Tuesday, 8 July 2008

TVNZ: Sell it.

National's Jonathan Coleman insists that National's new broadcasting policy is simply to open up TVNZ to competition.  He confirms that National has no plans to sell TVNZ.

But why the hell not?  What particular virtue is there in keeping a television station in the hands of the state?

Once again we see that when National does release policy we find that it's already been written for them by the existing Labour Government.

National is not the answer.

UPDATELiberty Scott offers a more virile broadcasting policy, and puts paid to the argument about "balance" in public broadcasting:

Note, you'll never ever ever hear any serious balanced debate about abolishing public broadcasting on Radio NZ - which, of course, destroys any of their claims for being balanced and presenting all points of view.


  1. Yes, it is a wonder they are not intending to sell it.

    There is no requirement for the State to own television and it should be sold immediately.

  2. Open it up to competition? Oh that's right - Muldoon announced a third channel and then there was a beauty contest and it took 6 years. Prebble took the portfolio, asked why the hell the government doesn't just sell off all the frequencies, allow cable and satellite TV and from that came Sky, Prime and a series of local channels.

    The Nats in the last government scoped out privatisation - it would have brought a windfall. They are mistaken in thinking TVNZ is well loved, by and large the public couldn't care less.

  3. "They are mistaken in thinking TVNZ is well loved, by and large the public couldn't care less."

    Selling it off & seeing how many would be keen to pay for it would prove how 'well loved' it was.

    Or wasn't - and there's the political rub.

  4. Night after night those fools broadcast one murder show after another. If you stop and think about what they are doing it's pretty sick.

    Privatise and let 'em sink or swim. Give the shares to every taxpayer and let things progress from there.


  5. If National is not the answer you are asking the wrong question.

    If we don't have a National, or National led Government after the election it will be Labour and a terrifying combination of wee parties instead.

  6. HP: since when has knowingly settling for second-best, and a poor second-best at that, been successful in the longterm?

    Unless National has the guts to demonstrate that they're willing to tackle the hard stuff, as opposed to offering more of the same, your satisfaction at having changed the govt is going to be very short-lived.

  7. If the question is " which party slavishly adopts Labour's policies?" then National is certainly the answer.

    But that's not the question being asked, is it.

    If the question is, "why replace Labour with Labour-Lite?" then the real answer is, "What's the point?"

  8. The argument that National is at least not Labour is simply answered by the question "what now"?

    What happens after three years of being disappointed by National when the next person touting for the election says "vote Labour, at least it's not National".

    Now a National led government that requires Libertarianz to get a majority, that might be different.

  9. I don't see why you all think TVNZ will sink. Aren't 1&2 the most popular channels? I prefer Prime, but not all of TVNZ is brain numbing shit.

    LGM: There's nothing wrong with murder shows, provided they have a certain threshold of intellectual depth. That said, it should be quite obvious that I watch very few murder shows.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.