovation, of the nation’s core narrative. Or, to cast them in a slightly more heroic light, they have acted as “nation builders”. Their mission: to promote their country’s diversity without sacrificing its unity. Capturing many reflections, but all within a single mirror. Until recently, New Zealand public broadcasters were doing this pretty well.

Perhaps attributable to our post-modern era’s obsession with deconstruction: its determination to put an end to all “grand narratives” in favour of relativism and subjectivism;  the West’s broadcasters’ drive for unity has, of late, appeared to weaken. In New Zealand, the post-modernists’ deconstructivist urges have gone hand-in-hand with the rise of Māori nationalism. The latter’s determination to “decolonise” the Pakeha settler state and “indigenise” New Zealand society, has seized at least some of our public broadcasters’ imaginations as a mission worthy of the new ANZPM.

Certainly, the ANZPM’s Charter will set down “clear expectations” for the new broadcaster’s relationship with tangata whenua. It will be te Tiriti affirming and at least two out of ANZPM’s nine-member board will have to be fully conversant with the language, values and practices of te Ao Māori. In light of the stipulations of New Zealand On Air’s Public Interest Journalism Fund, the new public broadcaster is likely to operate under an exhaustive set of “partnership” protocols.

One can only speculate as to how the initial radio broadcasts of ANZPM will strike the ears of Radio New Zealand’s present audience. If the enthusiasm of the current Broadcasting Minister, Willie Jackson, for enhancing the Māori and Pasifika output of the new public broadcaster and “combatting misinformation” is any indication of its future content, then further defections can be expected. Not all of those switching-off will do so sadly and privately. With ANZPM due to hit the airwaves at the beginning of March in an election year, it is hard to imagine the opposition parties not being invited to weaponise its allegedly “woke” programme schedule.

Regardless of partisan loyalties, there will be those who look at the new structure with a certain measure of apprehension. ANZPM is going to be a mighty big beast, with more than enough muscle to dominate New Zealand’s media space.

Relieved of the obligation to return a dividend to the state, the television arm of ANZPM will be able to sell advertising at cost – to the obvious disadvantage of its private sector competition. In its outreach to the young and the ethnically diverse, the new public media entity will find it hard not to step very heavily on the toes of private radio. While printing presses form no part of its remit, ANZPM will be up there online alongside NZME and Stuff.

Pledged to “meeting its audience where they are” the ANZPM board might think it wise to equip itself with a truly nationwide news-gathering service. With over $100 million for capital investment, how long will it be before ANZPM ’s newsrooms, video and radio production facilities, and live broadcasts become the “places to be” for every talented journalist in the country?

The problems confronting the private sector media would not be limited to ANZPM’s scale and scope, and the competitive challenges they represent. The long-term risk must surely be that ANZPM’s public status, its editorial independence, and the creative freedoms thus conferred, will eventually eclipse the efforts of all media operations encumbered with less generous shareholders. How long will it be before these profit-driven enterprises cry “foul”?

And they might not be the only ones with a grievance. At least some of the voters might come to look upon ANZPM as a state-owned media behemoth stuffed choc-full with left-wingers of all kinds, and sufficiently resourced to dictate the terms of, and easily dominate, the media’s political coverage.

Inevitably, ANZPM’s need for an audience to replace the dwindling eyes and ears of the Baby Boomers must lead it towards the younger generations of New Zealanders. It is to their values and tastes that the cultural production of the big public broadcaster will inevitably be attuned.

The political consequences of such an orientation are equally inevitable. The material aspirations of younger New Zealanders, their easy-going acceptance of co-governance and other Boomer bogeymen, plus their rock-solid determination to take climate change seriously, make it unlikely that the neoliberal economic and political axioms of their elders will be tolerated for very much longer.

The fear of those same elders is that the material broadcast by the new ANZPM will only hasten the day when their cherished values and tastes are rudely overwhelmed. A hard core of them are already convinced that Radio New Zealand has successfully unleashed its own version of the Cultural Revolution. Hence their unwillingness to get too excited about Radio New Zealand’s imminent demise.

No matter how unkind, it is tempting to further discombobulate these grumpy old-timers by shouting: “Comrades, you ain’t seen nothing yet!”


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

52 Comments

An eloquent way of explaining the listenership outcome now many people have seen through the PIJF propaganda agenda & are moving to The Platform.

Chris also mentions "...every talented journalist in the country": without naming names this looks to be more of a talent puddle than a talent pool.

Up
7

Do you really, honestly think The Platform isn't ridiculously biased?

Don't you feel you can predict, with incredible ease, the viewpoint of the presenters on that station on any subject before they open their mouths.

It is an echo chamber. If there is an audience for it, fine, but let us please not pretend it is good objective journalism.

And as for 'PIJF propaganda'. 55 million split across hundreds of media entities buys you zilch influence. And the media in this country has always got public cash. 

The fact that RNZ gets more grief for openly accepting cash than The Platform that hid their millionaire benefactors astounds me.

Up
5

Do you really, honestly think The Platform isn't ridiculously biased? Yes

Don't you feel you can predict, with incredible ease, the viewpoint of the presenters on that station on any subject before they open their mouths. Yes

It is an echo chamber. If there is an audience for it, fine, but let us please not pretend it is good objective journalism. I'm not.

All the above questions & answers apply equally to Stuff. What was your point ?

As for "zilch" media influence: not only is the $55M PIJF contingent on explicitly agreeing & supporting the Govt's own view on the ToW Principles & Partnership etc, any payments made are recoverable if a media entity breaches that requirement in future.

Up
11

So you you know what the presenters on Platform will say and you accept its not objective journalism but you don't think there is ridiculous bias. Am i reading that right?

 

You also say the 55 million is contingent on - 

"explicitly agreeing & supporting the Govt's own view on the ToW Principles & Partnership etc, any payments made are recoverable if a media entity breaches that requirement in future." 

The contract actually says this - 

"Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner"

Now you tell me how a modern NZ can function if it doesn't do that? Or is your plan to ignore the treaty and hope it goes away?

Challenge for you - Find me one PIJF funded article in the last two years that explicitly agrees & supports the Govt's own view on the ToW? I mean the govt's view is an interesting concept alone. Where does it differ from the oppositions view for instance?

Can you also find me a newsroom that's had its money taken back? Because if you can't find the article then surely all newsrooms will be getting contracts rescinded any day now.

 

Up
4

Now you tell me how a modern NZ can function if it doesn't do that?

It's at least worth a conversation as to whether an ethno-nationalist state is the type of "functioning" we want. But you won't find that conversation on any publicly funded media.

I can't stand the Platform, by the way.

Up
7

Interesting. I view it that NZ has always been an ethno-nationalist state. 

Up
4

I think The Platform is no more objective & biased than Stuff.

There are no Principles or Partnership explicitly stated in the ToW. At the time, the Crown could not enter into a Partnership with it's subjects.  This is a historical revisionist contemporary construct around the 1980/90's. Find me one PIJF funded article that disagrees with the Govt's position - which is the reason no money has been refunded.

Up
5

No man, don't shirk the challenge

Find me one PIJF article that backs your paranoia. There must be millions right? 

 

In fairness, I'll take on yours - here's PIJF funded Herald (those red scoundrels) publishing an article that says "Co-government is leading us down a dark road".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/richard-prebble-three-waters-is-an-…

Man, Jacinda dropped the ball in that editorial meeting. I can get you bundles more. 

Up
3

Here is Sunday's Stuff Column from Damien Grant bound to challenge the maori thought police severely.

And Stuff still published it.   (Mind you his column is usually given prominence but for this piece they buried it deeply and you really have to hunt to find it.)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/129750237/damien-grant-every-life-is-wo…

Maybe Stuff being the weak ones perceive the wind is changing direction.

Up
1

Hard pressed to imagine that the electorate that entrusted this government with a unprecedented mandate in 2020, would have thought a policy of this selective nature, would be included. 

Up
3

Sounds like people might realise it's opinion punditry but it says what they like to hear, so it's comforting and preferable.

Up
0

"   ......Now you tell me how a modern NZ can function if it doesn't do that?......"

Can't see how a modern progressive NZ could function if it actually does do that.   Unless we have institutional based thought police.  Which are already well in place in government.  eg.   Say the wrong political thing in the health service you will find there are a whole bunch of people who have the sole task of driving you out.

Up
6

Show me where the legacy media has analysed the role of Te Mana o Te Wai statements, which can be made and unmade by iwi and hapu whenever they like (a right denied to the 85% of non-Maori). The WSEs are bound to follow them.

Show me who has analysed the role of Nanaia's sister, Tipa, as chair of Te Puna, which will control Taumata Arowai. TA regulates the WSEs.

Show me anything more than skimming coverage in the legacy media of the Water Users' Group case currently in the High Court, which is challenging Mahuta's claims of Crown Law advice backing 3W.

And, actually, PIJF grants are set up as loans, with the right to recall them. (This is also true of Film Commission grants.)

The Platform has covered all this. The fact you know nothing about them is because you rely on legacy media for your coverage.

You may also want to read the Te Tiriti Framework for News Media, which offers much more detailed advice about how journalists should deal with the Treaty than that expressed in the relatively brief guidelines in the PIJF criteria.

NZ On Air commissioned the report last year to expand understanding of what a “commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner” actually means.

Here are examples of its “guidance”:

• Māori have never ceded sovereignty to Britain or any other state.

• …our society has a foundation of institutional racism.

• For news media, it is not simply a matter of reporting ‘fairly’, but of constructively contributing to te Tiriti relations and social justice.

• How does the [media] organisation cover the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and efforts to enact it such as He Puapua?… For publicly funded news media, He Puapua recommends ‘increasing the number of Māori governors, te reo and Māori cultural content.’

• Repeated references by the government to the English version [of the Treaty], in which Māori supposedly ceded sovereignty, have created systematic disinformation that protects the government’s assumption of sole parliamentary sovereignty.

Again, you won't find any of this in the legacy media, but you will on The Platform. If you rely on the former for your information, you will remain uninformed. 

Up
7

The platform have quite an interesting article about how the PIJF is used to push The Narrative.

https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/how-government-funding-is-used-to-muz…

Just in case anybody was under any illusion that this country was not yet a banana republic.

Up
14

That article is garbage.

It starts by arguing that 3 waters is being disproportionately presented in the media. 

In a way that is actually true - I have never seen a subject given such one-sided treatment in the media and it isn't in the government's favour. 

It then suggests the PIJF contract is a loan (It isn't - so um you know - bad journalism to suit the Platform's biased narrative) and then gets the highlighter pen out on standard contractual terms in a funding agreement as if they aren't anything other than standard contractual terms in a funding agreement. Oooh scary.

It then says ah well in the funding application you'd have to say the treaty is a good thing to be adhered to or you wouldn't get the money.

Yes, folks the contract is explicitly clear that the Treaty is a good thing. How dastardly of it.

Um so what are the client journalists at the Platform really saying here. It appears to be 'ignore the Treaty'.... best to stop dancing around with the wink wink and just say it. 

Brock - you seem to be a guy who thinks Banana Republics are ones that actually pay attention to legal documents?

 

 

Up
4

Yes, folks the contract is explicitly clear that the Treaty is a good thing. How dastardly of it.

Yes, who wouldn't want a constitutional document that divides the population by genetics. 

/s 

Up
8

Yeah yeah, Imagine all the people living in perfect harmony. The treaty is all that the Maori people have to fight their corner. Now that they've got good at understanding western law, white people cry foul and say  'c'mon guys let's just be friends, that's just a tattered old thing'

I do kind of get what you are saying, but if you see the natural progression of Aotearoa as "post treaty" then the reparations are going to have to be on a scale that frankly matches the SA experience. Is NZ really up for that?

Up
4

but if you see the natural progression of Aotearoa as "post treaty"

It's tough to have that progression if you can't talk about it though.

then the reparations are going to have to be on a scale that frankly matches the SA experience. Is NZ really up for that?

Good question, I have no idea. But I don't think creating models split on race gets us closer, but instead further away.

Avoiding the unresolved legal property ownership issues from Might River Power etc in Three Waters (for example) by putting in a much murkier model that encodes representation by race continues to enshrine something much uglier than any property rights/reparations battle.

Personally, for what it's worth, I've no fundamental objection to reparations, or moving public land into iwi ownership (even things like water), or Te Reo everywhere (anyone can learn it). I do fundamentally object to laws, governance structures and administration that treat those with different ancestry differently.

Up
6

You use the word white people, you do realise being white is not a group think? Having white skin does not mean we have the same background, language or history. Neither do Maori have a group think. It seems to me that your avoiding the human experience and lumping races together. Maori and European are nothing like our ancestors. Maori / European are now mixed from many races. Do deny one side of heritage and belittle anyones ancestors doesn't bring anyone closer. 

Up
6

The treaty is all that the Maori people have to fight their corner. Now that they've got good at understanding western law, white people cry foul and say  'c'mon guys let's just be friends, that's just a tattered old thing'

Well put UB. Treaty Settlements have largely been a disgrace, a few % of a single year's GDP. We've been offered a sliver of land and a round-about and $10m - we have not and will not settle. Now shamed by Australia's, all be it late to the party, compensation. 

Up
0

Really Bulgaria.   Our grievance industry just makes stuff up.   The treaty does not say the things they claim.    It's a uniting document not a dividing one.  

And does that industry speak for 'maori people' anyway.  For the likes of Simon Bridges and that Nga Puhi guy Seymour

Up
7

I really enjoy The Platform, so much better than I'd expected.

Up
10

if they were listening for the music then they came to realise there is plenty of choice from well established internet radio stations in english outside of new zealand and opted out.

Up
3

I look forward to the content of the new broadcasting organisation. I think Chris is quite right about the post boomer generations being laid back about such matters as co-governance, embracing aspects of Te Ao Maori, Te Reo etc. I only wish my whaea and koro matua were alive to see this day. My koro matua used to read the Maori news on the radio on Sunday nights back in the sixties. He would be very pleased to see the progress of Maoridom and the mainstream acceptance of the treaty principles and especially the depredations we have suffered as a people since by the younger generations. I have a lot of faith in our children being willing and able to solve the problems they are inheriting from us and our forefathers in this country.

Up
6

The boomer assumptions in here Chris, are that younger people are in favour of these co-governance matters. They aren't, but they know signalling against it is dangerous and you can find yourself attacked for it. Same way that young people lie on polling because they know it puts your name in a database with that perspective. Why put yourself at risk?

No one listens to radio because you can just listen to whatever on youtube or spotify to instantly satisfy whatever type of musical lust you have. And the values imposed by government media has more or less completely fallen away because you can choose to simply find other sources. The wide spread disdain for establishment media is because of its constant lying and agenda pushing, it will not be missed.

The cultural, social and political trend is towards disintegration because the unifying bodies that made the nation state possible (shared faith, shared messaging through church/media, shared experiences, shared ethnicity etc) is falling away. We now live in a country with a mere population of mystery meats, with no unifying anything other than the consumer economy. The nation state will dissolve too over time into some sort of messy tense framework like Lebanon or into Caesarist authoritarianism to hold the state together. 

Good riddance to all that!

Up
23

@editor I'd take a look at this post i'm linking to. There is a racist phrase in it.

Up
0

Do you need to tell the teacher for saying "mystery meat"?

Up
7

How did you know what phrase it was?

Up
0

I hope you also call out other racism such as Rawiri Waititi's support for co-governance on the basis that democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Whereas of course tyranny of the minority will surely be better. 

Up
6

At least you agree it is a racist statement.  

Up
0

So interesting seeing this attacking of "mainstream media" come around again on the (nominal) Right after almost a century, and with some of the same rhetoric from leaders and followers. And people rejecting breadth of sources in favour of one or two who "say it like it is" (or, "say what I like"). 

Arguably a good way to enable objective journalism is to fund in a manner that's stable regardless of govt tinge (perhaps constitutionally or via a 75% majority requirement), as we've seen that privately funded journalism hasn't necessarily been objective - especially with the instability introduced by the internet, and the resulting drive toward outrage bait.

Up
1

That isn't the case, people are saucing from tons of different sources. That is the whole point, no one is just drinking from one news source, like they did in the past when your news was limited to the 6pm news and the local paper.

The internet lets you read 6-7 websites, and you can quickly find out when newspapers are lying to you from comments on various website or from competing newspapers.

The establishment media of falling down a rabbit hole to media which reinforces their view is a way of framing the issue to help make the establishment media gatekeepers again.

Up
0

My children don’t understand or watch free to air tv or radio. We stopped watching them in March and haven’t listened to ‘Red’ radio for years. They chose their audience and will fade away with it. Adapt or perish. 

Up
10

My house doesn't have normal TV capability, and I've never even bothered to sort Freeview on Demand.

Netflix, YouTube & Amazon Prime give me all the programming I could ever want. News I can just come to Interest.co.nz for anything financial, or check the headlines on Google News.

I've not used the radio in my new car once in a year of ownership. I connected my phone via Bluetooth before driving off the lot. All the podcasts I like, e.g. Joe Rogan, Wondery etc are all available on demand, with less advertising.

As others have said, I wouldn't mistake the indifference of the "youff" for agreeing with the direction of public media. It's more that so many of us simply have no need for it. Why on earth would I sit through some tedious RNZ broadcast, or watch the talking heads at 6pm, when I can get all the content I want the way I want it?

Had to help the father-in-law shift some stuff the other day, and we took his car - diligently tuned to Radio New Zealand and nothing else. That's an hour of my life I'll never get back.

I honestly wouldn't notice if all publicly-funded media disappeared. Wouldn't affect me in the slightest.

Up
7

Once upon a time NZ  had TV1/2 & radio YA/ZB/ZMs etc. Along came Radio Hauraki, thr harbinger of the modern world. But even then that limited mainstream of broadcasting allowed quite some political scrutiny, more so than now and to my mind of far greater depth and calibre. TV shows such as Compass, commentators such as Beetson, Johnstone were not backward going coming forward with their let’s say, interrogations. Today it is all rather choreographed. 

Up
4

The land of the long white flight.

✈️✅

Up
3

Since you are living in Australia Brock, you will have seen the explosion in recognition and promotion of Australian Indigenous (AI) culture. Every time you land on an Australian flight, domestic or international, you are welcomed to country and you pay respects to elders past, present and emerging. There are more financial assistance packages for AI, more education schemes and more general financial benefits, than here for Maori.

NSW (if you are there), has committed to returning 10% of the entire State to AI. 

You would not dare mention white flight in any setting anywhere in Aotearoa or Australia without serious employment and personal reputation repercussions.

 

Up
3

Thanks for the update on the improving situation for Indigenous Australians Te Kooti. I have not lived there since 1984 and the situation was a tragedy for them. Right across the country. I discussed the situation for us Maori with some of them and realised how different the experiences for the two indigenous populations were. Tough for us but truly heartbreaking for them. So I am thrilled that there is finally some recognition for them. Such as returning significant land area to them in NSW. Wow. What a change.

Up
6

It was already gathering momentum, but now under Labour it is accelerated - both at a political and corporate level. In some ways they are now ahead of us in recognising the injustices of the past. No event without a welcome to country, no public building without an AI flag, academic fast track, corporate fast track, huge amounts of land being returned. So Brock hasn't found his "whites only" paradise.

Up
5

All very healthy for the soul of Australia. Current and future generations will benefit hugely with active input from their empowered indigenous population. Let alone the reputation of the country on the world stage. Of course the transition will take several generations to embed but I wish them all the best.

Up
3

They're welcome to have Moree and surrounds.

Hopefully they'll wall it off from the colonisers. 

Up
0

"...........You would not dare mention white flight in any setting anywhere in Aotearoa or Australia without serious employment and personal reputation repercussions........"

So true.  People thinking wrong thoughts must be supressed.   Camps are good for that.  Big wired fence and you don't have to feed them much at all"

Up
4

.

Up
0

Have the Ministry (of Truth) announced the new board for ANZPM yet? Surely we must have run out of the Mahuta talent pool; maybe a few from the Jackson whanau?

(Sorry about the sarcasm,...humour is about the only thing left to we, "discombobulated" old timers)

And where will their new hq be located? Perhaps as George Orwell suggested,...a new, "Ministry of Truth (Minitrue, in newspeak) building, an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete... with elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party: ....War is Peace...Freedom is Slavery...Ignorance is Strength."

Perhaps our saviour might come from "the Paarty's" proven ability to.."Let's Keep Moving",.. laser-like efficiency in rescuing children from poverty, building thousands of new affordable homes, and getting cyclists across the Waitemata Harbour.

Up
9

Its just a sign of the times, there are so many more options now for getting news. The young people don't listen to the radio and as this generation moves through, all the stations could die. Hell I don't even turn the radio on anymore unless I want a bit of background music from the Breeze while working on something in the garage and I certainly don't want to listen to anyone having a rant.

Up
3

I listen to the radio if I want to hear five minutes of ads. 

Up
1

Sadly, it has come to this. The media in general are not to be trusted, especially with information. They're good at entertaining but not good with facts. They tend to leave them out of the story so they're technically not lying. All my news is consumed on the internet & from around the globe (the subs cost me a small fortune) but again, to be read with care. We are well into the age of deceit where even what our own family tells us is up for grabs. It is very hard to believe anything these days. I'm out.

Up
8

Agreed - and RNZ are as falsity-peddling a anyone. Not for want of some of us trying to educate them, either. This is a fierce, determined rejection.

I'm one who listens less, and reluctantly. Eventually, I'll give up completely and turn to Concert radio (if it still exists) and et my news and current affairs elsewhere.

RNZ have such a slant now, that they just about own the whole rabbit-hole.

Up
2

ANZPM is going to be a mighty big beast, with more than enough muscle to dominate New Zealand’s media space.

That media space is shrinking overall.

A huge portion of TVNZ is simply restreaming oveseas content wrapped in ads. As more services (Disney+ was available here from day 0, HBO's new service will be globally available) are available in NZ, they will have less and less access to that content. Quite some time ago Youtube replaced TVNZ as the biggest online advertising vendor. Netflix's ad funded content will erode that further.

It's great to have a platform for home grown content, but realistically thats a tiny share of what is broadcast.

News has been shrinking for a long time, not just TVNZ's own newsroom (and Mediaworks), but the entire pie.

Up
1

How long will it be before these profit-driven enterprises cry “foul”?

They did right from when it was announced.

Up
0

(dp)

Up
0

The content on RNZ is wide and varied without the interruption of gauche advertising - I hope the model is transposed onto TVNZ and provides plenty of local programming.

As for using You Tube Netflix and streaming content - it soon gets tedious and a bit of a chore looking for varied content so having someone else managing it for a while introduces new and challenging perspectives. Unless of course you like living in an echo chamber.

Up
2