Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
I'm sure the world will be a better place when Stuff, the Herald, Newstalk ZB and TV3/Newshub disappear, and we get left with blogs, TVNZ and RNZ.
Also not sure where this advertising revenue is coming from if they pivot - advertisers usually want eyeballs/ears above all else.
You mean like what the govt is doing to the rest of the economy with its overkill lockdown? They are shredding players in every industry.. and leaving consumers with fewer options. Part of a govt induced deep recession... maybe they should, have thoughtthat the draconian lockdown a little more.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
I'm sure the world will be a better place when Stuff, the Herald, Newstalk ZB and TV3/Newshub disappear, and we get left with blogs, TVNZ and RNZ.
Also not sure where this advertising revenue is coming from if they pivot - advertisers usually want eyeballs/ears above all else.
You mean like what the govt is doing to the rest of the economy with its overkill lockdown? They are shredding players in every industry.. and leaving consumers with fewer options. Part of a govt induced deep recession... maybe they should, have thoughtthat the draconian lockdown a little more.
Of course, big government, big brother, deep state. All the experts bought and paid for, all the politicians in it for the cash and the pork. With any sort of luck, we'll be a cross between Cuba, Venezuela and USSR.
All hail our Bolshevik overlords (I don't want to be in the first re-education classes).
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
Nope. Stopped reading when national were still in power. Similar time to when a thread started about how shite they were.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
The practical difference between a state-owned news source and a news source that relies on the state for its survival is something I’m too stupid to understand.
-
@Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan lol that fulla has to as they've taken an interesting approach! plus he's top tier in the bad bug field worldwide from what I've read. I'd be pushing him to the front for sure!!
The Swedish government has tried to focus efforts on encouraging the right behaviour and creating social norms rather than mandatory restrictions. Government officials including Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven, as well as the Public Health Agency of Sweden have encouraged each individual to take responsibility for their own health and the health of others.[39] The Swedish constitution mandates that the relevant expert agency, in this case the Public Health Agency, must issue advice prior to any government actions aiming to prevent the spread of the virus with a strong mandate that the expert agencies should initiate actions, avoiding rule by ministers.[40] The independence of Swedish agencies and the choice of 'recommendations' instead of legislation has received much coverage in international media.[41] Swedish foreign minister, Ann Linde described Sweden as having ‘rather small ministries, but rather big authorities’ (with the Public Health Agency being one such authority), and this going back 300-400 years, and Sweden being characterized by a very high level of trust in its authorities from both the people and the politicians, and that Swedes had a very strong urge to following recommendations from authorities, thus making legislation largely unnecessary. When asked if Sweden would consider tougher restrictions, Löfven and Linde both made clear that the Swedish government wouldn't hesitate to do so if deemed necessary and on advice from the expert agencies, but that such measures needed to be taken at the right time, and they believe it's hard to make people adhere to lockdowns for an extended period.[
-
If / when a radio station or even TV network were to disappear due to the effects of this crisis, wouldn't another rise from the ashes when the time is right??? Given we're just big enough to support x amount of players in the good times, when the good times return, the market would dictate at the time that someone else could enter.
We've lost a unique station already in Radio Sport, which I miss greatly. Why would people give two fucks if ZB went and we only had RNZ?
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
The practical difference between a state-owned news source and a news source that relies on the state for its survival is something I’m too stupid to understand.
It might be distinction without a difference perhaps, but all news sources rely on the state for survival to some extent if that's your concern.
I say that because the total advertising budget across the whole state sector is rather large (over $100 million p.a.) , and while news isn't solely reporting on the activities of government and various government departments and other state-funded organisations e.g. police, courts etc. it's a large part of news reporting in NZ. There is also contestable funding like NZ On Air.
On the actual package, most of it is waiving of fees and spending more on advertising, and the biggest beneficiary was TVNZ, so it wasn't that much for the privately-owned media.
-
@shark said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
If / when a radio station or even TV network were to disappear due to the effects of this crisis, wouldn't another rise from the ashes when the time is right??? Given we're just big enough to support x amount of players in the good times, when the good times return, the market would dictate at the time that someone else could enter.
We've lost a unique station already in Radio Sport, which I miss greatly. Why would people give two fucks if ZB went and we only had RNZ?
I don't listen to ZB much, but some people seem to like talkback, which RNZ doesn't offer.
-
@Godder I think the old media need to decide what they are. If they are being bankrolled by some entity, be it a person, corporation, or government then don’t expect me to believe they are independent.
They may act independently most of the time, but it’s the times they don’t that define what they really are. And unfortunately, given that they aren’t about to tell us when those times are, the public has to assume they are acting under duress every time the print a story or opinion piece.
For myself I prefer my media to be overtly biased so that I can decide which eye I need to use to read or listen to them. The ones that claim to be unbiased need to have diverse income streams before they have any credibility, which at least advertising tends to provide. But simply replacing a diverse revenue stream with a single one? No thanks.
-
@JC the problem with your last paragraph though is clearly highlighted with the current British system.
It's deeply divided here, and the primary reason is that people are stuck in their echo chambers and only read publications that agree with them. E.g - I decide that Boris Johnson is useless. I follow certain people on twitter, I read the Guardian, I read blogs by Labour supporters, and all I will do is further entrench my position. If I decide Boris is the opposite, I can do exactly the same thing with different people, papers and blogs.
Diverse opinions, journalists in the same publications is absolutely crucial for a well run democracy. You can only get that with independence. The BBC takes huge amounts of criticism from both sides, and that perhaps shows they have it right. Left/Right political supporters may well find this is the only publication they read that actually shows both sides. And as it's not all showing roses for their point of view, they are up in arms about the bias from it.
I'm not saying the BBC is perfect or above criticism - far from it. But it really is the only true mainstream independent source in this country.
Addendum - this is not a go at you. You are clearly smart enough to see the wood from the trees and ensure you are well informed enough. Arguably the most well-informed on TSF.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC the problem with your last paragraph though is clearly highlighted with the current British system.
It's deeply divided here, and the primary reason is that people are stuck in their echo chambers and only read publications that agree with them. E.g - I decide that Boris Johnson is useless. I follow certain people on twitter, I read the Guardian, I read blogs by Labour supporters, and all I will do is further entrench my position. If I decide Boris is the opposite, I can do exactly the same thing with different people, papers and blogs.
Diverse opinions, journalists in the same publications is absolutely crucial for a well run democracy. You can only get that with independence. The BBC takes huge amounts of criticism from both sides, and that perhaps shows they have it right. Left/Right political supporters may well find this is the only publication they read that actually shows both sides. And as it's not all showing roses for their point of view, they are up in arms about the bias from it.
I'm not saying the BBC is perfect or above criticism - far from it. But it really is the only true mainstream independent source in this country.
Addendum - this is not a go at you. You are clearly smart enough to see the wood from the trees and ensure you are well informed enough. Arguably the most well-informed on TSF.
@MajorRage I agree with quite a lot of what you say. UK newspapers quite polarised. I tend to read Torygraph at home and Guardian online to get a cross section of views.
BBC is the least partial, but does suffer from two massive drawbacks:
-
In its drive to ensure minority views are represented it substantially underrepresents the majority view. Reviews have revealed that mainstream views get well less than 50% of airtime; and
-
There is a tendency (which may be a result/adjunct of 1) to act as if its reporters know better than the public and to be very condescending to those holding views with which it does not agree.
That said, still my go to for first crack at UK news.
-