Nat Radio/Nat Parks/Nat Party

Find figure 6 on page 25 for effective marginal rates.  It's messy.

60% EMTR is not the same as 60% abatement rate.

no wonder young people do not care
3 minutes on one story? that's a waste of a life dude.

National sucks, a party of the rich for the rich
repeat liars, thieves and cheats spreading misinformation on both how this country built it's wealth and how (or more specifically where) it should go.

Strangely the same can be said for the Opposition thereby defeating the concept of Democracy we supposedly have. The far-right won lads, and we let them. Only revolution can save us now.

Either way if you get asked to do more work and you only get 40 cents in the dollar back, it's not worth it.  edward l2010-03-02 13:34:37

The hole of earning $70,000 per year? Arf!

Getting 60 cents per $1 is completely different to getting less money that Michael was claiming. 2ndBest2010-03-02 11:26:03

I don't listen to much radio nowadays, but if I did have an occasion to (e.g. long road trips - thankfully not many of them these days) I'd listen to Nat Radio first and then Concert Prog if something on it took my fancy (e.g. Kronos Quartet a few months back playing their Floodplain album). Junior822010-03-02 12:37:13

Then I'd come up to 'you' (that's right you the poor chap paying for all the government expenditure out of your own pocket!) and say how about sharing the cost over say 3-4millon of your buddies and it works out about $10 each for a year. Less than a kg block of cheese.

That's a good deal for a station that reports unrelentingly on all aspects of New Zealand, with a signal that gets to most parts of the country, live web broadcasting and archives to keep those overseas in touch with our country, as well as providing an outlet for New Zealand music, history, culture and other things that are poorly served by penny pinchers trying to increase shareholder value.

Capping funding is a decrease in real funding, for an award-winning station that has already been confirmed by independent audit to be providing a stellar service that is already underfunded by $10 million.

Starve a dog and then blame him for being hungry. Then claim when someone does feed him that it's a wasteful increase in food.

I think it's a bit rich to say you can't look at RNZ because it's lovely or whatever.  When the government is losing $250 million  a week, everything is subject to scrutiny.  As I said, "sacred cow or just a cow?"

edward l2010-03-02 16:08:24

A good start.  Should probably make the test slightly more difficult so as to stop more and more incompetent knobs getting behind the wheel, legally at least.

EDIT: Just heard the restricted test will be toughened.  Good move.
loyalgunner2010-03-02 17:18:31

If we are losing $250 million a week how does $38 million a year make a substantial difference to that? Where's your cost benefit equation there? What's the eagerness to do away with quality public journalism and frankly a broadcaster that is important to a lot of people?

It's a bit like that 'lovely' local representation in Auckland. The say locals there have enjoyed about what goes on their waterfront, their transport and all those other issues that affect them on a daily basis.

I mean it's a lot easier and cheaper just to have one chap and a few of his mates making decision without all this public input.

What you are saying is that you don't believe that the government should support a national broadcaster, and that land that is held in trust by us for future generations as it was held in trust for us by past generations, should be mined.

That represents a major lurch to the right in New Zealand politics.

So I say again

public radio is important in a democracy

Its not the driving test that needs to be toughened. An intelligence test just needs to me introduced. (Un-do-able but true)Michael2010-03-02 17:40:47

Raising the age to 16 is good, but not enough.

Zero Tolerance for alcohol for learner,restricted drivers and for those under 18.

International Driving Licenses need to be scrapped and Full NZ Driving tests compulsory (without the bribing) for all foreign drivers in NZ.

Introduce laws similar to Australia, cars for learner/restricted <18 drivers must be under 2ltr engine capacity, not modified and naturally aspirated.

Compulsory 3rd Party Insurance also - could be used to drop the ACC levies at least, and will encourage people to be responsible on the roads > lower premiums ofset against tickets, infringements, at-fault crashes etc.

I used to listen to a small Wgtn music station who asked every guest wether they were pro-palestine or israel before letting them speak. even tho they were a music station. National Radio simply because it is govt funded is the opposite and pussy foots around many issues so democracy isn't hugely at work

I was waiting for that one, 'it only costs $38 million so why touch it?'.
That's as corrupt as saying it was only a small bribe or a small theft. I've worked for arts& media companies before and to say they can't cut costs like the rest of us is nonsense.
No one is seriously ditching RNZ, but it has fended of scrutiny for so long that we need to take a good look at it.

How can you say it pussy foots around issues when you haven't listened to it.  Credibility=zero.

Can you please expand on that?  Interested to know why.

well you haven't made a case at all why we should.

It has had independent scruntiny, which suggested not only was there no fat to trim, but that it was already doing extremely well with the funding it was getting.

If you were waiting for that one, I'm waiting for you to produce the benefits of cutting the funding. The latest report suggests that we are getting good value for money from it. Why would you think we would get better value from cutting it back? The attack on it is ideological.

RNZ is not an arts and media company. Again you seem to suggest it is just like a better, prettier private business, but in fact its goals and purpose are quite different.

To say it is 'corrupt' reasoning 'like a bribe or theft' only backs up that you are thinking ideologically. Its equally bereft of judgement to cut something for the sake of cutting something when it isn't going to even make a gnat's fart of difference to the debt, and when there may be a loss of quality more significant than the savings gained.

I'm not saying they can't cut costs, but that there has been no case made to reasonably suggest they should.

I'm not sure if Cosimo is verbose enough to follow this up- but I'll take a shot.

In a democracy (the more optimistic theories, and less the choose your dictator theory) in order for there to be an informed vote, and active participation you need to have a ceratin level of education and information to do so. An impartial public broadcaster has an important role in holding a government to scrutiny and providing information to the public.

I think it goes a lot further than that, but that's a good start point.

 


martinb2010-03-02 21:53:05

hellz yeah I is verbose enough yo watch me get all ornate & florid up in this ish and discombobulate
yr loquacious,
supercilious
a$$

But yeah, I agree with your point. Ha.

I buy certain magazines for their articles.

What media commentators opinion says that National Radio pussy foots around many issues? I have never heard that, and can't say i've noticed that since I have started listening to pieces of it (last year or so)

nz internetwankrace 2001

You're comparing apples to oranges.  Those example you list are all issues for which it is impossible to have a personal experience about.  So it is far enough to rely on other people's informed opinion.

National radio however, you have every opportunity to experience it yourself and make up you mind.

And btw I would mind seeing the commentary that says nat radio pussy foots around issue.

me too

Let's get even more into semantics. Maybe you should both read more carefully as the phrase 'pussfoots arounds issues' was mine. Then later on I said "Reading about an issue and taking on board media commentators opinion and other new items to then make ones own opinion up doesn't work"  No where did I say someone other than myself had specifically used my phrase. Over the years I have read various articles/columns criticising Nat Radio for being left wing, right wing, middle of the road, bland.  From the listener, online columns, editorials etc. the stated opinion was my own and as this isn't a phd thesis or about to be published book I don't believe I have to footnote every single thing I ever read that made me come to my decision

And thats my point I don't want to listen to National Radio or experience it. Listening to other people talking about stuff isn't my thing as it isn't many people's thing. I get my media in other formats and I like to listen to music

And finally
 "Those example you list are all issues for which it is impossible to have a personal experience about"
I know people who have had personal experiences with both war and torture and I've actually met people who have watched whales die by harpoon in front of them and having listened to some horrific tales by a person scarred both mentally and physically by torture within a war I think thats a very naive statement

and all you guys attacking my opinion aren't exactly spending time explaining where the money should come from to allow it to continue the way it has wether people do or don't listen to it. All govts wether labour or national have finite funds

As a suggestion (and I don't know how much $$ are involved): Govt can stop funding for yachting and eggball competitions and invest it in education and cultural assets (inc Nat Radio and Concert Prog).

Edit: Oh and research as well.
Junior822010-03-03 18:30:07

Well since you have come to the conclusion that nat radio pussyfoots around issues means that something similar was discussed by these commentators you talk about.  You're right you don't have to reference them, and I have too heard things about being left-wing, right wing etc.  But the vast majority of other news agencies/blogs have similar things said about them. 

And just for clarification, I think that national radio does the most in-depth analysis of current event than any other main news agency.  I'd much rather have nat radio interview people for 5-10 minutes on an issue current during check point/moring report and then do a 20-30 minute follow up during nine to noon, than read/watch any of the commercial outlets.  I mean tv3 did a 90sec story on their news last week on some guy who bought some eggs that had two yolks in them, FFS!  Publicly funded radio is essential to provide coverage of issues/topics that aren't usually commercially viable which in the end helps provide informed debate.

Obviously I underestimated what contact you or your friends had had with those issues.  But my point still stands.  Most people do not have first hand experiences with those topics.

"Most people do not have first hand experiences with those topics"

Well I wish that was so but Wgtn actually has many refugees who have been through extreme things that we lucky kiwis never have to worry about. Many of them play soccer too as it's a relatively easy game to set up in a refugee camp and any brief escape from the realities of starvation, family separation etc is a god send. I read somewhere that football was the main hobby of the teenagers stuck on barren Nauru for years even tho it was lucky to get under 35 degrees

anyway back on topic. I don't know where Nat Radio stands in the overall radio ratings these days but I have heard that overall there is less of a percentage of the population listening to any radio at all. I also agree that free to air television has some real drek on and that these days with a bigger proportion of kiwis having sky that esp with young people there is much more of a spread across what people watch. unfortunately the govt (no matter which party) cant fund everything so choices have to be made. Personally i loathe Shrtland St & rugby but I acknowledge that many people watch them

Like most I don't want to pay more tax but I also dont want mining in Nat Parks. its a pity there isnt some huge govt big international lotto comp that only govt's can enter. and if we won my first priority wd be funding to the X-games

My understanding is ratings aren't recorded for National Radio as only commercial stations are survey.  Pretty sure that is right.  Could be wrong though.

It is a station that [should] answer to taxpayers rather than advertisers. That's how I think of it anyway.