How much is Mike Hosking paid by TVNZ?

Written By: - Date published: 9:29 am, July 25th, 2017 - 107 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, broadcasting, climate change, john key, Media, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags:

Over in England a recent story on how much senior BBC staffers were paid attracted a fair bit of attention.  The basic answer was lots and lots, far more than is even conceivable necessary for someone to have a full and rewarding live.

Questions have been asked about what the situation is here.  In particular how much is Mike Hosking paid by TVNZ?

The likely answer is lots and lots.  So that he can downplay scandals involving National, pontificate about how great laissez faire capitalism is, complain how the Paris Accord on Climate Change is a hoax, boast on how only the best rise to the top, indulge in his John Key love in, and talk about his expensive cars it appears that we pay him heaps.

But wait I hear you ask, shouldn’t the state broadcaster that is essentially owned by us be politically neutral and not favour one party over the other?  Surely that sort of stuff only happens in North Korea?  If you think that then you have clearly taken the blue pill.

What does the Hosk think about the possibility of his salary being publicised?

From the Herald:

Hosking said it wasn’t a debate he was interested in having.

“Do we need to know what the newsreader earns? No, because who can possibly win out of that? … Just imagine if my salary was made public? Can you imagine the reaction, very little of which would be rational …

“How hard can it be, they would say, to sit and talk for a couple of hours a day? When that’s the level of debate, the debate is going nowhere fast. Therefore, it is not worth having.”

He argued that as long as he was doing his job, he was entitled to his salary.

“Any wage is the result of a couple of people agreeing on terms and conditions … wages aren’t a democracy, they’re a business transaction, and if the people writing the cheques are happy, that is the end of that.”

Of course Hosking completely ignores the point. TVNZ is not a private business. It is a media entity owned by the Crown. It should be strictly balanced in its reporting of issues and news and when performing its reporting function should provide us with information and not spin.  It does not exist to give him a right wing soap box and help maintain him in a lifestyle that few can even aspire to.

Clearly though Hosking believes that TVNZ is nothing more than a business. And as one of life’s winners he should be paid the exorbitant amount that clearly he is being paid.  And not have to tell anyone what it is.

If there is a change of Government I hope that his contract is renegotiated and that he is paid what he is worth.  The living wage will do.

107 comments on “How much is Mike Hosking paid by TVNZ? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    25 July 2017 at 9:39 am

    We should do a vote every Friday on his weeks’ salary.
    That should keep his performances nice and sharp.

    • ianmac 1.1
      25 July 2017 at 9:49 am

      The BBC point was the huge discrepancy between male and female salaries for the same work.
      So bluddy Mike Hosking. On TV 1 Seven Sharp, does your more competent partner Toni Street get the same salary as you? Your weasliy manner suggests not.
      So campaign for equal pay for Toni!

      • Stuart Munro 1.1.1
        25 July 2017 at 10:57 am

        Hang on a minute there – she’s more competent – she should be paid more than him.

        • ianmac 1.1.1.1
          25 July 2017 at 12:29 pm

          Oops. Agreed Stuart. When Mike is not there Toni becomes more credible and worth listening to. So yep. Toni should get double Mikes salary.

    • JamieB 1.2
      25 July 2017 at 6:21 pm

      Yep, it’s called the ratings. Much better than John Campbell’s used to be.

      • Carolyn_nth 1.2.1
        25 July 2017 at 6:31 pm

        Ratings as reported in 2015:

        [Campbell Live] beat TV1’s Seven Sharp, which had 411,580 viewers in the 7pm time slot.
        …

        Most preferred current affairs presenter
        John Campbell – 29%
        Mike Hosking – 15%
        Paul Henry – 14%
        Miriama Kamo – 13%
        Toni Street – 13%
        Samantha Hayes – 10%
        Duncan Garner – 2%
        Sonya Wilson – 2%
        Lisa Owen – 2%

        Source: Perceptive Research polling commissioned by MediaWorks in 2014 of viewers in the 25-54 age bracket.

        • LivinInTheBay 1.2.1.1
          26 July 2017 at 1:30 pm

          Poor comparison. That was a Campbell’s last show, and for weeks beforehand there was a media clamoir for him to stay. Until then his ratings were poor, hence they got rid of him. If they’d really been this good all along do you think why’d have done it?

  2. irascible 2
    25 July 2017 at 9:42 am

    In my opinion a news reader opinionista on a TV or radio station should be paid no more than a highly qualified secondary school teacher on the top of the salary scale.

    • alwyn 2.1
      25 July 2017 at 10:25 am

      “should be paid no more than a highly qualified secondary school teacher on the top of the salary scale”.
      Sigh. That is about what the MPs used to get. A pity it changed to the stage that they get much, much more than that now.
      Can we please reset the MPs salaries back to a much more reasonable level?

      As for the comment in the original post that
      “shouldn’t the state broadcaster that is essentially owned by us be politically neutral and not favour one party over the other”.
      I think that that would be a wonderful idea. Can we start with “Red Radio”, also known as Radio New Zealand National? In particular we could tell the news programmes that they had to do that instead of their idolising the Labour and Green parties. Morning Report is an absolute joke.

      • AB 2.1.1
        25 July 2017 at 11:41 am

        “Morning Report is an absolute joke.”
        Hmm let’s see what some ex-morning report/RNZ people have done:
        Maggie Barry – National MP for North Shore
        Lindsay Perigo – involved in right-libertarian parties
        Mike Hosking – National Party fanboi
        Sean Plunkett – right wing talkback host and now TOP PR man
        Truth is, RNZ falls over itself to be balanced and ends up employing a number people with distinctly conservative views..

        • alwyn 2.1.1.1
          25 July 2017 at 2:09 pm

          You noticed I hope that I said “Morning Report IS an absolute joke”?
          See the emphasis on the present tense of “IS”.
          Three of the four people four people you list were so long ago even I can’t remember them being there.
          Only Sean Plunkett was in this century. and even he went about seven years ago. Actually I thought he was quite good and he and Geoff Robinson made a very good pair.

          • AB 2.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2017 at 9:25 pm

            To soon to say Alwyn. Let’s wait till we know where Guyon, Susie and Katherine end up later in their careers shall we?

      • mickysavage 2.1.2
        25 July 2017 at 11:48 am

        “Red Radio”

        Funny how the independent unbiased reporting of stories without the human embellishment is considered to be left wing.

        Although I guess reality does have a left wing bias.

        • alwyn 2.1.2.1
          25 July 2017 at 2:14 pm

          I fear you will have to live with your delusions Micky.
          “Independent unbiased”? the man says.
          I’ll bet you were a fan of that old Johnny Cash song.
          “Dream on dream on teenage queen”.

        • lloyd 2.1.2.2
          25 July 2017 at 11:35 pm

          Rationality has a left-wing bias. Proof? Trump.

      • marty mars 2.1.3
        25 July 2017 at 11:54 am

        Red radio – lol good one al – pretty balanced radio imo.

        • alwyn 2.1.3.1
          25 July 2017 at 2:18 pm

          Marty mars considers it is “pretty balanced radio”.
          As Alan Shore would have said in Boston Legal.
          “I rest my case”.
          (Incidentally. Can any lawyer tell me whether any real lawyer ever says that?)

          • In Vino 2.1.3.1.1
            25 July 2017 at 5:09 pm

            I can’t tell you that, but I do know that the fictitious hero Perry Mason used to say: “That is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.” Which pretty much sums up your bigoted assessment of the neutrality of Radio NZ. The bias there is to the Right – they virtually never have a good spokesperson for the Left. At best – centrists like Josie Pagani. You would probably have an apoplexy if your heard truly unbiased coverage.

            • alwyn 2.1.3.1.1.1
              25 July 2017 at 5:25 pm

              You have made me feel very, very old when you talk about Perry Mason.
              I used to watch, and greatly enjoy, the program. Such a long time ago.

              I’ll bet every lawyer wanted to be like him and to never lose a case.
              The only one who did was the equally fictitious Danny Crane.

              We shall simply have to agree to differ on the merits or otherwise of the debate about the political leanings of RNZ. I don’t think either of us has a snowball’s chance in Hell of altering the other person’s opinion.

              • Robert Guyton …
                25 July 2017 at 5:34 pm

                Perry Mason: [to Bessie] Remember, nobody ever got into trouble by not talking too much.

              • Robert Guyton …
                25 July 2017 at 5:45 pm

                “Perry Mason: The Case of the Buried Clock (#2.6)” (1958)
                Perry Mason: You know cross-examination is like prospecting. You see something that looks promising, you work a vein for all it’s worth. If you’re lucky- you may hit a bonanza.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.4
        25 July 2017 at 2:06 pm

        Can we please reset the MPs salaries back to a much more reasonable level?

        That would be a good idea. In fact, I think that no public servant (defined as anybody employed by the government either directly or indirectly) should be paid over $100k.

        In particular we could tell the news programmes that they had to do that instead of their idolising the Labour and Green parties.

        Are they idolising the labour and Green parties or is that just your bias talking because they happen to be reporting accurately?

        • alwyn 2.1.4.1
          25 July 2017 at 2:26 pm

          I really don’t think I want to go along with your “NO public Servant” bit.
          I really would like to see top ranked specialist medical people in the Public Hospital system.
          If I have cancer I really would like to have a top-ranked Oncologist available.

          • DRUM 2.1.4.1.1
            25 July 2017 at 3:15 pm

            You don’t have a case Alwyn….just an opinion.

            • alwyn 2.1.4.1.1.1
              25 July 2017 at 5:10 pm

              What is your “opinion” perchance.
              Do you want a fourth year medical student to do your diagnosis and operation?

            • ianmac 2.1.4.1.2.1
              25 July 2017 at 4:03 pm

              Totally agree Draco. Innovative schools realise that we “punish children with rewards.”
              Certificates, cups, privileges and so on are vehicles used by institutions to promote themselves. Those awards have a reverse effect on the non-winners and those who crack the code on how to win rewards find that it has minimal flow on in the workplace. “I will go the extra if you pay me more.”
              And high achievers who get rewarded take fewer intellectual risks. Fear that a mistake might make me no longer top dog so play it safe.

            • The Fairy Godmother 2.1.4.1.2.2
              25 July 2017 at 8:38 pm

              Great video. You may also be interested in the work by Alfie Khon on this topic. http://www.alfiekohn.org/punished-rewards/ His book is excellent.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                25 July 2017 at 10:28 pm

                And her Case Against Competition as well.

                There is so much about modern society that we take as good which, once you look at it, is actually very bad for us.

              • Doogs …
                26 July 2017 at 4:40 pm

                Alfie Kohn’s book is a bag load of rubbish. It’s the whole extrinsic/intrinsic argument. The punishment/reward roundabout depends on so many other external factors that no one can accurately be definitive about the process. It relies for any measure of success on people, place, aspect, relationships, hierarchy/flat management, etc, etc.

                Any outfit using punishments and rewards – business, school, institution, whatever – will be as successful as the skills of its facilitators. A really carefully constructed incentive/disincentive framework works for all if there is buy-in and commitment on all sides. People are only rewarded or punished if they can see the logic and the rationale underneath.

                I have worked in schools with rabid “rewards are punishments” acolytes. Turns out they couldn’t manage their jobs very well because they are always falling over themselves to please everyone.

          • greywarshark 2.1.4.1.3
            25 July 2017 at 5:48 pm

            When did it go from broadcasting to public servant to medical people and oncologist? I think the discussion is drifting out to sea and in danger of being swamped.

        • DoublePlusGood 2.1.4.2
          25 July 2017 at 5:53 pm

          How do you propose to run the public service without paying anyone over $100k? This would immediately cause all the doctors to disappear for a start. The management tiers would desert entirely. Now, of course, there’s plenty of bumbling incompetence in management in the public service so getting rid of all that would be nice – but still I think you’d struggle to find people to run things.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.4.2.1
            25 July 2017 at 6:16 pm

            This would immediately cause all the doctors to disappear for a start.

            Really?

            The figures, based on 2014 tax returns, reveal that after nine years those with a bachelor’s degree in medical studies earn a median of $128,469 – about 240 per cent more than the national median income of $37,613.

            But perhaps the problem is really this:

            There are many reasons for the dissatisfaction, said Christina Lamontagne, vice president of health at NerdWallet. Most doctors enter the field thinking they’ll be able to spend most of their time healing the sick. Yet the paperwork burden on doctors has become crushing, and could become even more complicated under the Affordable Care Act.

            “Administrative tasks account for nearly one-quarter of a doctor’s day,” Lamontagne said. “With additional liability concerns and more layers in health care, we can understand the drain this takes.”

            That’s the US but this is NZ:

            Tokoroa’s second medical centre, Tokoroa Medical, says recruiting GPs to less desirable smaller towns is not just about offering them bulging pay packets – people don’t want the stress of running their own clinics any more.

            Although Pinnacle was still managing to attract staff to rural towns by offering flexibility, it was a harder sell compared with hospital doctors who received $16,000 a year to pay for continuing medical education, nine weeks’ annual leave and an 8 per cent contribution to KiwiSaver.

            There’s more to life than high pay rates. Get rid of the student loans, ensure that they have a place to live, ongoing training and good holidays and I’m sure that you will find that we still have doctors even with a $100k income.

            Now, of course, there’s plenty of bumbling incompetence in management in the public service so getting rid of all that would be nice – but still I think you’d struggle to find people to run things.

            I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty of people who would be willing to move in to those positions and do just as well if not better.

            • DoublePlusGood 2.1.4.2.1.1
              26 July 2017 at 1:14 pm

              I think for the doctors we’d have a lot of doctors going overseas for higher salaries, especially to Australia.

              On the rest of the public service, in your system, why be a general manager in the public service and earn $100,000 when you can be a regular manager a tier or two down and earn $100,000 and have far less responsibility for the same coin?
              And why would any of these people choose the public service over the private sector?
              I do agree that it wouldn’t exactly be hard to improve the quality of management in the public service – but not when there’s no reason to hold a senior position over a junior management position.
              Well, unless your answer to that position is to pay the junior positions less.

          • The Fairy Godmother 2.1.4.2.2
            25 July 2017 at 8:48 pm

            I understand that Cuba has a very good medical service. Life expectancy is better than the USA.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/31/tom-harkin/sen-tom-harkin-says-cuba-has-lower-child-mortality/ They train lots of people to be doctors. I guess the medical profession has it well controlled here so they are in high demand and cost heaps. If people from a community were trained and doing it for their community things coudl be a lot better.

            • McFlock 2.1.4.2.2.1
              25 July 2017 at 9:04 pm

              nothing to do with medical profession control – govt funds med schools for x numbers of trainees a year, we saddle those doctors with massive loans but train them with international accreditation and let them emigrate, so they tend to bail to higher-paying countries or go for higher paying specialities.

              We have a real shortage of GPs that’s been getting worse for the usual time period of everything going to shit: 30-odd years.

              • Tamati Tautuhi …
                25 July 2017 at 9:48 pm

                Neoliberalism a total f%^& up ?

                • McFlock …
                  25 July 2017 at 10:00 pm

                  I know, I know, it goes against all common sense, but I’m beginning to think that NZ’s noble experiment is returning some negative results….

    • Mrs Brillo 2.2
      25 July 2017 at 3:32 pm

      Much less.
      Hosking was an early school leaver, and his qualifications are – what, exactly?

      • alwyn 2.2.1
        25 July 2017 at 5:16 pm

        I am not sure that a lot of people who read and comment on this blog would agree with your somewhat harsh judgement.

        You would clearly not have approved of Norman Kirk becoming PM. Indeed you would, if you make judgements like this, have kept him in the Parliamentary basement shovelling coal into the building’s heating boilers.

        “Kirk did not perform well at school, and left shortly before he turned thirteen. ”
        from
        https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Norman%20Kirk&item_type=topic&sr=50

        • Mrs Brillo 2.2.1.1
          25 July 2017 at 5:53 pm

          You take the wrong point, and then make a worse one. The harsh judgement is all your projection.
          Kirk had a variety of jobs and life experience, mixing with all sorts and learning as he went. I have no problem with his career path.
          Hosking, by contrast, has been in one business, that of broadcasting his jejune prejudices. And the only thng he appears to have learned is which is his best side to camera.

        • Banjo 2.2.1.2
          25 July 2017 at 6:15 pm

          Mrs Brillo raises a valid point. It’s a tactic of the right to deliberately diminish the value of blue collar workers in particular by claiming the work is ‘unskilled’ therefore they only deserve low wages.

          Experience is deliberately not valued. Working hard and working long hours is deliberately not valued. The forestry worker who had nearly 30 years valuable experience and was on only $16 an hour when he was killed in a work place accident is a classic example of that ideology of greed so loved by the likes of Mike Hosking. So if we use that same ideology which Hosking promotes to look at his own value, he is not skilled. He has said himself he is not a journalist, so why is he earning upwards of a million dollars a year? The TV and radio programmes he appears in would still continue without him and may even attract more viewers/listeners as many people refuse to watch or listen to him.

          • alwyn 2.2.1.2.1
            26 July 2017 at 10:15 am

            It was of course Mrs Brillo who proposed that because Hosking’s didn’t have much of an education he didn’t deserve to be paid properly.
            Ms B is entitled to say she didn’t mean it. If however she did mean it she is exhibiting exactly the bias you claim is endemic to the right.
            Tough luck. If you make the sort of ridiculous claim Ms B did you either wear it or apologise for it.

            As for “may even attract more viewers/listeners as many people refuse to watch or listen to him.”.
            That sort of comment is usually followed by. “Nobody I know would listen to him. He must be taken off the air”

            • Mrs Brillo 2.2.1.2.1.1
              26 July 2017 at 5:56 pm

              That’s twice here you have put words into my mouth. Where did I make any statement at all about Hosking’s pay rate? Where is my so-called “ridiculous claim” about Hosking?
              My concern was with his lack of education and life experience, and his access to media platforms to promulgate his uninformed prejudices and bigotry. Both entirely evident.
              Allies like you do not do his cause any good whatsoever.

              • alwyn …
                26 July 2017 at 10:37 pm

                The statement you were replying to was, and I am copying it in full.
                “In my opinion a news reader opinionista on a TV or radio station should be paid no more than a highly qualified secondary school teacher on the top of the salary scale.”

                You replied, in full.
                “Much less.
                Hosking was an early school leaver, and his qualifications are – what, exactly?”.
                The only possible interpretation of your response to the original comment was that you thought that Hosking should be paid less than a schoolteacher.

                The second part could only be your justification for this view.

                I didn’t “put words into your mouth”. I responded to exactly what you said. If you didn’t mean to say that then withdraw the remark. Don’t blame me if I take it that you mean what you say.

                The rest of this comment is simply a claim that you don’t like what he says and he shouldn’t be allowed to say it. There is a little thing called freedom of speech. I support it.

                • McFlock …
                  26 July 2017 at 10:52 pm

                  Even at much less than $75k a year, Hosking’s speech isn’t free. It’s overly expensive, given the content.

                  • alwyn …
                    27 July 2017 at 12:37 pm

                    I’ve never actually heard him so I can’t comment on the truth of your comment.
                    On the other hand he seems to get high ratings and I guess that is what they pay him for.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 12:53 pm

                      Well, I’m sure that’s the argument his agent makes.

                      Whether he pays a premium for all the advertising they put into his show, or for the premium timeslot on a traditionally-preferred channel, is another matter entirely.

                      They give him a big soapbox, tell everyone to watch him, and then he gets a lot of people watching him so he gets a big paycheque. Whereas his pay should be docked slightly for the fact that getting advertising revenue for him is easier than, say, for the morning show crowd.

        • Tamati Tautuhi 2.2.1.3
          25 July 2017 at 9:50 pm

          I think Hoskins left school at 14, if I remember rightly ?

    • srylands 2.3
      26 July 2017 at 7:02 pm

      Well fortunately it is none of your business.

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    25 July 2017 at 9:46 am

    Double, nay treble his salary and advertise the pay-rise as widely as possible.

  4. Philj 4
    25 July 2017 at 9:46 am

    Clearly it’s not enough Mike H. Your soul is worth more.

  5. adam 5
    25 July 2017 at 9:54 am

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear ah MIke.

  6. Psych nurse 6
    25 July 2017 at 10:24 am

    i believe in an inverse salary scale, the more you have the less you need, he’s such an egotist he’d do it for nothing.

    • alwyn 6.1
      25 July 2017 at 10:29 am

      That is a great idea. We should extend it to having just enough competent people applying for a job to fill the vacancies.
      We could easily fill Parliament without having to pay the MPs very much at all. At the moment we pay them so much, and give them so many perks, that there are about six times as many candidates as there are vacancies.

      • AB 6.1.1
        25 July 2017 at 11:56 am

        The (intended) consequence of Alwyn’s idea is that only the independently wealthy could afford to be MPs. This would drive policy formation in a very conservative direction. Parliament would start looking like it did in the 19th century.
        The better idea is the complete opposite. Pay MPs well but stop them getting income from other sources during that time, including hiding such income in trusts. They should also be required to give up private health insurance and remove their children from private schools on the principle that they must use the systems they are responsible for administering, and not be able to escape them.
        A good rule of thumb this when developing policy – think what a conventional right-winger like Alwyn would say, and then do the opposite

        • Psych nurse 6.1.1.1
          25 July 2017 at 12:49 pm

          Don’t you think that Parliament is not already full of the independently wealthy, thats what gets them there.

        • alwyn 6.1.1.2
          25 July 2017 at 2:01 pm

          “Alwyn would say, and then do the opposite”.
          Wow, you are in favour of some very unusual ideas, aren’t you.
          You will have to scrap ACC for a start.
          Then you want to get rid of all State Housing.
          No Government paid for medical treatment.
          Scrap all child benefits.
          No National Superannuation.
          etc, etc, etc

          • McFlock 6.1.1.2.1
            25 July 2017 at 2:31 pm

            Well, it’s only a rule of thumb, not a categorical imperative.

            But I’m intrigued to read that you want all medical treatment to be funded by the government and absolutely no state housing to be sold off (or even that state housing should be increased?).

            • alwyn 6.1.1.2.1.1
              25 July 2017 at 5:06 pm

              Are you totally unable to comprehend what you read?
              I never said either of the things you claim.
              I did NOT say that no state owned houses should ever be sold.
              Neither did I say that ALL medical treatment must be provided by the state,

              Please give you answer to this proposal.
              Remember when the MOW built large hydro projects? The built towns for the workers. They had hundreds of houses. These are obviously “state Housing”.
              When they finished, and handed the power station over to the electricity department, they only needed about 20 of the properties for the permanent staff manning the station.
              Would you have kept all the other houses in state ownership, even there was no demand at all for them by working people? Or would you sell them to people as bachs, They could, and did, use them for fishing places or just as a weekend place in the country.
              Why would you not sell state houses that were no longer required because they are in the wrong place or are the wrong size? What is so bad that you can’t sell them and buy properties that actually are in demand by state house tenants?

              • McFlock …
                25 July 2017 at 5:20 pm

                Sorry, I thought you were listing actions that were opposite to your beliefs, e.g. PN would have to scrap ACC because it’s opposite to “keep ACC”.

                Similarly, “get rid of all State Housing” is opposite to “keep all State housing” or even “increase all state housing”. It is NOT the opposite of “get rid of some state houses” or “keep some state houses”.

                And of course the direct opposite of “No Government paid for medical treatment” is “all medical treatment is government funded”.

                Just having a bit of semantic fun, Alwyn. As I said, the fact that you support an action doesn’t really mean we must do the exact opposite. Your support for an action just means that the action is probably (but not certainly) on some level, well, evil. So we’d better take another look for any unintended pitfalls of that action.

  7. millsy 7
    25 July 2017 at 10:27 am

    He might be an independent contractor…??

  8. tc 8
    25 July 2017 at 11:23 am

    A sure sign of the largesse at play in tvnz and the salesjob mikey does for national.

    Geez that joint needs a cleanout starting with placeholder kendrick who thinks netflix is a fad, gut it of these highly paid opinionators and go back to some basic factual analysis.

    Coronation street’s amount of airtime shows an out of ideas lazy broadcaster.

  9. dv 9
    25 July 2017 at 12:05 pm

    What is missing he is embarrassed about his pay.

    May the std should run a poll to estimate his pay, and average it.

    My estimate is 250k

  10. Reality 10
    25 July 2017 at 12:52 pm

    A very good Tom Scott cartoon in the Dom Post today. It has a sketch of Hosking saying his salary should be confidential but then saying “on the other hand my views on the lazy poor deserve the widest possible dissemination”.

  11. Banjo 11
    25 July 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Lol at Hosking being worried about the level of debate around his salary. In 2012 in one of his pompous opinion pieces he actually wrote that the wharfies were “paid to do nothing”. A dishonest and irrational claim to make so he clearly wasn’t worried about low level debates back then.

    He must’ve been a bit confused about the spiel he was meant to parrot because in the same column he then went on to claim “Eight hours pay, three hours work (another blatant lie, but what is it, no work or 3 hours work?) – good on them for getting the deal. God only knows who was thick enough to sign it off, but the game’s up”. He then asked “where is the council? … do they think the port is a welfare scheme?… the answer is there – lay them off”.

    Contrast that with his comments around his salary, a vastly different point of view.

    If we use that same calculator & level of debate to scrutinise his own salary, he’s on air on Newstalk for 2.5 hours a day & on TV1 for 30 mins a night, thats 15 hours a week. He seems to get all summer and school holidays off, so works approx 40 weeks a year. There’s speculation that he is the unnamed number 1 salary of $1.2 mil at NZME as the CEO is listed at no.2, & if he’s number 2 spot at TVNZ he’s on around 640k according to their 2016 annual report.

    So he’s on around $45,000 a week for 15 hours work. This is the guy that called for the wharfies to be sacked for earning a mythical $90k, and he can rake that in for about 30 hours work. Who was thick enough to sign off on that? All he does is sit at a desk in pricey ripped jeans, read an autocue, spout off his pompous opinions and fidget with his jacket. It’s almost as if TVNZ & NZME are running a very opulent and extravagant welfare scheme for a uninformed parrot. I say the answer is there (the same place Mike claimed his answer was) – lay him off.

  12. Crunchy 12
    25 July 2017 at 1:07 pm

    Wonder how much tax he pays? Probably around $200k.

  13. Stuff The Politicians 13
    25 July 2017 at 1:15 pm

    I am sure that the buffoon gets paid far to much money.
    However, bigger fool TVNZ for paying over the top contract rate.

    And yes, the income he picks up ( was going to say earns, but that clearly is not the case) should be public knowledge.

    Heads should roll in both instances.

  14. JanM 14
    25 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

    In a country where despite the massive evidence that we have a pack of dishonest, lazy, clowns running the country, around 41% still want them back next time around, so it’s not surprising that, as a result of running a commercial ratings game, we have such a ghastly little runt fetching huge sums to be same, because aforementioned 41% probably love him! Not too bright, some of us!

  15. Malconz 15
    25 July 2017 at 3:15 pm

    IMHO if Hosking is paid $100 a week it’s at least $50 too much. He’s utterly detestable, and I hit the off switch the second his smug face appears on screen. His cuff-tugging affectation drives me nuts, and his wardrobe is a joke.

  16. peterh 16
    25 July 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Does he still get 50 grand a year from Sky city, they gave it to him and Henry ,when they wanted a big push for their conference centre, and he did not stop telling everyone how good it would be,,never mind all the new pokies going in

  17. Mike Michaelson 17
    25 July 2017 at 3:48 pm

    With respect, how much is a loaf of bread worth?

    If the mouthpiece works for any commercial broadcaster, irrespective of shareholder considerations (public, SOE, private or otherwise), surely he or she is worth whatever the employer considers reasonable for the projected performance results, (whether by advertising revenues or simply clear support for the broadcaster him or herself).

    I have sympathy for those who draw comparisons out of a hat, such as examples of salaries commensurate elsewhere or when seemingly hypocritical statements are made by such mouthpieces regarding other industry’s salary scales

    The fact of the matter is that the general public thrive on commentary by these people who are never lacking in the ability to provide often highly entertaining dialogue from time to time in order to massage the masses, with the end result that people like you and I can while away our time re-reporting and finger tapping on or over such matters.

    I guess that if we all had money to burn, we might consider placing our own mugs on a vinyl poster at the back of a bus facing irate motorists following it, and where we could advertise ourselves individually as self-styled commentators (and perhaps experts) on, and of all and sundry.

    Thank you for your time.

    • JanM 17.1
      25 July 2017 at 4:38 pm

      I don’t disagree with your analysis, but is this any way for a government owned broadcasting entity to behave? There are plenty of other channels free to appeal to the lowest common denominator – surely the only reason we have a state broadcasting service is so that at least we have one source of information raising its head above the muck

    • McFlock 17.2
      25 July 2017 at 5:11 pm

      I’m not so sure about that.

      Is his presence and pay driven by his popularity, or is his popularity a consequence of the advertising budget?

      I’m sure that a bearded monkey could fuck up the 7pm slot (look at TV3 for that), but I’m not so sure that only hosking could do the job with equivalent ratings – look at Breakfast without Paul Henry, and Paul Henry without Breakfast.
      I don’t think they should be on thrity grand a year, but if they’re paid as much as the prime minister my feeling is that the responsibility lies more with their agents leveraging off the broadcaster-supplied advertising more than it has anything to do with the advertising revenue they ‘generate’.

  18. AsleepWhileWalking 18
    25 July 2017 at 4:08 pm

    I think it is in the public interest that we know how much he is earning, and then be allowed to judge his opinions given his extensive public shaming of low income earners and beneficiaries.

    And in fact since many middle income earners now need a subsidy to pay their rent this amounts to around 60%+ of the population.

  19. Mike Michaelson 19
    25 July 2017 at 4:23 pm

    Hi Lynn P.

    Long time.

    You still on [deleted]

    M&M

    [lprent: That is what is on the domain records. If you know me, then txt me or email me so I know who you are because I never remember names. BTW: It is largely a myth that I bite people’s heads off. I have more subtle techniques. ]

    • greywarshark 19.1
      25 July 2017 at 5:51 pm

      lprent
      What is that about? It’s best not to publish people’s private or work phone numbers addresses etc. That is stupid of you Mike Michaelson.

      • lprent 19.1.1
        25 July 2017 at 7:17 pm

        The number is public information because I maintain the domain and has been for 10 years next month.

        But I do prefer it not to be splashed all over the place. Gets annoying when the bots pick it up.

  20. Mike Michaelson 20
    25 July 2017 at 4:25 pm

    Oops. Sorry.

  21. Pete 21
    25 July 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Hosking is afraid of people knowing what he earns because he knows he will be embarrassed. He knows that people will see the position he would be in with the information out as untenable.

    The big brave man who has all the answers, who knows how the country should be run, how people should live, all the ins and outs of organising and doing the best for and in Auckland, is gutless. The gushing confidence dissipates because for all the bluster and arrogance he doesn’t firmly he is worth whatever he is getting.

    If he did show those usual streaks he would front up and say “TVNZ is paying me $748,000 a year and I’m worth every cent. Fuck off, get yourself improved and hopefully for you, you will earn as much as me.”

    • Gabby 21.1
      25 July 2017 at 8:32 pm

      Horeskin’s not being very competitive. You’d think he’d want to show what good value he is.

  22. rod 22
    25 July 2017 at 4:58 pm

    I am more interested on what the the National Party may be paying Mr Hosking.

  23. NZJester 23
    25 July 2017 at 6:56 pm

    He does not want people to know how much public money he is paid to be a National Party cheerleader?

  24. greywarshark 24
    25 July 2017 at 10:11 pm

    This from Australias Saturday Paper
    Seems they have some doozy demagogues there.

    Comments and the discourse of distraction Richard Cooke
    You can advocate letting obese diabetics die from their disease, or float the end of universal suffrage, or write about Africans being cannibals who don’t understand cities – if you’re Elizabeth Farrelly, you can do all three – but so long as these suggestions are rendered in unreadable prose and directed at a bourgeois audience, no one will care.

  25. Peroxide Blonde 25
    26 July 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Is Hosking getting any monies directly from above-the-line or below-the-line sponsors/advertisers?

    Remember his $50k plus role as a Sky City ambassador? Did he softly plug them, or omitted to criticize them while in his TV/Radio roles?
    Are there other payments he receives for mention (or not mentioning) companies/products in an ‘innocent’ manner?

  26. Rondo Rowling 26
    26 July 2017 at 4:12 pm

    Perhaps that, with regard to SOE and media salary scales, and just who is paying who what, unless mandated, why not just let the billiard balls move, fall or lay where they will?

    Many commentators contributing to SM sights about these matters and other (possibly) crucial matters pertaining to fairness, unfairness and purported irregularities in the salary and funding system may often be accused of simply venting anger with a every internet Key stroke, and of attempting to muster acclaim in the process.

    My guess is that any son of whomever suggesting that posts are posted for post’s sake might well be considered unfair themselves considering that inherent in all human beings is both the strong desire and the will to express and judge based on their own beliefs, their own perceptions and their experiences.

    Whether or not one were to accept the Darwinian theory, we would expect to have seen this expression having manifested itself in the bone banging of the ground by various primates (believed by some to have been our forefathers and “foremothers”). If true, understand that this would have formed the basis of civilisation as we know it.

    Many broadcasters placed in the position of being a crusader of sorts for various topical causes are expected, in part, to be motivators as well.

    If we reflect back to the primate, likely that such characters would have been screeching out the warning sounds to others in their community to beware, and to take up arms, (in that instance, the aforementioned bones, and nowadays, a computer keyboard). Many broadcasters can be seen fitting this role model.

    Compare broadcaster salary and competence to the value of a loaf of bread or even a bread box if you choose to, but never forget that the same loaf of bread may end up feeding a family of “expressionalists” for days, and that to this end alone, the broadcaster, his or her salary and the debate over what might or might not have been considered fair or reasonable, form a pretty substantial package.

    Thank you also, for your time.

Links to post