Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
https://tinyurl.com/4ewxfhwz
Most notably:
[However, overriding this in NZME’s funding agreements - a clause >specifically requested by the company - is an acknowledgement of the
absolute editorial independence of the media entity: “We acknowledge
the importance of your editorial discretion as a media entity and
confirm nothing in this Agreement will limit or in any way impede or >influence the ability of your news reporting functions to report and
comment on news stories and current events, including those involving
us, as you see fit.“]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said >>is
true. The media were bribed. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
https://tinyurl.com/4ewxfhwz
Most notably:
[However, overriding this in NZME’s funding agreements - a clause >specifically requested by the company - is an acknowledgement of the
absolute editorial independence of the media entity: “We acknowledge
the importance of your editorial discretion as a media entity and
confirm nothing in this Agreement will limit or in any way impede or >influence the ability of your news reporting functions to report and
comment on news stories and current events, including those involving
us, as you see fit.“]
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyFair enough but then - https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/30/winston-is-right-on-the-money/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said >>>is
true. The media were bribed. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
https://tinyurl.com/4ewxfhwz
Most notably:
[However, overriding this in NZME’s funding agreements - a clause >>specifically requested by the company - is an acknowledgement of the >>absolute editorial independence of the media entity: “We acknowledge
the importance of your editorial discretion as a media entity and
confirm nothing in this Agreement will limit or in any way impede or >>influence the ability of your news reporting functions to report and >>comment on news stories and current events, including those involving
us, as you see fit.“]
An important part of that link is -
"However, Winston Peters is quite right. To get the money to keep their papers
and magazines going, the owners and editors had to agree to the PIJF Guidelines
which included a Treaty related clause which is set out above. That clause contains as least two errors – there were no principles or reference to partnership in the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "
Which refers to - 'Â…with the the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) which
had to —“…actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and
Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner.”'
And
'Great irony', media almost proving Peters' point, Seymour says ACT leader David Seymour was on Breakfast on Thursday, and was asked what he made of the comments about the media being made by NZ First leader Winston Peters. Seymour
said the great irony was that the media was almost proving Peters' point by focusing more on his comments than on the Government's policy initiatives. He referred to the RBNZ's decision on Wednesday to keep the OCR at 5.5%. RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr was "still worried about inflation", at the same time as inflation was dropping faster in Australia and the US. "What this Government is
doing is reforming the Reserve Bank Act, stopping a huge amount of wasteful spending dead straight away, to try get living costs under control. "And I think the best way for the media to prove itself to New Zealanders and earn their trust, is actually to focus on the issues," Seymour said. There was a lot
of concern up and down the country about trust in media. "I suspect that public interest journalism fund has become a lightning rod for a wider issue, "Seymour said. Peters' comments were a "sideshow to the economic challenges that this country faces. "But it's not quite true to say nobody's asked about it. People have been asking about this, particularly for the last three years."
Which comes from here - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301017736/live-kiri-allan-on-why-she-pleaded-not-guilty
(scroll down a way).
To call the PIJF a bribe is not in tyhe least far fetched.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
On 2023-11-30, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:If we get back to basic principles, why would the Governemt give money to
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyFair enough but then -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters >>>>said
is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>>>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
https://tinyurl.com/4ewxfhwz
Most notably:
[However, overriding this in NZME’s funding agreements - a clause >>>specifically requested by the company - is an acknowledgement of the >>>absolute editorial independence of the media entity: “We acknowledge
the importance of your editorial discretion as a media entity and
confirm nothing in this Agreement will limit or in any way impede or >>>influence the ability of your news reporting functions to report and >>>comment on news stories and current events, including those involving
us, as you see fit.“]
https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/30/winston-is-right-on-the-money/
An important part of that link is -
"However, Winston Peters is quite right. To get the money to keep their >>papers
and magazines going, the owners and editors had to agree to the PIJF >>Guidelines
which included a Treaty related clause which is set out above. That clause >> contains as least two errors – there were no principles or reference to
partnership in the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "
Which refers to - 'Â…with the the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) >>which
had to —“…actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation >>and
Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te >>Tiriti
partner.”'
And
'Great irony', media almost proving Peters' point, Seymour says ACT leader >> David Seymour was on Breakfast on Thursday, and was asked what he made of >>the
comments about the media being made by NZ First leader Winston Peters. >>Seymour
said the great irony was that the media was almost proving Peters' point by >> focusing more on his comments than on the Government's policy initiatives. >>He
referred to the RBNZ's decision on Wednesday to keep the OCR at 5.5%. RBNZ >> Governor Adrian Orr was "still worried about inflation", at the same time as >> inflation was dropping faster in Australia and the US. "What this Government >>is
doing is reforming the Reserve Bank Act, stopping a huge amount of wasteful >> spending dead straight away, to try get living costs under control. "And I >> think the best way for the media to prove itself to New Zealanders and earn >> their trust, is actually to focus on the issues," Seymour said. There was a >>lot
of concern up and down the country about trust in media. "I suspect that
public interest journalism fund has become a lightning rod for a wider >>issue,
"Seymour said. Peters' comments were a "sideshow to the economic challenges >> that this country faces. "But it's not quite true to say nobody's asked >>about
it. People have been asking about this, particularly for the last three >>years."
Which comes from here -
(scroll down a way).https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301017736/live-kiri-allan-on-why-she-pleaded-not-guilty
To call the PIJF a bribe is not in tyhe least far fetched.
the media and expect nothing in return. If you give money to someone there
is a expectation of a return for the money. (for this is the power of money) Absolutely, and to deny it is unsustainable.
The duck anology applies here folks. Or the spade being called a spade.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
It was a bribe.
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-11-30, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:If we get back to basic principles, why would the Governemt give money to >>the media and expect nothing in return. If you give money to someone there >>is a expectation of a return for the money. (for this is the power of money) >Absolutely, and to deny it is unsustainable
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Fair enough but then -
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters >>>>>said
is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>conditions):
https://tinyurl.com/4ewxfhwz
Most notably:
[However, overriding this in NZME’s funding agreements - a clause >>>>specifically requested by the company - is an acknowledgement of the >>>>absolute editorial independence of the media entity: “We acknowledge >>>>the importance of your editorial discretion as a media entity and >>>>confirm nothing in this Agreement will limit or in any way impede or >>>>influence the ability of your news reporting functions to report and >>>>comment on news stories and current events, including those involving >>>>us, as you see fit.“]
https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/30/winston-is-right-on-the-money/
An important part of that link is -
"However, Winston Peters is quite right. To get the money to keep their >>>papers
and magazines going, the owners and editors had to agree to the PIJF >>>Guidelines
which included a Treaty related clause which is set out above. That clause >>> contains as least two errors – there were no principles or reference to >>> partnership in the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "
Which refers to - 'Â…with the the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) >>>which
had to —“…actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation >>>and
Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te >>>Tiriti
partner.”'
And
'Great irony', media almost proving Peters' point, Seymour says ACT leader >>> David Seymour was on Breakfast on Thursday, and was asked what he made of >>>the
comments about the media being made by NZ First leader Winston Peters. >>>Seymour
said the great irony was that the media was almost proving Peters' point by >>> focusing more on his comments than on the Government's policy initiatives. >>>He
referred to the RBNZ's decision on Wednesday to keep the OCR at 5.5%. RBNZ >>> Governor Adrian Orr was "still worried about inflation", at the same time as
inflation was dropping faster in Australia and the US. "What this Government
is
doing is reforming the Reserve Bank Act, stopping a huge amount of wasteful >>> spending dead straight away, to try get living costs under control. "And I >>> think the best way for the media to prove itself to New Zealanders and earn >>> their trust, is actually to focus on the issues," Seymour said. There was a >>>lot
of concern up and down the country about trust in media. "I suspect that >>> public interest journalism fund has become a lightning rod for a wider >>>issue,
"Seymour said. Peters' comments were a "sideshow to the economic challenges >>> that this country faces. "But it's not quite true to say nobody's asked >>>about
it. People have been asking about this, particularly for the last three >>>years."
Which comes from here -
(scroll down a way).https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301017736/live-kiri-allan-on-why-she-pleaded-not-guilty
To call the PIJF a bribe is not in tyhe least far fetched.
The duck anology applies here folks. Or the spade being called a spade.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
It was a bribe.Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that
their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from
PIJF conditions?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:30:22 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
Oh Crash, do tell us how our mainstream media is behaving anyYou are making the accusation of bribery - you prove it rather than
differently from if they'd been bought & paid for by Labour.
rely on insinuation.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
It was a bribe.Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that
their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from
PIJF conditions?
Oh Crash, do tell us how our mainstream media is behaving any
differently from if they'd been bought & paid for by Labour.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:To suggest that Crash sounds like Rich is a joke, I am sure you have an excellent sense of humour and therefore I assume your post is a result of that. There is no better balanced poster here than Crash.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:30:22 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
Oh Crash, do tell us how our mainstream media is behaving anyYou are making the accusation of bribery - you prove it rather than
differently from if they'd been bought & paid for by Labour.
rely on insinuation.
Nope, I asked a test question which you are refusing to answer. You
are actually sounding like Rich now.
wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:To suggest that Crash sounds like Rich is a joke, I am sure you have an >excellent sense of humour and therefore I assume your post is a result of that.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 08:30:22 GMT, wn@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
Oh Crash, do tell us how our mainstream media is behaving any >>>>differently from if they'd been bought & paid for by Labour.You are making the accusation of bribery - you prove it rather than
rely on insinuation.
Nope, I asked a test question which you are refusing to answer. You
are actually sounding like Rich now.
There is no better balanced poster here than Crash.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content >>>>should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and
conditions):
It was a bribe.
their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from
PIJF conditions?
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent
molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//------------------------------------------- >Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for
applications be assessed.
Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Maori as a Te Tiriti partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo
Maori.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:18:39 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>conditions):
It was a bribe.
their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from
PIJF conditions?
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent >>molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------
Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for applications to
be assessed.
Commitment to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and to
Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo
Maori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism,
resulting in stronger Maori representation and greater bi-cultural collaboration within the wider journalism sector. In response to
requests for more information, NZ On Air has commissioned research
that provides a resource for those wanting to develop their own Te
Tiriti strategy in ways that suit their contexts. Expert group Kupu
Taea have developed a framework of questions applicants may use to
help focus a Te Tiriti response. The framework can be accessed here.
The full report can be found here. The Framework is offered
for guidance but is not prescriptive and applicants are free to
articulate their own Te Tiriti response in their applications.
More guidance on this is provided in our Q & A document.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------
How is any of this in the "public interest"?
It is NZ on air that decides who gets the money. People like Andrew
Shaw get do decide what is in the "public interest".
If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting.
Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that
calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would
be to make a case for their own demise.
On 2023-12-01, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:18:39 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>On past issues he has often been right. It is the delivery which leaves a >great deal of improvement.
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters said is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions.
This is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>>conditions):
It was a bribe.
their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from >>>PIJF conditions?
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent >>>molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------Back in the day when there where Public Broadcasters there was a great deal >higher level of hourablity. The Public side did not have to attack the >Government as there was the main stream media doing this. Public Broacasting >was about fill in the gaps, subjects that would ortherwise not get air time.
Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for applications to
be assessed.
Commitment to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and to
Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo
Maori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism,
resulting in stronger Maori representation and greater bi-cultural
collaboration within the wider journalism sector. In response to
requests for more information, NZ On Air has commissioned research
that provides a resource for those wanting to develop their own Te
Tiriti strategy in ways that suit their contexts. Expert group Kupu
Taea have developed a framework of questions applicants may use to
help focus a Te Tiriti response. The framework can be accessed here.
The full report can be found here. The Framework is offered
for guidance but is not prescriptive and applicants are free to
articulate their own Te Tiriti response in their applications.
More guidance on this is provided in our Q & A document.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------
How is any of this in the "public interest"?
It is NZ on air that decides who gets the money. People like Andrew
Shaw get do decide what is in the "public interest".
If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting.
Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that
calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would
be to make a case for their own demise.
Things have changed since the 60's. We are now in the era of attacking the >person, often before they can be heard. The other side is the enemy.
On 1 Dec 2023 22:38:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is just political rhetoric and a very accomplished way of totally ignoring the topic and Gordon's very appropriate post.
On 2023-12-01, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:18:39 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>On past issues he has often been right. It is the delivery which leaves a >>great deal of improvement.
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that >>>>their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from >>>>PIJF conditions?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters >>>>>>>said isThis is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>>>conditions):
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the >>>>>>>content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions. >>>>>>
It was a bribe.
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent >>>>molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------Back in the day when there where Public Broadcasters there was a great deal >>higher level of hourablity. The Public side did not have to attack the >>Government as there was the main stream media doing this. Public Broacasting >>was about fill in the gaps, subjects that would ortherwise not get air time. >>
Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for applications to
be assessed.
Commitment to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and to
Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo
Maori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism,
resulting in stronger Maori representation and greater bi-cultural
collaboration within the wider journalism sector. In response to
requests for more information, NZ On Air has commissioned research
that provides a resource for those wanting to develop their own Te
Tiriti strategy in ways that suit their contexts. Expert group Kupu
Taea have developed a framework of questions applicants may use to
help focus a Te Tiriti response. The framework can be accessed here.
The full report can be found here. The Framework is offered
for guidance but is not prescriptive and applicants are free to
articulate their own Te Tiriti response in their applications.
More guidance on this is provided in our Q & A document.
--------------------------//-------------------------------------------
How is any of this in the "public interest"?
It is NZ on air that decides who gets the money. People like Andrew
Shaw get do decide what is in the "public interest".
If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting.
Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that
calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would
be to make a case for their own demise.
Things have changed since the 60's. We are now in the era of attacking the >>person, often before they can be heard. The other side is the enemy.
Both public and private news media has changed over the last 50 to
100 years. Local newspapers have largely been combined into a small
number of large companies; Radio and Television are now linked through
the internet; we have separate organisations still in the public
sector (RNZ does video through the internet, but is not the public TV >channel), and private news media and broadcasting is through a small
number of large companies, linked to newspapers which are disappearing
as separate entities as paper is used less.
The political power of controlling news media is considerable; the
Murdoch empire also operates internationally.
Through all those changes, the adage ''follow the money'' remains
relevant. During Covid, advertising dropped, and media (radio, TV,
Internet and newspapers) found it difficult to fund news reporters.
Hence the PIJF, which was put together while Winston Peters was Deputy
Prime Minister. I recall in particular it enabled reporting to resume
on local authority issues, which has proved beneficial - previously
many people would not have been able to name Councillors or know what
issues Councils were addressing. The criteria for grants was set by
NZ on Air, not by government, and nobody has demonstrated that the >requirements regarding the Treaty given above prevented any
applications being granted.
Then there are the aspirations of the media itself, and in particular >television. Ideally they want incumbents to lose at every election,
ideally after a close race; that keeps people glued to the telly. A
bit of manipulation of commentary over polling results (leaving out
undecided is often good unless you need them to show a different >possibilities. Interviews can be easy or hard depending on the result
- the aim always being to feature the interviewer as hard but possibly
fair. This year we had a few that excelled themselves by being quite >obnoxious and up themselves, but now the election is over they can be
nasty to the new government by sneakily quoting them accurately.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2023 22:38:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is just political rhetoric and a very accomplished way of totally ignoring
On 2023-12-01, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:18:39 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>On past issues he has often been right. It is the delivery which leaves a >>>great deal of improvement.
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that >>>>>their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from >>>>>PIJF conditions?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what Peters >>>>>>>>said isThis is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>>>>conditions):
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the >>>>>>>>content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions. >>>>>>>
It was a bribe.
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent >>>>>molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//------------------------------------------- >>>>Back in the day when there where Public Broadcasters there was a great deal >>>higher level of hourablity. The Public side did not have to attack the >>>Government as there was the main stream media doing this. Public Broacasting >>>was about fill in the gaps, subjects that would ortherwise not get air time. >>>
Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for applications to >>>> be assessed.
Commitment to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and to
Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo
Maori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism,
resulting in stronger Maori representation and greater bi-cultural
collaboration within the wider journalism sector. In response to
requests for more information, NZ On Air has commissioned research
that provides a resource for those wanting to develop their own Te
Tiriti strategy in ways that suit their contexts. Expert group Kupu
Taea have developed a framework of questions applicants may use to
help focus a Te Tiriti response. The framework can be accessed here.
The full report can be found here. The Framework is offered
for guidance but is not prescriptive and applicants are free to
articulate their own Te Tiriti response in their applications.
More guidance on this is provided in our Q & A document.
--------------------------//------------------------------------------- >>>>
How is any of this in the "public interest"?
It is NZ on air that decides who gets the money. People like Andrew
Shaw get do decide what is in the "public interest".
If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting.
Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that
calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would >>>> be to make a case for their own demise.
Things have changed since the 60's. We are now in the era of attacking the >>>person, often before they can be heard. The other side is the enemy.
Both public and private news media has changed over the last 50 to
100 years. Local newspapers have largely been combined into a small
number of large companies; Radio and Television are now linked through
the internet; we have separate organisations still in the public
sector (RNZ does video through the internet, but is not the public TV >>channel), and private news media and broadcasting is through a small
number of large companies, linked to newspapers which are disappearing
as separate entities as paper is used less.
The political power of controlling news media is considerable; the
Murdoch empire also operates internationally.
Through all those changes, the adage ''follow the money'' remains
relevant. During Covid, advertising dropped, and media (radio, TV,
Internet and newspapers) found it difficult to fund news reporters.
Hence the PIJF, which was put together while Winston Peters was Deputy >>Prime Minister. I recall in particular it enabled reporting to resume
on local authority issues, which has proved beneficial - previously
many people would not have been able to name Councillors or know what >>issues Councils were addressing. The criteria for grants was set by
NZ on Air, not by government, and nobody has demonstrated that the >>requirements regarding the Treaty given above prevented any
applications being granted.
Then there are the aspirations of the media itself, and in particular >>television. Ideally they want incumbents to lose at every election,
ideally after a close race; that keeps people glued to the telly. A
bit of manipulation of commentary over polling results (leaving out >>undecided is often good unless you need them to show a different >>possibilities. Interviews can be easy or hard depending on the result
- the aim always being to feature the interviewer as hard but possibly >>fair. This year we had a few that excelled themselves by being quite >>obnoxious and up themselves, but now the election is over they can be
nasty to the new government by sneakily quoting them accurately.
the topic and Gordon's very appropriate post.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 19:44:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyCompletely irrelevant.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2023 22:38:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is just political rhetoric and a very accomplished way of totally >>ignoring
On 2023-12-01, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:18:39 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:On past issues he has often been right. It is the delivery which leaves a >>>>great deal of improvement.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:56:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:37:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Really? How, given that NZME as cited that PIJF acknowledged that >>>>>>their funding included acknowledgement of editorial independence from >>>>>>PIJF conditions?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 06:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Two articles (second and third in this link) that show that what >>>>>>>>>PetersThis is a rebuttal from the Herald (about the PJIF terms and >>>>>>>>conditions):
said is
true. The media were bribed. >>>>>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/11/29/winnie-on-the-biased-corrupt-legacy-media/
Anybody who believes that the source is a reason to not believe the >>>>>>>>>content
should stay away from open discussion and the exchange of opinions. >>>>>>>>
It was a bribe.
Chris Luxon is afraid of the media, Winston Peters is not.
Bill.
Winston is the past master of mountain-making out of a non-existent >>>>>>molehill.
I'm no pleader for Winston Peters, but on this he is right.
--------------------------//------------------------------------------- >>>>>Back in the day when there where Public Broadcasters there was a great deal >>>>higher level of hourablity. The Public side did not have to attack the >>>>Government as there was the main stream media doing this. Public Broacasting
Guidelines for funding applicants
6. Eligibility to Apply
ALL general eligibility criteria below must be met for applications to >>>>> be assessed.
Commitment to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and to
Maori as a Te Tiriti
partner
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo >>>>> Maori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism,
resulting in stronger Maori representation and greater bi-cultural
collaboration within the wider journalism sector. In response to
requests for more information, NZ On Air has commissioned research
that provides a resource for those wanting to develop their own Te
Tiriti strategy in ways that suit their contexts. Expert group Kupu
Taea have developed a framework of questions applicants may use to
help focus a Te Tiriti response. The framework can be accessed here. >>>>> The full report can be found here. The Framework is offered
for guidance but is not prescriptive and applicants are free to
articulate their own Te Tiriti response in their applications.
More guidance on this is provided in our Q & A document.
--------------------------//------------------------------------------- >>>>>
How is any of this in the "public interest"?
It is NZ on air that decides who gets the money. People like Andrew
Shaw get do decide what is in the "public interest".
If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting. >>>>> Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that >>>>> calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would >>>>> be to make a case for their own demise.
was about fill in the gaps, subjects that would ortherwise not get air time.
Things have changed since the 60's. We are now in the era of attacking the >>>>person, often before they can be heard. The other side is the enemy.
Both public and private news media has changed over the last 50 to
100 years. Local newspapers have largely been combined into a small >>>number of large companies; Radio and Television are now linked through >>>the internet; we have separate organisations still in the public
sector (RNZ does video through the internet, but is not the public TV >>>channel), and private news media and broadcasting is through a small >>>number of large companies, linked to newspapers which are disappearing
as separate entities as paper is used less.
The political power of controlling news media is considerable; the >>>Murdoch empire also operates internationally.
Through all those changes, the adage ''follow the money'' remains >>>relevant. During Covid, advertising dropped, and media (radio, TV, >>>Internet and newspapers) found it difficult to fund news reporters.
Hence the PIJF, which was put together while Winston Peters was Deputy >>>Prime Minister. I recall in particular it enabled reporting to resume
on local authority issues, which has proved beneficial - previously
many people would not have been able to name Councillors or know what >>>issues Councils were addressing. The criteria for grants was set by
NZ on Air, not by government, and nobody has demonstrated that the >>>requirements regarding the Treaty given above prevented any
applications being granted.
Then there are the aspirations of the media itself, and in particular >>>television. Ideally they want incumbents to lose at every election, >>>ideally after a close race; that keeps people glued to the telly. A
bit of manipulation of commentary over polling results (leaving out >>>undecided is often good unless you need them to show a different >>>possibilities. Interviews can be easy or hard depending on the result
- the aim always being to feature the interviewer as hard but possibly >>>fair. This year we had a few that excelled themselves by being quite >>>obnoxious and up themselves, but now the election is over they can be >>>nasty to the new government by sneakily quoting them accurately.
the topic and Gordon's very appropriate post.
I was responding to:
"If it were up to me there would be no government funded broadcasting.
Public broadcasters will always be mouthpieces of the bureaucracy,
because they are the bureaucracy. They will never air an opinion that
calls for a reduction in government spending, because to do that would
be to make a case for their own demise."
By pointing out that whether by publicly funded media or by private
media, it is important that our media, overall, inform our population
of what is happening in our own country. Commercial media had cut back
on keeping us informed on local government for example, and rather
than commission government owned media to take that over, government
made available funds to ensure it was done by whoever put forward an >application. Through media aggregation and concentration on total
profits, privately owned media had let that area wither away; but the
grants also covered specific areas of human endeavour and concerns at
a national level - again because otherwise they were not being
covered. Government itself ensured that decisions as to allocation of
the funds were not made by politicians.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:59:59 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,234 |