Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Maybe it's where I choose to drink the rest of the time (not fancy members-only places frequented by overpaid presenters, but just yer average Ponsonby Road bar...), but I've realised recently that by comparison, the minibar ain't that pricey. In fact, I think the beer in my hotel minibar is about $7 a bottle, half the places I go out drinking at it's more like $8+ (which seems ridiculous compared to the offie, but overheads I guess...)
I still can't justify a $4 chocolate bar though.
-
But porn? Come on -- on what Bizarro World would a sane person think that's a reasonable use of public money?
Exactly. Doesn't he have a laptop?
-
The effect of one public broadcaster can be to raise the game- and the terms of public discussion- across the board. Worth getting passionate about :)
I'm certainly not going to argue against that Rob. I think we may have got that by stealth via TVNZ 7, but time will tell. And it'll need to keep moving forward.
I didn't mean to knock RNZ. I listen to it heaps. But based on your figures, 90% of people don't. (The radio market is crowded. Most people for some reason choose to listen to ads).
I suspect that if we had a well produced well funded commercial free television service available to everyone in the country, it would rate about that too, maybe up to the 15% ABC gets in Oz.
I wouldn't suggest trying to do anything at bargain basement prices though. Cheap TV looks cheap, and after years of all the slick stuff out there (even if it's dross), it's very hard to watch stuff with low production values. Cheap radio can still sound fine if the person holding the microphone asks the right questions.
Although I do think that arguing about creating new public television networks in 2010 is a bit like the discussion going on about the future of NZ Post. It's a bit late, isn't it?
-
Seriously, I can't be arsed. The whole news-readers-have-no-skill-they-just-read-words-and-get-paid-too-much is really really tired an really really old. I'm happy enough for the conversation to devolve into 'what is wrong with teh medias' (despite 'crying bucketfuls' over it, apparently) but really this bit is just boring. Be as disingeuous as you want with the "it would help my budgeting exercise" and "I was only calling them newsreaders", but if you can't accept the bile lying behind those two phrases I quoted before, then that's me done.
-
@Gio
and his job is not just to read things
@jeremy
what is this autoreader guy getting
-
The fact that he can actually interview people, and his job is not just to read things?
You too Giovanni.
If we've seriously got to that point in the argument, the bit where we just start slagging newsreaders, then I'm out.
Have fun, someone turn the lights out when they're done.
-
So the average wage is around 30K a year, what is this autoreader guy getting?
Jeremy, you're being a dick again too.
-
Yes, they get more than Geoff Robinson or Mary Wilson. They also appear live, in the case of One News, to an audience many times the size - in a commercial model, this counts.
I don't see that Geoff Robinson has too much to worry about in terms of a loss of privacy from his job. Lie-ins maybe.
@Bart - I think you are mis-stating my point here. I don't accept Henry is a bully. I don't consistently see him marginalising people, like you claim. I really don't. So I'm not marginalising that behaviour. To assume that he bullies his co-workers assumes they feel bullied, does it not? Have you spoken to them? As Michele A'Court mentioned today when RB and I saw her, everyone she spoke to on her regular Breakfast slots really liked working with him. The same goes in my experience, I've never heard one complaint about that - and damn, do those people like to complain!
Perhaps there's some point you can make about people not realising they are being bullied, but I don't buy it.
(Also, I accept this is obviously something that resonates with you, so please don't consider I'm being flippant here.)
Okay, and "talented broadcaster" isn't some secret apologist code. It just means I think he is intelligent, witty, funny, charismatic, has a great voice and livens up the show he works on. I enjoy watching him work. That is what I mean.
(Sometimes he can be a dick.)
-
Is there any reason why an article about the resignation of Germany's president costs more than one about a goat up a tree
In a sense, yeah it does. Because the ratings indicate more people want to watch the latter. And if a show rates less, the cost of the ads go down. So yes, we could have the 'worthiest' news, as determined by a bunch of academics and liberal blog readers, and various overseas examples (not to mention RNZ here) indicate it would rate less well. And therefore cost more.
are you saying that if TVNZ decided not to pay its anchors a sesquillion dollars
@Giovanni - I also take objection to this. I know what at least one of the top anchors gets paid, and it's about the same as various salespeople I know, less than ad people and lawyers I know. It certainly ain't the grand old days of Judy Bailey.
And in return for that sum, you get to have papparazzi follow you around whether you want it or not, your children are targets too, your ability to quietly enjoy a social life is seriously diminished, your sex life (and sexuality) is fodder every weekend, everyone thinks they can approach you randomly to tell you what's wrong with the news, and as this blog has illustrated, everyone thinks it's okay to kick you.
Wow, what a bargain.
-
So what if it is commercial? It still gets x amount of money to produce news, and I was questioning whether it's a matter of budget.
It's a matter of what would happen to the advertising budget it has if it broadcast stories the same way RNZ does. PAS people would love it, no doubt, but would it rate? How does RNZ rate against commercial radio? How does the ABC in Aussie rate against the other networks? Not well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_ratings_in_Australia
If it's commercial, then that's its driving force. Which is why the charter never worked properly, because it was trying to pull in another direction without sufficient carrot involved.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have an ABC, or an RNZ, but I'm saying this should be a criticism of Govt broadcasting policy, not the reporters who work for TVNZ.