XPost: nz.politics

https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/03/reality-is-going-to-smack-tova-and-her-ilk-in-the-face/
Yes it could be exactly what happened. Newshub followed the bribe and ignored journalistic ethics and are now paying for it. Trouble is we might be paying for it also in a way.
They were not alone of course. That is exactly what the last government wanted - a tame paid for media, and they got it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 20:23:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/03/reality-is-going-to-smack-tova-and-her-ilk-in-the-face/
Yes it could be exactly what happened. Newshub followed the bribe and ignored >>journalistic ethics and are now paying for it. Trouble is we might be paying >>for it also in a way.
They were not alone of course. That is exactly what the last government >>wanted
- a tame paid for media, and they got it.

I tried to find out what percentage of Newshub's (and other PIJF
recipients) income came from the PIJF. I have seen claims that this
is insignificant (but with no cited facts). There is also no
compelling fact-based research that connects editorial decisions to
business operation (that deal with income and expenses) that I have
seen. If anyone can cite otherwise I would be most interested. Until
then there is no factual basis to support the notion that the PIJF
allowed an otherwise insolvent business to survive. There is also no >compelling evidence that accepting PIJF funds influenced editorial
decisions. The inference that editorial content must have been swayed
by the PIJF purely on the basis of perception of editorial content
favourable to the Government is not good enough. That is all the
cited article provides.

I agree that the article provides no proof. I also believe that the PIJF was flawed and deliberately put in place to influence editorial decisions. No proof, sure, reasonable opinion? I believe so.

Newshub is a business failure and as such there should be no
Government intervention. The same applies to all news reporting
businesses. If your business model no longer works then adapt or die
applies in all circumstances for privately-owned businesses.

Agreed.

--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 20:23:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/03/reality-is-going-to-smack-tova-and-her-ilk-in-the-face/
Yes it could be exactly what happened. Newshub followed the bribe and ignored >journalistic ethics and are now paying for it. Trouble is we might be paying >for it also in a way.
They were not alone of course. That is exactly what the last government wanted >- a tame paid for media, and they got it.

I tried to find out what percentage of Newshub's (and other PIJF
recipients) income came from the PIJF. I have seen claims that this
is insignificant (but with no cited facts). There is also no
compelling fact-based research that connects editorial decisions to
business operation (that deal with income and expenses) that I have
seen. If anyone can cite otherwise I would be most interested. Until
then there is no factual basis to support the notion that the PIJF
allowed an otherwise insolvent business to survive. There is also no compelling evidence that accepting PIJF funds influenced editorial
decisions. The inference that editorial content must have been swayed
by the PIJF purely on the basis of perception of editorial content
favourable to the Government is not good enough. That is all the
cited article provides.

Newshub is a business failure and as such there should be no
Government intervention. The same applies to all news reporting
businesses. If your business model no longer works then adapt or die
applies in all circumstances for privately-owned businesses.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)