21–30 of 30 posts
If you want to retain influence over national media, the effective modern path seems to be for governments to help fund that content, as in Canada or Japan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jacinda Ardern's other half was in broadcasting. It's not a new issue. They're all part of the same clique.
he made fishing shows, not exactly politically contentious
Ardern's ?uncle was also a big noise in the Mormon church. Used to run the Pacific region, where it has major influence in countries like Samoa and Tonga. She's well connected.
New Zealand has always imported the bulk of its television content from the USA, Australia and the UK (more rarely Canada and elsewhere) and yet New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence. Where is this money really going? The obvious answer is that a handful of people are creaming it off to fund their lifestyles rather than to produce domestic content. Has the BSA ever addressed this obvious elephant in…
> New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence There’s no TV license in New Zealand
Where is most of that public money going to?
“Broadcasting standards” make little sense in the age of streaming, internet platforms, and user generated content. Network TV is basically dead. Regulating individual streamers and content creators is a fool’s errand and only creates resentment against the government. If you want to retain influence over national media, the effective modern path seems to be for governments to help fund that content, as in Canada or…
I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expan…
Without knowing anything about the current state of NZ politics, some general political strategies could be the source: 1. since they are in a lame-duck state (as you mentioned, everyone expects there will be an overhaul), they are trying to get done the dirty stuff they promised to big donors (this particular thing looks like a wet dream of Rupert Murdoch, for example) 2. since they expect to be beaten, they think u…
I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expan…
In addition, given that the BSA was mostly charged with dealing with (genuinely) objectionable content in public media and complaints about unfair reporting, slander, etc, it seems like an empty gesture to placate the MAGA fan base. They weren't a censorship group, they just made sure that certain minimum standards were maintained, which will now presumably no longer be the case. I'm now waiting for someone to publish a story about how the Communications Minister who approved this is intimate with sheep and abuses small children.
I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expan…
> I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. The title of the piece is "Government to disestablish the BSA" and the domain is .govt.nz. I think it only fair to point out they're being very upfront that this is their excuse for disestablishing the BSA. > NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose. Although if NZ manages the sort of vigour and industry of Venice back in the day I am going to move there.
It's amazing reading history, about a huge city that totally affected the course of a major war, manufacturing and logistics hub - open it up and look inside: "Population 10,000." Roman Army at it's peak: 450,000 men. Walmart: 2.1 million (Cue reddit arguments about Roman Army vs Walmart)
Plague of Justinian: A handful of rats (initially).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without knowing anything about the current state of NZ politics, some general political strategies could be the source: 1. since they are in a lame-duck state (as you mentioned, everyone expects there will be an overhaul), they are trying to get done the dirty stuff they promised to big donors (this particular thing looks like a wet dream of Rupert Murdoch, for example) 2. since they expect to be beaten, they think u…
I expect National to get back in next election.
I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expan…
> I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. The title of the piece is "Government to disestablish the BSA" and the domain is .govt.nz. I think it only fair to point out they're being very upfront that this is their excuse for disestablishing the BSA. > NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partia…