According to the NZ Herald report, TVNZ is going to target the investigative journalists in their plan to cut spending.
It's a typical example of the failure of commercial media model. Investigative journalism is the most important part of media organisations which enable them to fulfill their role as one of the society's integral pillars. There are many other things that are far less important than investigative journalism! What's the raison d'etre of the media? To critique and restrain power.
Commercial media model in which media organisation's primary purpose is profit maximisation is fundamentally flawed. Investigative journalism is expensive and may not have the highest rating, but has an intrinsic value in it that can't be taken into account in the capitalist market. That is why we need a non-commercial public broadcaster!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
it is absolutely shocking that NZ doesnt have a public broadcast, is it not one of our legal entitlements as a nation?
There are so many true and excellent voices to be heard..
True there Chelsea. True there (in the context of an independent broadcasting agency like the BBC). Keep writing A!
Thanks guys for your input!
chelsea- that's a cool, neat idea; a public service broadcaster as a legal entitlement of a nation :) oh how much I wish if it were! I've never thought that way before, but it's so true, what's the use of a nation if it doesn't serve the public?
scot- Yes that's exactly what I mean, New Zealand is probably the only country (at least in the West) without an equivalent of BBC. Keep commenting!
Isn't the purpose of a welfare state to provide as many pro-equality things that a modern Marxist state would provide as possible, while upholding that modern marvel of anti-equality we call capitalism? Then TVNZ is the attempt of a self-proclaimed welfare state to provide public broadcasting that is commercially viable in the capitalist state. It's a cash cow - Labour's attempt to persuade National not to sell TVNZ when they next come into power.
Of course, there is a danger to say that public broadcasting is alive and healthy in other democratic states. The indepedent PBS and NPR in America can't produce anything if they can't get a company to sponsor the programme, since state governments have other things to spend their money on, and they receive even less from the federal government than from most state governments. In Australia ABC is struggling to survive as their funding is constantly undercut by a government trying to retain low taxes demanded by voters in the democratic system. Questions are even being raised about the leaders of public broadcasting - BBC and CBC - who are becomingly increasingly commercial. For the best of the BBC you will probably find yourself subscribing to Murdoch's bSkyb satellite television empire.
Of course, that isn't any excuse for the Labour government not to convert TV One into a public service broadcaster that is accountable to very specific objectives. Because any broadcaster can "inform, educate and entertain" without meeting Reith's original meaning of that famous phrase.
Great comment theloverock.
"Then TVNZ is the attempt of a self-proclaimed welfare state to provide public broadcasting that is commercially viable in the capitalist state." Yeah it's so true, though it's an attempt worth pursuing but ultimately doomed to fail. Other Anglophone countries are also struggling to uphold the ideals of public speaking resisting the tidal wave of radical capitalism worldwide, especially in the English-speaking one. Though as a person I admire Helen Clark, her government is not really a great model of welfare state. She is struggling to escape from the spectre of Reagan/Thatcher without much success...
There is only one party who's advocating for decommercialisation of TVNZ. Though you might not support that party you can consider that aspect...
oh and theloverock you might be interested in the discussion we are having at my newer post, Concentration of Media Ownership and the Public Sphere
Post a Comment