Nat/act/nzf 2023

[Daytr]

No - we are specifically talking about government funding for the media.

I figure this is common sense but a good summary -

Why Fund Media?

• Informed Citizens:
  People need quality information to make informed decisions. Media provides in-depth analysis of political issues, keeping the public engaged in civic life.
  
• Watchdog Role:
  A strong media acts as a watchdog, holding governments accountable and exposing corruption. This strengthens democracy by ensuring transparency.
  
• Diversity of Voices: Funding can help promote a variety of media outlets, representing different viewpoints. This fosters a healthy public discourse.

Considerations for Maintaining Independence

• Funding with Firewalls: Government funding should come with clear rules to prevent editorial influence. Independent boards could allocate funds based on pre-determined criteria.
  
• Multiple Funding Sources: Media outlets shouldn't rely solely on government money. Subscriptions, advertising (with regulations to prevent undue influence), and donations can create a funding mix.
  
• Transparency and Accountability: Media outlets should be transparent about their funding sources, allowing public scrutiny.

Challenges and Considerations

• Fake News and Bias: There's a growing concern about misinformation and biased reporting. Funding could come with fact-checking initiatives and promoting media literacy.
  
• Concentrated Media Ownership: A few corporations controlling a large share of media can stifle diverse voices. Policies promoting media ownership diversity can be helpful.

Interesting you didn't highlight 'Diversity of Voices'.
This is where the Maori coverage condition would come under.

Thanks.

[Daytr]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Hosko is not biased lol.

He has grilled National MP's too though, let's not be unfair to him.

But he is catering to a conservative view, and of all the media he has done well as he provides an alternative to the usual left wing stuff in most of the other outlets.

Guys like Mike would not be nearly as successful if the wider 'MSM' was not so woke.

No, but they complain about MSM bias but no complaint about Hopkins and the like.
The silence is deafening.

Rodney Hyde - left wing?
Paula Bennett?
Simon Bridges?
Roger Douglas?
Richard Prebble?
Steven Joyce?

I could list at least a dozen right wing contributors to MSM outlets.
Pretty amasing these biased MSM outlets pay rightcysts to contribute to their publications...
So biased. 🙄

[thegreatestben]

I haven't mentioned the word Maori once.

I'm really surprised you can't see the issue here. Governments or members of a govt providing money/funding to influence voices being raised or lowered are equally terrible.
I don't mind seeing Maori, Pacific, Asian, etc... views in the news and media but all views need to be exposed to and open to criticism as well.

The bias and particular topic is the current govt, you've been very clear about your opinion on keeping to the topic of the thread. The Maiki Sherman bit was a drastically obvious lowering of standard I'd expect from TVNZ.

[Daytr]

I haven't mentioned the word Maori once.

I'm really surprised you can't see the issue here. Governments or members of a govt providing money/funding to influence voices being raised or lowered are equally terrible.
I don't mind seeing Maori, Pacific, Asian, etc... views in the news and media but all views need to be exposed to and open to criticism as well.

The bias and particular topic is the current govt, you've been very clear about your opinion on keeping to the topic of the thread. The Maiki Sherman bit was a drastically obvious lowering of standard I'd expect from TVNZ.

Well you mentioned conditions attached to funding. The main conditions were around Maori issues.

Government funding of media is not new. In fact growing up all our TV was Government funded.

So why is their suddenly a bias created by the Labour Government continuing what has been done in the past?

[RTM]

....

I'm really surprised you can't see the issue here. Governments or members of a govt providing money/funding to influence voices being raised or lowered are equally terrible.
I don't mind seeing Maori, Pacific, Asian, etc... views in the news and media but all views need to be exposed to and open to criticism as well.

The bias and particular topic is the current govt, you've been very clear about your opinion on keeping to the topic of the thread. The Maiki Sherman bit was a drastically obvious lowering of standard I'd expect from TVNZ.

You shouldn't be TGB. He/she couldn't even grasp that Maiki was over the top. That really shows something is lacking.

[Daytr]

You shouldn't be TGB. He/she couldn't even grasp that Maiki was over the top. That really shows something is lacking.

I said it was overly long.
I suspect there is a reaction by some in the media to the coalition.
But that's what happens when you or your colleagues are threatened.
Winston Peters stepped well over the mark and it was completely unprofessional as the Deputy PM. We don't want Trump style antics of insulting or threatening anyone who we don't agree with here.

So yep I can accept there was probably an overreaction from one media source, but not all of MSM. And that just proves they are human.

What I do know is that the reaction on here to the piece more than matched any claimed hysteria by TVNZ.

But RTM keep think you know what I think... 🙄

[thegreatestben]

Well you mentioned conditions attached to funding. The main conditions were around Maori issues.

Government funding of media is not new. In fact growing up all our TV was Government funded.

So why is their suddenly a bias created by the Labour Government continuing what has been done in the past?

Easy - setting conditions of what content needs to be promoted is a clear violation of editorial independence.
The conditions of media funding in the past has been commercial agreement guide rails - ie you must use this funding to undertake the work of an independent news media outlet, you must attribute a breakdown of how the funding was spent to provide transparency for the spending.