Hard News: Do these people even talk?
198 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Photocopies of the Maori Television Service bid were personally delivered to the offices of Finance Minister Bill English and Associate Rugby World Cup Minister Gerry Brownlee on September 24, according to another leaked document (keep them coming!)
The delivery was from Te Puni Kokiri staffer Craig Owen.
...
Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman says the Government found out from TVNZ what the deal was.
But my understanding was that TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis was given the information on the clear understanding that TVNZ was out of the running.
The document also says that Murray McCully's office (Chris Major) was briefed on Te Puni Kokiri's support for the Maori Television Service bid as early as July 23.
...
You can understand why MTS are crying foul.
-
This just in from the Herald ...
The Rugby World Cup bidding war between TVNZ and Maori TV is going back to the drawing board.
Prime Minister John Key says the Government wants a single bid, led by Maori TV.
He is meeting with TVNZ and Maori TV representatives this afternoon.
More to come.
This is what should have happened in the first place. And it does bear mention that MTS CEO Jim Mather rejected a joint bid in favour of going it alone. It does vex me a bit that they're getting all the sympathy when they've done their share of silly behaviour.
-
Although that is based on the fact that NZ has put up competing offers - a single MTS/TV3 bid would have taken the ball out of the IRB's court somewhat. Would they really have played hardball and said "no FTA coverage in the hosting country"?
No, and MTS jumping in after the TVNZ/TV3 bid had been rejected by the IRB and upping the stakes with public money didn't help.
-
This is what should have happened in the first place.
I can't help but feel what should have happened in the first place was the Government saying "we'll give $5m to whichever of you win, but you're operationally independent TV companies making a tender to the IRB so it's not a political decision"
It just feels like they're trying to have their "corporatised, arms-length SOE" model-cake and eat it too.
-
And the respective broadcasters are meeting right now in search of a solution.
What I said before about talking about this first ...
-
I can't help but feel what should have happened in the first place was the Government saying "we'll give $5m to whichever of you win, but you're operationally independent TV companies making a tender to the IRB so it's not a political decision"
I'd much rather the government didn't give anyone money for one-off populist events to appear on TV.
As much as I'd like to see the world cup on TV, the amount of money that the government gives is probably amount that will drive the market up. Give 5 million, that's what it will cost. In the end, there's four free to air options in New Zealand, if the best bid the IRB gets is 1 million, that's probably what they'll take.
Otherwise every week someone is going to be coming cap in hand to the government for the commonwealth games, olympics etc. If lots of people are going to watch them, surely that should rule them out of additional government funding, as they're commercially viable.
I'd much rather, if the government is going to shell out for TV, it be NZ on Air, digital transition, non-commercial programming for kids, adults etc. Rugby isn't exactly a weak market in NZ.
-
I'd much rather the government didn't give anyone money for one-off populist events to appear on TV.
Oh for sure. I just mean that each channel should have approached it's "shareholder" for funding as per normal arrangements. In an ideal world, a coordinated Government investment process would have seen those jointly assessed but so long as they each made whatever hurdles, then the politico's should have left the tender process up to the IRB.
There is a bit of a feeling that there's a "double-up" on spending - but they only payout for the successful bid.
-
Is it too late for the IRB to give it to Ozzy?
I need to know 'cause I was going to go there during the RWC here, but I not so sure anymore.
-
Woah, imagine that - a rugby world cup run by The Osbournes!
-
Is it too late for the IRB to give it to Ozzy?
I need to know 'cause I was going to go there during the RWC here, but I not so sure anymore.
Don't joke. Better still, post guards at all NZ airports to ensure John O'Neill can't get past Customs.
-
Next question: will live free-to-air games be broadcast in HD?
It's an angle no one's talked about so far, but I can see it becoming an issue if MTS only sub-contracts delayed rights, because MTS isn't HD-capable.
-
Wouldn't most people who think HD is vital for watching sport be SKY subscribers anyway?
-
And the respective broadcasters are meeting right now in search of a solution.
The stumbling block will be that all three broadcasters want the All Blacks' quarter-final, but none want the final.
-
Wouldn't most people who think HD is vital for watching sport be SKY subscribers anyway?
I certainly would like to see it in HD and am not a Sky Sports subscriber.
But again, this is presumedly part of the IRB's decision making process. -
update:
The meeting has had an effect.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/2962132/Government-World-Cup-broadcasting-backdown
-
And it does bear mention that MTS CEO Jim Mather rejected a joint bid in favour of going it alone
Mather's press release, as quoted by Audrey Young puts it differently.
Maori Television did not decide to go it alone, as stated by Dr Coleman. The IRB bid required that all bids were to be from individual broadcasters. Maori Television was advised by the IRB that it did not want any joint bids, nor did it want any bids which proposed sub-licensing. However, in response to the Prime Minister's expectation that Maori Television was required to ensure 100 per cent coverage, Maori Television approached the IRB with the requirement that our bid must allow for sub-licensing. This was agreed by the IRB.
-
A S,
Must correct you there. According to Treasury, government appropriations amount to about 5% of TVNZ's income.
With the Charter removed, almost all of that in the current year is the $18 million to run and produce programming for the two digital channels, which stops in just over two years.
TVNZ will get some of the contestable funding, but most of that goes to independent producers.
By comparison, Maori TV gets $51 million in public funding. Which I don't have a problem with -- but it does show the vastly different situation of our two national broadcasters.
Russell, I'm not sure that is quite comparing apples with apples. MTS gets funded in a different fashion than TVNZ, with funding for programme production being included in that $51million.
Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to exclude the production funding that MTS gets, or add the 65% (around $48million) of the $73 million that NZ on air provided to TVNZ in 2008 for producing programmes.
Also, you asked earlier
Why on earth should it? TVNZ has had to walk away from one major sporting event after another -- most recently the Commonwealth Games -- because it not only has to pay its way, but pay the government a dividend every year.
It was MTS that brought public money into the bidding war, in a questionable way, and MTS CEO Jim Mather who refused to discuss a joint bid.
Sorry, work gets in the way of replying during the day. My, perhaps not very well made point was that after watching TVNZ (and TV3) happily going along with stories about the use of govt $ by MTS, and to then come up with an even larger bid using those same taxpayer dollars, seems just a little bit off.
Claiming the moral highground and then doing exactly the same thing you've accused someone else of stinks. We would call politicians on doing that, amd we should call SOEs like TVNZ on it too.
As Audrey Young's article(s) notes, the MTS CEO, Jim Mather, does also seem to have come out fairly strongly to say that the whole joint bid line of argument is perhaps not quite as the MSM has made out.
In fact, the collective writings of Audrey Young on this whole issue have been pretty damn illuminating, and tell a much more nuanced story than pretty much anything else I've seen in any other media.
-
Look on it as him owing us for fifteen things that he's done in the past. This doesn't come close to making up for it, you can drop the sympathy.
Kyle: Do you think that this might raise some issues that are slightly more important than a spite fuck? I don't have any time for Trevor Mallard, but I wouldn't have wished this on him.
I like Checkpoint's Mary Wilson. She's persistent without being rude.
Do we listen to the same woman? Sorry, but I'm waiting for someone to say to her "I'm not going to give you the answer you want, no matter how many times you bark the question at me and I'll push off if you want to conduct a monologue." And she can quite often be noxiously patronising towards people she obviously doesn't approve on, and if I wanted that kind of shit I can get it from Paul Henry or the masticating morons of talkback radio.
Good interview technique is as much about knowing when to move on (and get your ego out of the room) as when to push.
-
Good interview technique is as much about knowing when to move on (and get your ego out of the room) as when to push.
Jeremy Paxman of BBC Newsnight had a famous interview where he asked Michael Howard "Did you threaten to overrule him" 14 times.
It's now called "Doing a Paxo" by journalism students, but Paxman himself thought it wasn't great technique, but a failure of his to think of another way to ask the question. It effectively ended Howard's leadership bid at the time.
" Paxman's explanation was that "by the time I'd asked the question five or six times... it was clear... that you [Howard] weren't going to answer it... at which point a voice came in my ear and said "The next piece of tape isn't cut, you'd better carry on with this for a while" and I'm afraid I couldn't think of anything else to ask you."
-
In fact, the collective writings of Audrey Young on this whole issue have been pretty damn illuminating, and tell a much more nuanced story than pretty much anything else I've seen in any other media.
Yeah, but isn't it a shame that the political editor of Auckland's only daily newspaper hasn't, as far as I can see, seen fit to ask the Health Minister whether a pointed question or two about how Labtests could be given a five hundred and sixty million dollar contract to be the sole provider of essential lab services, when it seems nobody carried out due diligence on their ability to deliver?
Meanwhile, where the hell is the public outrage about the $4.4 million (at least -- the patch was initially 'cost neutral' ) DHBs are going to have to stump up with? Oh, I forgot -- the health and well-being of human beings, and scarce health funds being squandered on covering incompetence, is less deserving of serious attention than watching the Rugby World Cup on television. I'm not saying there isn't a legitimate story in the RWC rights, but I'd respectfully suggest that the lab contract farce is the one that could literally kill someone if they don't get their shit together, and everyone involved faces genuine scrutiny and accountability.
-
but isn't it a shame that the political editor of Auckland's only daily newspaper hasn't, as far as I can see, seen fit to ask the Health Minister whether a pointed question or two about how Labtests could be given a five hundred and sixty million dollar contract to be the sole provider of essential lab services, when it seems nobody carried out due diligence on their ability to deliver?
If it ain't broke, put it out to tender until it is.
-
Oh, and could someone explain to me why that $4.4 million isn't being withheld from Labtests -- considering the cost has been incurred by the company's inability to provide contracted services? The Herald doesn't seem particularly interested in asking.
-
@Craig, those are exactly the questions I was asking My Darling when the piece aired on tv. Are they going to dock 10% of the contract money for LabTests now they are reverting 10% of the testing back to DML? (As well as, or instead of, the $4.4m extra cost.)
But I am blaming the media in general for failing to set the tenor. Sensationalism over sense, every time.
-
Audrey Young is useful again today:
She laud's Key's timing (and notes Roger Doulgas's comparison of key to Muldoon!), and has some documents:
According to notes leaked to the Herald and prepared for Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, photocopies of the MTS bid were delivered to the offices of Finance Minister Bill English and Associate Rugby World Cup Minister Gerry Brownlee on September 24 by a staff member of Te Puni Kokiri. The same leaked document says that at a meeting on August 14 between TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis and MTS chief executive Jim Mather, "MTS was advised that there was no current TVNZ bid and TVNZ did not intend to furnish another bid".
A spokeswoman for Mr Ellis last night disputed that any such undertaking had been given and Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman claimed on TV3 that TVNZ always planned to be in the running.
That's certainly the impression I've gained. TVNZ management seem to have a very different perspective on how how things went. Their feeling is that Mather stonewalled on a joint bid.
But ...
Dr Sharples is not blameless, either. It is clear that he and Te Puni Kokiri kept knowledge of the $3 million TPK commitment to themselves. And when Dr Coleman asked Dr Sharples about the bid, he dissembled, saying he didn't know much about it.
Maori Television has been given a reprieve from being gazumped by a higher bid. But its celebration should not be too premature. In a sense it has been returned to the position it found itself in after the TPK funding had been revealed.
It has been forced to deal with others, but is doing so willingly and not begrudgingly
I think she's given us the best summary yet. It appears my sympathy for McCully may have been misplaced.
-
But I am blaming the media in general for failing to set the tenor. Sensationalism over sense, every time.
I also suspect there's an element of "if it bleeds, it leads" where medical stories are concerned -- the Labtest story is complicated and you apparently need nija-level skills in obfuscation and persiflage to get into health sector "perception management". Unless of course you're a stem-cell snake oil salesman, then the media can't give you uncritical advertorial fast enough...
And as Finlay Macdonald acidly observed on The Panel yesterday, wouldn't it be nice if we could get as OUTRAGED over banks getting pinged by the courts for avoiding over two billion dollars in tax while the Government is borrowing like a P-head with a ravenous King Kong-sized monkey on its back?
Makes MTS and TVNZ look like rank amateurs in the "finger-fraking the taxpayer for fun and profit" game, doesn't it?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.