The Dim-Post

April 11, 2015

Leadership!

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 9:04 am

It must be tricky to replace a beloved but declining prime-time TV show. You want to boost your ratings, but you don’t want to alienate the actually pretty large number of people still watching the show you want to replace. You want to keep those viewers and build, not lose them too. And there are all the wider issues of protecting the company brand, protecting it from employment litigation etc.

Fortunately TV3 has highly paid wealth-creating thought-leading executives like Mark Weldon and Julie Christie, who get paid the big dollars to carry out these tasks that appear so daunting to lesser beings. I don’t think they’ve quite nailed this, though, what with the nationwide outcry and viewer petitions and pending lawsuits and allegations of political interference and government cronyism. Only six-figure bonuses for them this year!

74 Comments »

  1. Unless the ‘soap’ they will replace it with is called Game of Thrones, they will be in a worse position. The biggest rater at 7PM , ahead of 7 Sharp is of course Shortland St.
    maybe that will mean we get Jono and Ben afterall, with a bit of political input. Jono, Ben and Cam ( Slater)

    Comment by dukeofurl — April 11, 2015 @ 9:48 am

  2. The term is ‘Failing up’ for Weldon and Christie on this one. They will have the business press tell us all how amazing they are at making tough business decisions. I wish they would both go Gault.

    Comment by Andy The other one — April 11, 2015 @ 9:51 am

  3. He’s had 10 years which in such a fickle industry is quite a good run.

    It’s a popular engagement format programme and if it loses popularity, as it has, then that is a major concern.

    I did learn that I had a surprising amount in common with many of Campbell’s supported – I don’t watch his programme either.

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2015 @ 10:05 am

  4. Sarcasm from NeilM is a bit like a dog walking on it’s hind legs – it never looks good, but you are surprised he can do it all.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2015 @ 10:19 am

  5. I guess if John key’s cronies get to shut down all critical debate we’ll just have to start stocking up on fertilizer and diesel and try to find new ways of informing them.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2015 @ 10:21 am

  6. If I can distract Sanc from shooting cats my work is done.

    Comment by NeilM — April 11, 2015 @ 10:40 am

  7. Marvelous!

    Comment by Lee Clark — April 11, 2015 @ 10:45 am

  8. Is this the same Sanctuary who while busily calling for a real Public Broadcasting Service was also demanding utu against journalists who he felt didn’t follow his party line
    Now its armed revolution
    Careful for what you wish for Sanct, not unknown for guys like you to be first up against the wall, come the revolution ie when your specific group don’t win

    Comment by rayinnz — April 11, 2015 @ 10:45 am

  9. Leave Sanc alone he is like all other marxists old.

    It is quite clear that TV3 adveristers think Cambpell is shit. The market always wins.

    Comment by Simon — April 11, 2015 @ 11:15 am

  10. See, this is the problem. While all the left wingers are busy getting on with their Saturday morning lives or recovering from hangovers, the internet is left to the pensioners of the right. How I rue the day they released Windows 95, and everyone thought it would be a good idea to teach their grandparents how to use the internet.

    @rayinnz – no one is advocating armed revolution, just suggesting the usual alternative methods of gaining the attention of politicians when all the democratic ones are taken away.

    @simon – you are an idiot.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 11, 2015 @ 11:48 am

  11. yeah Ray, Sanctuary isn’t advocating revolution – he’s advocating terrorism

    Comment by Can of Worms, Opened — April 11, 2015 @ 2:14 pm

  12. Much of the support for Campbell Live does seem to be very similar to that for not-so-long-ago closed passenger rail routes. There were a lot of sentimental or political attachment to something people just aren’t using a lot.

    Case in point – http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/save-campbell-live.html

    Comment by Richard — April 11, 2015 @ 3:30 pm

  13. I suspect the possible demise of Campbell Live has more to do with politics than ratings.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/10/guest-blog-rex-widerstrom-thirteen-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-mark-weldon-ceo-of-mediaworks/

    Comment by Ross — April 11, 2015 @ 4:19 pm

  14. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.” — JFK

    Comment by Kumara Republic — April 11, 2015 @ 5:05 pm

  15. Christie and Weldon do have a rather good record at making money both for themselves and others – the latter is not a given for those who are good at the former – and John hasn’t had a bad record at keeping his eponymous programme on the road for a decade but it clearly ain’t working with the viewers anymore. It’s not the battle of good and bad its just a conflict over what works and what doesn’t. Turning it into a political battle is just dumb. Weldon and Christie are going to have a chance to succeed or fail, just like John did a decade ago. The only political element is that John’s viewing numbers may be a lagging indicator of the political sentiment reflected in the political poll that counted in September 2014?

    Comment by Tinakori — April 11, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

  16. @Sanc: We’re not all fired with the intellectual energy of brazen youth like you are, sadly

    Comment by kalvarnsen — April 11, 2015 @ 7:08 pm

  17. The numbers tell the story. 110,000 to 120,000 watching Campbell Live can’t match the half million watching 7 Sharp

    Comment by Philo — April 11, 2015 @ 7:14 pm

  18. http://imgur.com/Opu6Fcj

    200,000 on average, and while it has dropped away after seven sharp started, it has remained pretty much constant.

    Comment by max — April 11, 2015 @ 8:16 pm

  19. The numbers don’t tell the full story. TV3 news trails the ratings of TV1 and has done so for a long time. The TV3 news has yet to be replaced with naked women wresting in jelly.

    Comment by Ross — April 11, 2015 @ 9:03 pm

  20. *wrestling🙂

    Comment by Ross — April 11, 2015 @ 9:03 pm

  21. Being replaced by a Julie Christie soap would be a great career move for Campbell. His show would immediately become revered in retrospect. Like Jim Bolger being replaced by Jenny Shipley, you don’t have to be good, just lucky with your successor.

    And it would be fun to see the rules change overnight. People not watching TV3 at 7 pm would no longer be “the market working”, but poor fools influenced by “carping critics” and “tall poppy syndrome”, unable to appreciate Christie’s genius.

    Comment by sammy 3.0 — April 11, 2015 @ 11:45 pm

  22. Wresting sounds like an interesting pursuit.

    Comment by nw — April 12, 2015 @ 7:18 am

  23. Yes, but if people won’t watch it, it’s just a waste of vauable wresting talent. Perhaps it would be better to put it on at about 10.30 on a Friday, and just revamp the format a bit. For discussion, aren’t many people who are keen on Campbell do so because they are confusing ‘critical’ and ‘critique’?
    The show’s format appears to present a slightly bleary-eyed defense of the underdog, which ironically, is often closer to soap opera than incisive political critique. This narrative appeals to people who are not baby-eating neoliberals, but it appears that they are watching Campbell in decreasing numbers.

    So, if as it is alleged, Campbell is entertaining fewer people, the big question is why?

    Comment by Lee Clark — April 12, 2015 @ 8:24 am

  24. @sanc, didn’t realise those votes that Campbell Live asked for (the ones we had to pay for) represented democracy
    And I don’t think bombing is a return to democracy either, we still have a right to vote Governments out even with the demise of CL

    Comment by rayinnz — April 12, 2015 @ 8:58 am

  25. Sounds like a business decision. If there are arguments about the place of current affairs on TV, and that anyone should be obligated to provide that service, then surely that should be directed at TVNZ – a state owned entity, not TV3. As for John Campbell – great innings, but all great innings come to an end and it looks like that – the show is really hard to watch, even if you want to like it.

    Comment by Jane — April 12, 2015 @ 9:55 am

  26. I watched Campbell the other night. About the second time in 10 years. The story about the kitten and the hen was good. As was the bogie boarding Granny (my mother-in-law, who was visiting at the time, was offended by that term, but she’s lived through the war so, doesn’t count). And the 2 pizza guys from Hell and Pizza Hut: those moments weren’t awkward at all. I can’t understand why folks aren’t watch in droves.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 12, 2015 @ 1:44 pm

  27. Cool, so NZ’s media landscape continues to shift further towards the right. Mike Hosking “The IPCC report is bogus” on TV1 and Paul “homosexuality is unnatural” Henry on TV3, and now John Key’s mate is in charge of TV3 too.

    I don’t really care anymore because I gave up watching mainstream news years ago, and I don’t think I’m alone. Even though 600k watch Campbell Live and Seven Sharp, that is only around 20% of the total enrolled voting population of 2.9m. So I speculate that most people get their news from the internet now.

    Comment by Seb Rattansen — April 12, 2015 @ 1:53 pm

  28. Weldon outlines his plans for Mediaworks.

    Comment by Sacha — April 12, 2015 @ 3:04 pm

  29. Ironically, as a “right wing” voter I always watch Campbell Live- purely because he’s just a great old school reporter with integrity- I find Mike Hosking and Paul Henry do my head in-they are both arseholes- so much for the conspiracy theory then.

    Its not about politics, its about those clowns Weldon and Christie who bought us such delights as Willy Moon and Natalia Kills. They are accountants simply whoring after cash, the type who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

    I guess some of us are an abandoned media generation now, Guyon Espinor’s ADHD has pretty much forced me to Concert FM for the morning commute (which is ok), with the main news source being reduced to NZ Herald on line and Stuff- its a shock to suddenly realise you are in a demographic of no worth.

    Comment by Grant — April 12, 2015 @ 4:23 pm

  30. “Ironically, as a “right wing” voter I always watch Campbell Live- purely because he’s just a great old school reporter with integrity”

    Yes, it shouldn’t matter where a journalist’s political sympathies fall; they should all be doing their job professionally and ethically. I have respect for those who do even when I disagree with them. This stuff is really important to a functioning democracy.

    Comment by Sacha — April 12, 2015 @ 4:30 pm

  31. The move to content-free content on TVNZ and TV3 has seen more more or less abandon NZ broadcast TV altogether. They import almost everything…and that content can be watched ad-free by other means (Netflix / Quickflix / Lightbox)…..saving an average 15 mins / hour. That’s my life we’re talking about…..so it’s worth it. That said…I don’t watch much of that stuff either.

    Even TVNZ On-Demand isn’t accessible to me as they deem my Spark Internet VDSL connection to not be in New Zealand. Hopeless.

    I’d watch a web-based Campbell Live on demand, I guess….once I got into the habit….but I’m ruthless about FFWD through items I have no interest in.

    This government killed of TVNZ 7…which was really the last bastion of anything worth watching. I skip past Maori TV occasionally….but nothing there has engaged me.

    Reality TV positively antagonises me. I’ve watched enough to make me think anyone who spends hours looking at that stuff must not have a life.

    Comment by Steve — April 12, 2015 @ 5:30 pm

  32. Oh they havr a life, Steve. Just not as we know it.

    Comment by Lee Clark — April 12, 2015 @ 6:15 pm


  33. I speculate that most people get their news from the internet now.

    Most people get their information from television. Among people who vote (people over 65), the proportion is even higher.

    Comment by Fraud — April 12, 2015 @ 9:00 pm

  34. Grant: who’da thought? Good to see you’re just as concerned about the lowest common denominator as the rest of us. Agree that Hosking and Henry are salesmen who think they’re journalists. Much as I think broadcast TV is yesterday’s technology, it’s too big to fail for advertisers and other vested interests.

    Comment by Kumara Republic — April 13, 2015 @ 12:29 am

  35. it’s too big to fail for advertisers and other vested interests.

    But given that we can mute or fast forward the ads, are advertisers throwing away good money after bad?

    Comment by Ross — April 13, 2015 @ 7:19 am

  36. @12. Richard

    You clearly didn’t read what you posted to? Idiot/Savant states that Campbell Live is the only broadcast show that he watches.

    Comment by RJL — April 13, 2015 @ 8:11 am

  37. “Turning it into a political battle is just dumb.” – yes – so dumb that hooten ralston and o’sullivan have all pretty much admitted that its very political.

    question for those who know – do ratings include on demand and things like the 1 hour delay channels? – ive already seen arguments that the ratings line is grossly exaggerated – just wondering how it actually works beyond those boxes in a small group of peoples homes

    Comment by framu — April 13, 2015 @ 10:20 am

  38. “Ironically, as a “right wing” voter I always watch Campbell Live- purely because he’s just a great old school reporter with integrity”

    Yep, and that’s why I rate news features from Karl du Fresne, Martin van Beynen or Rob Hosking, for example. Can’t think of anyone in the TV space because I’m not a regular TV watcher any more.

    Comment by Stephen J — April 13, 2015 @ 10:51 am

  39. “Turning it into a political battle is just dumb.” – yes – so dumb that hooten ralston and o’sullivan have all pretty much admitted that its very political.”

    I hope you realise that the three are speculating rather than admitting anything.

    Comment by Tinakori — April 13, 2015 @ 4:23 pm

  40. as long as you realise that they are all national party stalwarts and insiders – yes i know it proves nothing really – but trying to categorically say that its only about ratings doesnt really stack up.

    Cause when three party insiders, well known party insiders no less, start speculating, publicly, about their own “team” – im happy to accept those speculations as having some element of truth to them – the question is “how much is truth and how much is game”

    But i will admit that all anyone has to go on are assumtpions

    Comment by framu — April 13, 2015 @ 5:05 pm

  41. The number of people convinced this is all some National conspiracy is a bit weird. Nat politicians no doubt find Campbell annoying, but he’s not so annoying (and more to the point, not so influential among non-left-voters) that they would actually conspire to get rid of him.

    Grant is bang on the money – this is about a media channel that is now being run by a pair of egotists who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Moreover, Campbell’s values and ideas about humanity appear directly at odds with those of Weldon and Christie, so no wonder they’re not willing to lose theoretical potential income over him. There’s a quote somewhere from Christie, back in her Touchdown days, when she was asked where she got her ideas for what shows to produce. Her response was, “I think about what the average factory worker in Tokoroa wants to watch when they’re at home.” (Bearing in mind Christie is a national-voting white lass from the South Island’s West Coast). And her answer to that question, evidently, was shows like Treasure Island, the Ridges, and the GC. Little wonder that she has little time for John Campbell.

    Comment by millajulius — April 13, 2015 @ 8:12 pm

  42. “I’m ruthless about FFWD through items I have no interest in”

    And if broadcasters were acting in the interests of viewers rather than advertisers we would able to do that, years ago. No technical problem adding clip markers to video …

    Comment by Sacha — April 14, 2015 @ 12:06 am

  43. millajulius — April 13, 2015 @ 8:12 pm – i reckon thats all correct – but that its only one side of the coin in this issue. We need to add that both weldon and christie have expressed political/ideological grounds for not liking campbell and that they are both being given favourable treatment and appointments by a govt with a track record of cronyism, bullying, threats and dodgy process who also dont like campbell (after all there has been a lot of deck stacking across the whole media landscape by the nats or nat aligned power players). Lets not forget what happens to media outlets and individuals who make JK look bad

    its both – political ideology and influence combined with destructive media attitudes that care more about personal advancement than quality – a perfect nexus for what we are now seeing

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 8:01 am

  44. “but trying to categorically say that its only about ratings doesnt really stack up.”

    Why not, the ratings are a pretty compelling story. They either change the programme or try another one. As for the political angle I would have thought the Campbell interview with John Key last year was one of the better political ads for National last year. Campbell thought he had a king hit but Key didn’t have the same script. Having Campbell Live around is good for Key not bad for him.

    Comment by Tinakori — April 14, 2015 @ 8:15 am

  45. If a public service broadcaster is the answer then it shouldn’t be just a place to park programmes that some think are worthy but they themselves don’t watch.

    There’s a considerable amount of on high middle class patronising about what’s good for other people going on.

    Comment by NeilM — April 14, 2015 @ 8:30 am

  46. “Why not, the ratings are a pretty compelling story. ” – a story that ignores all other factors and possibilities.
    “Having Campbell Live around is good for Key not bad for him.” – that was one interviews – one. Hardly a litmus test of anything.

    My point is yes, no one can prove its a political move – (but the theory does add up) – but at the same time blaming it 100% on the ratings is a woefully narrow lens that ignores many other facets deliberately ie: its just as much of a theory

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 8:46 am

  47. edit: – as you yourself say – its a compelling story – thats not factual is it – you buy it because you find it compelling enough to make sense to you – not becasue its been proven or the political angle has been disproven

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 8:47 am

  48. you buy it because you find it compelling enough to make sense to you – not becasue its been proven or the political angle has been disproven

    We’re stuck with that being the case with all of politcs. Which is why we have politcs in the first place. If issues could be decided unambiguously on “facts” then things would be a lot simpler.

    But assume for moment there’s an element of govt influence, is the solution then to have more direct govt influence through funding?

    I doubt that there would be any great consensus for such a public broadcaster and we’d get people just voting for a left or right leaning current affairs broadcast environment each election.

    Comment by NeilM — April 14, 2015 @ 9:11 am

  49. “but at the same time blaming it 100% on the ratings is a woefully narrow lens that ignores many other facets deliberately ie: its just as much of a theory”

    Ah, no. The ratings are the evidence, the main metric for success or failure in the TV biz. The political conspiracy theory on the other hand is entirely evidence free. Somehow people make a connection between the following points – Campbell Live is a campaigning TV show beloved of left wingers who do not watch it, it is failing in the ratings and being reviewed, therefore it is the victim of a nasty right wing conspiracy because …………?

    Comment by Tinakori — April 14, 2015 @ 9:19 am

  50. testing…

    Comment by Gregor W — April 14, 2015 @ 10:23 am

  51. tinakori – the ratings is only one bit of evidence. Just how much longer are you going to pretend all the other stuff doesnt exisat?

    note that im not claiming a truth here – im just saying theres lots of other bits of data that matter and you are ignoring those in an effort to say thats its ONLY about ratings and everything else is fake

    for starters – does ratings pick up time delayed broadcasts and video on demand? and are the figures cited accurate or a case of statistical manipulation? – see im casting doubt without even stepping outside the narrow “its only about ratings” lens

    and yeah – i think we all get how commercial TV operates – but NZ is a small place rife with this kind of matey matey soft corruption – especially in the media industry

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 12:06 pm

  52. neil – its a very valid concern – i see it more a case of it being a requirement for the privilege of pushing adds at the NZ public via our airwaves – not so much a need for more govt funding – just it being spelled out as a cost that must be met if you want to play

    but isnt it funny that the media and the way the govt treats it has gotten more soviet the longer the nats have been in power

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 12:09 pm

  53. On a lighter note, did anyone else notice the humour in David Seymour the other night on TV3 supporting a call for pegging benefits to compulsory immunisation?
    Weirdly, this incredibly illiberal view was not challenged even slightly by the ‘reporter’.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 14, 2015 @ 2:07 pm

  54. Perhaps each party in parliament could get to allocate a part of a current affairs budget according to their share of votes.

    Cut to the chase. Public broadcasting is only going to be another party political football with everyone claiming truth and objectivity.

    Media funding has always been a lottery anyway. Some good stuff doesn’t get funded and some does. It’s all done via committee which will get things wrong as often as right.

    It’s often the unexpected that turns out to be really valuable. So spread the chances.

    Comment by NeilM — April 14, 2015 @ 2:10 pm

  55. Framu- whether the figures are accurate is a valid point but I don’t think they are station’s but are produced by an independent organisation. And, yep, the online and time shifting audience are all important but I guess the people with the biggest incentive to count them are media themselves, their advertisers and the ratings agencies so its probably something they at least consider when making their decisions. Stepping outside that issue I don’t think Fran O’Sullivan, Matthew Hooten and Bill Ralston speculating qualify as data points.

    Comment by Tinakori — April 14, 2015 @ 2:21 pm

  56. does ratings pick up time delayed broadcasts and video on demand? and are the figures cited accurate or a case of statistical manipulation?

    Oh, look – the information is available online.
    http://www.thinktv.co.nz/about-tv/the-business-of-tv/understanding-tv-data/

    In short – time shifted and recorded TV, yes. TV viewed on a laptop, no.

    Comment by Phil — April 14, 2015 @ 2:58 pm

  57. cheers phil – though does anyone else doubt the accuracy of a small sample size that requires you to have hardware installed in order to take part?

    Comment by framu — April 14, 2015 @ 3:28 pm

  58. No more than I doubt the accuracy of polling data that has a similar number of respondents. Nor any more than I doubt the accuracy of the blood test that took a few ml’s out of me last year.

    Comment by Phil — April 14, 2015 @ 4:03 pm

  59. Polling data doesn’t talk to the exact same people each week, though. It would be interesting to know what the turnover in the ratings data participants is – if you go with the “maximum 72 months on the panel” figure, then (on average) only 1 or 2 of the participants of the 600-household viewership sample would change each week.

    Given that TV viewing habits are not determined (or indeed, necessarily influenced) by your ethnicity/employment status/location/other information collected by the Census, it doesn’t sound like a particularly robust basis for determining how many people actually watch a given show.

    Comment by millajulius — April 14, 2015 @ 6:53 pm

  60. People spending all their time on Twitter complaining about how the simple people need public broadcasting to be informed.

    Comment by NeilM — April 14, 2015 @ 8:36 pm

  61. One thing the somewhat patronising ‘you only want it to exist for other people’ argument overlooks is that just because people don’t watch the actual live replay doesn’t mean that they don’t learn about, follow, and value, the stories and research through other media, YouTube clips, word of mouth and by watching the results. Hardly anyone reads scientific articles, but it would be very difficult to argue that they have no direct, traceable, value to a lot of people.

    Now, I acknowledge that the show is in an entertainment format, and that *is* measured by how many people directly consume it (i.e. ratings). But the *value* of it, the bit people are worrying about losing, that’s separate from ratings. That’s measured in the value of specific stories and their impact on society. If there were a dozen Campbell Live type shows, losing one wouldn’t matter. But when there’s hardly any vaguely serious original journalism around, losing one matters an awful lot.

    Comment by flynn — April 14, 2015 @ 8:50 pm

  62. NeilM: have you by chance read Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”?

    And draw your own conclusion as to whether Fox News made this guy do it or not:
    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/22/mosque_arsonist_fox_news_made_me_do_it/

    Comment by Kumara Republic — April 14, 2015 @ 9:40 pm

  63. Maybe the government is trying to dumb down the nation in not having a balanced media. Watching 7 sharp at times is about as thought provoking as watching Shortland Street. Isn’t New Zealand about choice? Left or right wing or somewhere in between something stinks here.

    Comment by peter — April 14, 2015 @ 10:58 pm

  64. ” If there were a dozen Campbell Live type shows, losing one wouldn’t matter. But when there’s hardly any vaguely serious original journalism around, losing one matters an awful lot.”

    exactly – forget left vs right and start thinking the powerful vs all of us

    Comment by framu — April 15, 2015 @ 1:02 pm

  65. So I watched “7 Sharp” last night, for the first time ever. Or rather the last 4 minutes or so. I was just in time to see that right-wing nut-job… tell corporates off for mistreating the workers through the use of zero-hour contracts.
    It was quite a rant. No doubt he was instructed to do this by the PM’s office, so he could build some street creed?

    Before I had switched channels, over on Campbell I was treated to a story of an Auckland man who couldn’t find a house in his price range. The staff of Clive found him four houses/units to consider. I guess he didn’t have access to the internet or something. So not sure what the point of the story was, except perhaps: buyers should consider compromising? “Tell him he’s dreaming” came to mind. The guy wanted 4 bedrooms for $450k.

    “But when there’s hardly any VAGUELY SERIOUS ORIGINAL journalism around” methinks the horse has long bolted…

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 15, 2015 @ 1:42 pm

  66. If there were a dozen Campbell Live type shows, losing one wouldn’t matter. But when there’s hardly any vaguely serious original journalism around, losing one matters an awful lot.

    List unashamedly stolen from DPF:

    Q+A
    The Nation
    Native Affairs
    Sunday
    360
    3rd Degree
    60 Minutes
    20/20
    Attitude
    Marae
    Rural Delivery
    Tagata Pasifika
    Te Karere
    Media Take
    Backbenches
    Inside NZ
    Mataora
    Te Kaea
    Te Tepu
    Focus

    Comment by Phil — April 15, 2015 @ 5:52 pm

  67. Phil: Most of those aren’t in prime-time.

    Comment by Kumara Republic — April 15, 2015 @ 6:40 pm

  68. … because …

    Comment by Lee Clark — April 16, 2015 @ 7:29 am

  69. clunking fist – so you found one semi decent story on seven sharp and one fluff story on campbell live – and ignored everything else, including any concept of you know – those commercial realities and how they affect story choices. Brilliant analysis

    Comment by framu — April 16, 2015 @ 8:00 am

  70. The closing of kiwi fm by mediaworkkks. Isn’t that the station that played “F**k John Key” during the election, on Charlotte Ryan’s show?
    Just asking… personally. this is to my mind, a far greater loss to New Zealand’s culture than Campbell live.

    Comment by Lee Clark — April 17, 2015 @ 7:09 am

  71. The (potential) closing down of Campbell Live makes me think of a supermarket closing the last corner of it’s fresh produce section to cram in more junk food. At some point consumers are going to notice that there is crap everywhere and turn off the station all together!

    Comment by Backseat Buddhist — April 21, 2015 @ 12:07 pm

  72. BB, most people noticed long ago. It’s why they read blogs and watch netflix.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 21, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

  73. CF, agreed, but there is nothing on the web that has the resources or the potential impact of a properly-funded team of investigative journalists. And they are fast disappearing, thanks to those shareholder demands that JK sniggeringly mentioned.

    Comment by Backseat Buddhist — April 21, 2015 @ 1:27 pm

  74. BB & CF: the underlying problem can be summed up in one short sentence: “the best free speech money can buy”.

    It’s one thing to start a blog, it’s quite another thing to make it have mass influence. And not everyone has the sort of attention spans we do, so for them TV is still the main source of news & info.

    Comment by Kumara Republic — April 21, 2015 @ 7:05 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: