How Labour can streamline broadcasting

Barrie Saunders was a government relations consultant (Saunders Unsworth) and for six years was a director of TVNZ

Barrie Saunders on how to refine the broadcasting media we already have.

0:00 0:10

The coalition government will spend $38 million more on “public service” audio-visual content and create yet another state agency, the Public Digital Media Funding Commission, which among other activities will support Radio NZ (RNZ+) producing video and maybe a whole channel.

Taxpayer support for radio and television is standard practice in most western countries, and for a small country ensures its citizens are not swamped by other cultures. However, the formula proposed is unduly complex.

We already have the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to advise on policy and total funding, NZ on Air to fund audio and video, the transmission SOE Kordia, RNZ and TVNZ, as well as Te Mangai Paho and Maori TV.  We don’t need another government-appointed “independent” media agency that produces no content.

The future will see more audio and video content distributed via the internet. But free-to-air television companies, such as TVNZ and Mediaworks, will see declining advertising revenues, as the digital giants Google, Facebook, etc, draw off the lion's share of digital advertising, without providing any New Zealand content. Subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime will capture more viewers, thereby further undermining the free-to-air channels.

NZ on Air recognises this reality and is funding a wider range of platforms outside mainstream TV channels. It says it is following the eyeballs but in the process is also helping to fragment distribution of video content.

If the state is to continue funding non-commercially viable video content, it also needs to ensure that is readily accessible to Kiwis, without searching around the web. This requires a single platform, where viewers can easily see what programmes are on offer, whether broadcast or on demand via the internet, and then watch them.

Overlooked platform
That platform is the underpowered Freeview, often overlooked by many commentators and decision makers, who use Sky. Freeview needs to leapfrog Sky by providing a seamless broadcast/internet electronic programme guide and service. Freeview should also be able to host other New Zealand-based subscription video producers, to provide competition for Sky, Netflix, etc.

Telstra is doing this in Australia with its new Roku-based box, which will host all free-to-air channels so viewers won’t need to switch between broadcast channels and internet sourced content.

Freeview is owned by the TV channels and RNZ. The minister should engage with its shareholders to ensure the Freeview+ platform delivers for all Kiwis, particularly those who cannot afford Sky.

The expansion of RNZ into video is a bold move being done on a half-hearted basis. If Labour really wants a public service non-advertising video channel, it should say so and allocate something in well excess of $100 million annually, plus heavy initial startup and capex costs. It would logically then sell TVNZ, which is falling in value.

A better option is to refine what we already have, using the increased funding.

Clunky process
NZ on Air does a good job allocating funds on a contestable basis to a wide variety of video content producers. However, the process is clunky and transaction costs high, as programme-makers also have to negotiate with the likes of TVNZ, MediaWorks and others for distribution. It is inevitably a monopoly, which creates tensions with applicants because they have no real choice.

While it not perfect, I suggest a simple amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989, which provided for TVNZ to be funded directly, as with RNZ. The critical difference from the RNZ model would be that TVNZ would have to allocate all such funds to independent programme-makers. This proposal would provide another option for video content producers, from the contestable NZ on Air system, which would then exclude TVNZ as an outlet.

The government should abandon the notion that programmes produced by non-commercial broadcasters are always superior to those from commercial media. It is untrue and insults the professionalism of journalists working in commercial media, including newspapers. TVNZ’s Country Calendar is a first-rate programme, and there are others such as Fair Go and Sunday, which stack up well against Australia’s ABC. I have yet to see any liberal claim the New York Times is no good because of its reliance on advertising.       

Having strong viable media outlets is a vital component of a successful democracy. Print media are struggling because of the advertising revenue decline, as the Commerce Commission well knows. It would be a tragedy if the government delivers less real media choice to Kiwis, because of a preoccupation with non-commercial radio and television, and not the best interests of all New Zealanders.

Barrie Saunders is a former journalist with public broadcasting experience in New Zealand, Australia and the UK

All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.

3 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

3 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

The problem is that successive governments have failed to give our broadcast organisations the freedom to develop as their professional broadcasters know could be done; and as the public would like to see funded. While the public is (understandably) deeply suspicious of what politicians are really up to in intervening in media funding, it could be achieved over time. Government involvement should be about enabling the broadcasters, it is usually about control. We are told that this action or that action will produce new content services - allegedly what the audiences want (but how would any government know?). Politicians are interested in power, and fear the power of independent media. Every broadcasting restructuring has had to be negotiated at a political level, leading to compromises and lost opportunities. At any time the publicly owned broadcasters looked profitable they have been strip-mined by governments for dividends (television), screwed down on funding (radio, NZ on Air, etc), and asset sales (radio, television) forced on them by a doctrinaire Treasury which thinks all media are just businesses, and that the public should not own businesses. Given the vast opportunities offered by modern technology, publicly owned media should have as a right the freedom to do what they want to do, how they want to do it, and independently. Direct interaction between media and media user (public) is all that is now needed - not government intervention.The professionalism of public media sets standards for all media, including print and online. Barrie's suggestions are a good, if limited, start on the detail. The government has to step back from the detail - once again, alas, the opposite is happening.

  • 0
  • 0

I think Barry does have a point about the proliferation of public broadcasting entities. It would be good if NZonAir could fulfill its intended role as the public broadcaster with all that entails. (If a programme can run in prime time on a commercial channel, why is NZonAir funding it?) Why not merge it with Freeview and at the same time elevate NZonScreen to become a Netflix-like platform for NZ content.

  • 0
  • 0

One very important point that isn't being covered here is the marked deterioration in speech standards now exhibited by Radio New Zealand.

There's no reason why commentators and programme hosts expected to at least speak basic English well - and to refrain from cheap, suggestive or snide comments, should be so cringe-making to listen to.

The only regular commentators who speak well now are those who read the news! Good for them. Why can't others be expected to show the same competence? Former broadcaster Lindsay Perigo's commenting about the women quacking (a common speech fault of those who don't bother to form their vowel sounds properly, but speak with their mouth in a kind of rictus) is right on...

I don't bother engaging with what should be our flagship National Radio because the poor speech is offensive. Not only that, as on the afternoon's panel discussions, where the host drops his voice so that he mumbles away inaudibly, and the women gabble so fast that they are a pain to try to listen to, the first requirement of having clear, well spoken commentators is simply ignored.

The blame should be laid at the foot of management ,as this slovenly speech goes out from this country to represent us as a people. But then I guess what's just what most New Zealanders are reduced to - now that the Ministry of Education took care to remove from schools the programmes to teach children to speak English well.

There is a disproportionate fuss about "the correct pronunciation" of a now 90% reinvented and almost totally spurious Maori language - which bears almost no relation at all to genuine Maori.

It's far more important to teach all New Zealanders English - the most important international language of all - and to teach them so that they are not put to shame by the far better pronunciation of those who come to this country as Germans, Danish, Swedes, etc who have learned it as a second or third language - but sound much less uncouth than Radio New Zealand's employees and New Zealanders as a whole.

Go figure.

  • 1
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.