Here’s a question you might care to contemplate: If the Save Radio New Zealand Facebook group can attract 10,639 members in less time it takes for a blogger to get back from holiday, then why can’t those 10,639 obviously eager punters pick up the $31,816,000 tab for the service themselves, instead of putting their hands in other people’s pockets to pay for their pleasure.
If a station like bFM can offer a bCard (complete with great deals) to get listeners to help pay for their enthusiasm, then why can’t the mandarins of Radio NZ manage to get something similar off the ground?
I bet if they were NZ-Card holders those 10,000 punters would soon be demanding a little cost cutting of their own. Why should other people be forced to paying for the listening pleasure of these 10,639, and for the comfort of the sundry RadioNZ-employed bureaucrats they insist we support?
13 comments:
A mere three grand apiece!
Cough up!
[Insert Tui ad here]
I agree!
Concert Radio provides a useful service but Radio NZ is a dying farce.
The all night program is worse than TV as it is littered with repeats and dopey announcers. The Morning Teport could be cut to 30 minutes as it endlessly and monotonously repeats itself. Ryan's Nine to Noon sounds as if it has run out of ideas and Jim Mora's afternoon has now just tedious. I can't describe what I feel about Chris Laidlaw and I rarely listen to Kim Hill's overbearing interview style any more. Time for a clean oou or at least to get these "broadcasters" to lift their games or move along.
You guys are so funny and pathetic I feel sorry for you
@Graeme: I'm not sure that I agree with you.
My argument with Radio NZ isn't that it's dull and tired, since I must confess to enjoying it. [Ducks] My argument is that taxpayers shouldn't have to stump up the sum of several thousand dollars per listener to keep it out of private hands--or just to avoid it being run without flab.
@Anonymous: Does someone posting anonymously have any right to an "I"?
Actually Graeme it would be about $80 per listener, $9 per person (Two large flat whites a year). Hardly sucking the life out our country is it? Radio New Zealand has more listeners than any other station in the country, it is a common misconception that their listenership is small because commercial networks exclude RNZ from the ratings results (to avoid embarrassment). You say you listen yourself, do you begrudge your $9 contribution to keep advertising away for the year? Don't you think the Government is using rather a big stick for very little gain? Their motives are political, not financial and that is just bad form. don't stick your head in the sand.
Sorry it was PC I was responding to then:-) By the way PC, go to radionz.co.nz and type architecture into the search. You will then be shown a list of more than 100 audio items on the topic which you can listen to and download. Try the same in a commercial stations site...all of you guys need to did a bit deeper.
Yes Alan, PC could, if he wanted, benefit from all these programmes on State radio.
You have to wonder why he does not support state funding so that he could download all these wonderful programmes.
Could it be that this is because PC doesn't advocate or support theft? Unlike you!
Julian
Alan, your two flat whites theory sucks. Just try feeding hot coffee to a baby and see how far you get.
National Radio is sometimes good to listen to. And so, I would be willing to subscribe to it - but I don't see why other people who prefer to listen to raucous mind-numbing "music", and never to National Radio, should also be forced to subscribe. Should totally deaf taxpayers be forced to help fund National Radio?
Should New Zealanders have been jailed for not paying their radio licence? I met an elderly man who was imprisoned for this. I guess you would have supported his incarceration, Alan.
I think Glenn Beck on Sky TV is often good to watch in small doses. Does that mean that I should be able to force you to subsidise broadcasting of the Fox News channel if enough of my friends agree with me and we vote to make you pay?
Richard, your arguments are ludicrous. Allow me to summarise by paragraph:
1. Alan would feed hot coffee to a baby! Bad Alan.
2. Deaf people are ripped off (through all the tax I'm sure they pay) by funding public broadcasting (despite receiving more assistance from the taxpayer than they will ever contribute; the deaf aren't exactly employable).
3. Alan would send pensioners to gaol! Bad Alan.
4. "I think Glenn Beck...is often good to watch..." Well, unless you consider Beck's show a comedy, I would find it difficult to take anything you say seriously.
The fundamental argument is that all taxpayers are forced to fund a radio station (not exactly something that the state does because nobody else would, like police and defence) that only a small minority listen to and like.
That is morally wrong. Radio NZ is a question of personal taste. Just because it is sometimes good (and I acknowledge that) is not a reason to make others pay for it.
The Economist is often an excellent magazine, but should everyone pay taxes for it to operate?
The only argument made for state broadcasting is that it is "good for you", which assumes that people wont choose to pay for it themselves (when the evidence is people DO pay for broadcasting if they like the proposition offered to them) and that those who don't listen to it owe something to those who do and "if only" they would choose to listen.
It draws a clear line between those who believe government exists to make everyone pay for things that a minority like and think is good for everyone else, and those who believe government exists to simply protect people's individual rights from the use of force or fraud by others.
What is it about choice and paying for something voluntary that is so hard to grasp?
What is it about choice and paying for something voluntary that is so hard to grasp?
I think it's that people see themselves and their opinions not as the minority but as the majority. "All right thinking people support RadioNZ" etc. If the majority (in their heads) want something, or approve of something, they have no moral issue with forcing it upon all. It's the way they've (we've) been raised and educated - democracy is a great thing etc. It's a horribly broken mindset, but it's extremely prevalent. When I try to argue libertarian ideals, people accuse me of the same thing - assuming my views are "right". It takes much explaining to get them to see that whether my views are right or not, the entire point is that they don't force anyone to do anything if they don't wish to. Unlike their views.
I will gladly pay up for the privilege of very often good radio, withOUT the nauseating adverts of all other media - including a lot of online radio and even podcasts.
Where do I sign up?
My problem is whether and when to stick on National, or switch to Concert - and miss something - or vice versa! He he
On a serious note, what we have playing on the radio as a daily routine, must surely affect those listening.. I'm thinking of the younger ears, who must certainly be influenced by the tone or manner of what they hear, and imbibe some kind of culture contrary to the dice-on-the-rear view mirror-brigade..?
With my young children, I still often turn off or reduce the volume on news to shield them from the bad news. I wonder how many parents on the commercial stations do that?
Post a Comment