Why we should save TVNZ7

Written By: - Date published: 10:19 am, May 16th, 2012 - 36 comments
Categories: activism, broadcasting, Media, tv - Tags:

TVNZ7, in its current form, will stop broadcasting on the 30th of June and will be changed to a plus one channel along the same lines as TV3 Plus One. Now I don’t know about you, but I could live without seeing another repeat of Come Dine with Me.

I believe that TVNZ7 offers high quality, educational programmes and documentaries that benefit those who watch them and it even has an online learning hub. Not everyone can afford to pay for their television viewing and being free makes these educational benefits accessible to everyone.

Not enough people know that TVNZ7 exists. One of the problems is that in promoting TVNZ7, TVNZ would risk taking viewers away from its commercial stations. Despite the lack of promotion, TVNZ7 has 1.4 million viewers that is approximately a third of the population of New Zealand. The amount of viewers for Freeview will increase when New Zealand television goes digital in 2013 and it stands to reason that the increase would also be for TVNZ7.

Clare Curran has written a private member’s bill which addresses the conflict between TVNZ running channels on a commercial basis with running TVNZ7 as a public service channel by having TVNZ7 run by an independent Public Broadcasting Foundation. One of the jobs of this foundation will be to provide “a diverse range of programmes that reflects and develops New Zealand’s culture and identity on a broad basis and recognises the diversity in age, gender, ethnicity, and interests within New Zealand society.” Curran’s bill also ensures that TVNZ7 will receive government funding and continued access to TVNZ facilities. We need as much public support as we can if this bill is to succeed in passing.

You can help to save TVNZ7 by writing to the Minister of Broadcasting, Craig Foss, your local MP, signing the online petition: http://issues.co.nz/savetvnz7/Sign+The+Petition , and attending one of the nationwide Save TVNZ7 public meetings:

• Auckland Tuesday the 15th of May 7-9pm, at Freemans Bay Community Centre.
• Wellington Monday the 21st of May 7pm, Welesley Church Hall, Taranaki St.
• Nelson Friday the 25th of May 6pm, Trafalgar Pavillion Hall.
• Christchurch Monday the 28th of May 7pm, TBC.
• Palmeston North Wednesday the 6th of June 7pm, All Saints Church Hall, Corner The Square and Church Street.
• Dunedin Thursday the 7th of June 6:00-8:00pm, Barnett Theatre, Great King Street.

Watch TVNZ7 while you still can on Freeview 7 or Sky 77 before it’s too late and spread the word!

36 comments on “Why we should save TVNZ7 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    16 May 2012 at 11:00 am

    It is completely obvious that Nat types have never liked all that hi-falutin’ stuff.

    They can’t understand it and that threatens them.

  2. TheContrarian 2
    16 May 2012 at 11:04 am

    I never watched TVNZ 7 admittedly (I try to watch as little TV as I can) but WTF use is a repeat channel of the garbage they put on TV1?

  3. True Freedom is Self-Governance 3
    16 May 2012 at 11:08 am

    “Now I don’t know about you, but I could live without seeing another repeat of Come Dine with Me.” That pretty much sums it up for me. I’m considering getting rid of my TV altogether if 7 really does finish broadcasting.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    16 May 2012 at 11:14 am

    I do without TV as it’s all crap and lies. TVNZ7 had me considering buying one but, as it’s now being closed down, I won’t.

  5. vto 5
    16 May 2012 at 11:15 am

    If tv1+1 is a sound proposition in that it maketh some dosh, then what about also doing a tv1+1+1? And so on…

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      16 May 2012 at 11:27 am

      Ooo, I know, TV from the beginning broadcast in it’s original time slot with it’s own accessory +1 channel. You’d be able to catch all those great shows that you missed (because you weren’t born ATT).

    • ghostwhowalksnz 5.2
      16 May 2012 at 11:27 am

      Its called ‘repeats’. Same show different time

      • insider 5.2.1
        16 May 2012 at 11:51 am

        TVNZ7 was full of them. They ran the same programmes (often 10 year old science education ones) over and over and over again in a week, then repeated them months later.

        TVNZ has huge spaces overnight and mid morning when they run BBC world service, very poor films and sitcoms, and advertising the latest can’t live without gimmick. Some TVNZ7 material could go there and so be easily accessible via PVRs.

        • Jackal 5.2.1.1
          16 May 2012 at 2:16 pm

          What I don’t understand is why Parliament TV broadcasts 24/7 when they’re only sitting for a few days a month. TVNZ7 could pretty much drop a couple of repeats and run when parliament isn’t sitting to save some channel fees. Anybody who watches TV should consider what has been replacing our public braodcasting channels (old American sitcoms, repeats and more infomercials). A dumbed down society due to a lack of foreign news and local content isn’t what New Zealand needs to achieve that elusive brighter future National likes talking about.

          • insider 5.2.1.1.1
            16 May 2012 at 2:43 pm

            I don’t think it does ‘broadcast’ as in running old debates. Most of the time it is just a green screen when Parliament is not sitting. The old stratos channel is free as are a few others.

            But while I don’t disagree with you, I don’t think it is channel availability that is the problem. I think the real issue is and has always been TVNZ. They don’t care about it and have no motivation to maintain it, so they are hardly going to bother suggesting alternatives to save 7 as that could reduce funds from NZOA etc they might want to bid for.

            • Jackal 5.2.1.1.1.1
              16 May 2012 at 3:34 pm

              Parliament TV is broadcasting 24/7, with a little message of when the house next sits and usually a jazz tune… so if they were really concerned about saving money, they would amalgamate services. You’re right though… it’s more about TVNZ not caring. But it’s also about National being in bed with SkyTV, who see Freeview as direct competition.

              Here’s a good article on the subject by David Beatson:

              Right now, SKY has Freeview nailed in terms of the diversity of choice offered to viewers. Only 11 of the 23 channels carried by Freeview are available on both its satellite and terrestrial services. All 11 are carried by SKY and two of the 11 are the same channel, running an hour later (ONE+1 and TV3+1). Nine Freeview channels are only available to its terrestrial service users – eight of them are only available in particular parts of New Zealand, while the other (Trackside) is also available on SKY. Three are only available on Freeview’s satellite service, and all three [Cue, Shine and Te Reo)are also carried by SKY.

              Freeview lacks a strong and distinctive core to its offering to capture and hold a lead over its pay-to-view rival SKY Television. That’s something that an exclusive public service channel could have provided.

  6. tc 6
    16 May 2012 at 11:28 am

    And with SBS removing the link across to the Optus D1 satellite (where digital freeview is) those with boxes that received their 4 channels just had 75%+ of the shows most watched removed.

    Public Broadcasting takes independance both financially and politically which are evil concepts to the NACT who want control directly or by a process of eliminating the unwanted voices.

    I thought TVNZ7 isn’t worth saving as it’ll still have the same issues….being part of TVNZ.

    • insider 6.1
      16 May 2012 at 11:45 am

      bugger I was thinking of getting one of those decoders for SBS and ABC cricket.

      • tc 6.1.1
        16 May 2012 at 3:45 pm

        Yup sucks as since 1/5 we’ve realised how shite freeview is as all the quality doco’s/foodie/news not to mention excellent football coverage is now gone. Their coverage of WC 2010 was excellent and I was looking forward to Euro 2012.

  7. Ant 7
    16 May 2012 at 11:41 am

    TVNZ 7’s scheduling was horrid so I barely watched it as a regular TV channel, just caught that programming on demand.

    Maybe Maori TV can pick up a couple of the better shows if they aren’t locked to TVNZ

  8. fatty 8
    16 May 2012 at 11:41 am

    I think we should all agree to give up on TV…just use the net, its cheaper and easier to produce shows.
    The programmes I want to see on TV are not applicable to the market, and we should stop trying to fit them into a capitalist paradigm. TVNZ7 won’t work until we get a government that wants true state broadcasting. The Lab/Nact ideology of market based performance is suppressing NZ’s creativity. The little Arts funding that the Govt does give should be channeled into internet broadcasting if we want to make the most of it.
    Sell all the Govt owned TV channels then tax the hell out of them, then set up Internet-TVNZ and put the money into grass-roots programming.
    New Zealand TV has been shit for a number of years now, we should stop deluding ourselves by thinking that a few Kiwi made programmes make TVNZ7 a worthwhile venture. This is not to say that TVNZ is a waste, but it is a waste of money/resources…We could create many more quality programmes if TVNZ was built on the internet.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      16 May 2012 at 12:13 pm

      I think we should all agree to give up on TV…just use the net, its cheaper and easier to produce shows.

      Actually, the net is more expensive as it takes more equipment and individual bandwidth than a broadcast. Of course, our telecommunications are getting up to that standard any way now that the government has started paying the private sector to update from what the state owned Telecom put in.

      We could create many more quality programmes if TVNZ was built on the internet.

      It’s more that we could produce more and better programs/films if we supported our creative people rather than Warner Bros.

    • Campbell Larsen 8.2
      16 May 2012 at 12:28 pm

      fatty: “just use the net, its cheaper and easier to produce shows.”

      Ah we don’t use ‘the net’ to produce shows, nor do we use TV’s (or satellite dishes) – we use producers and camera crew and production houses – all of which would still be required to produce content for internet broadcast.

      Access to the internet is by no means universal, it remains expensive and poorer people are more likely to not have access.

      As for “This is not to say that TVNZ is a waste, but it is a waste of money/resources…”

      You can’t have it both ways – and you have not established any grounds for your assertion that the running public service, or arts broadcasting over the net is going to be cheaper for the Govt or the public, or provide better access.

      I’ left with the feeling that you really just wanted to say: blah blah capitalist paradigm blah blah the internet is awesome blah blah Labour is just like the Nats and trying suppress our creativity blah blah NZ TV is shit blah blah TVNZ is a waste of money and resources.

      • fatty 8.2.1
        16 May 2012 at 5:09 pm

        “Ah we don’t use ‘the net’ to produce shows”

        Ah, many people use the net to produce shows, interactivity is the future (and the present). The 1980s are long gone.

        “Access to the internet is by no means universal”

        Good point CL, so is digital TV, so is TVNZ7. If you want to start basing NZ on the concept of universal access to resources, then I’ll be your number one cheerleader. You have merely pointed out the backwardness of our country’s technology…as I said, good point.

        “As for “This is not to say that TVNZ is a waste, but it is a waste of money/resources”…You can’t have it both ways”

        Yes I can. The reason you don’t understand that sentence is cause you seperated it from the following one where I stated…”We could create many more quality programmes”. The word ‘quality’ shows that I think some of TVNZ’s programmes are “not a waste”…but I continue to see TVNZ as a waste of money/resources”

        “and you have not established any grounds for your assertion that the running public service, or arts broadcasting over the net is going to be cheaper for the Govt or the public, or provide better access.”

        Of course I never established any grounds for my ‘assertion’ on how internet TV will “provide better access”…that’s cause that statement is a creation of your own imagination. So let’s stick to what I did say, rather than what you are daydreaming…
        I would challenge the way programming is done, particularly current affairs shows. Be gone with Q+A with their high quality production (expensive) . The best NZ political discussion shows on TV at the moment are ‘The Union Report’ & ‘Citizen A’. The stark contrast between these shows and Q+A etc is the cost. How much for the Q+A and how much to fund the latter shows? News should be redone in a similar manner to RT News, where bloggers and true left intellectuals form much of the news dissection, alongside neolibs. Close up could be replaced with something like a cheap version of The Aloyna Show from RT, where it is watchable, and would be far cheaper to produce.
        There should be left wing and right wing shows, rather than the current middle of the road slop we currently get. Our current news options will continue to exist under a market model…they will not change at all, especially the 6pm-730pm timeslot…they can’t get any more market orientated, and they can’t get any more pathetic…so we should not be funding that crap. Stop paying for TV1 News and that morning ignorance we all get subjected to, then we can produce a lot of other stuff.
        We can also sell off all the TV infrastructure which cannot be used for internet TV and put that money into internet TV. Digital TV is already on its way out, internet is the future…why do you think Sky is bringing in an internet service? Digital TV is like a landline…why have one when everyone has a phone in their pocket? Internet should be a universal human right in NZ, and will be soon.
        Is it just me and my friends who watch everything on the net?

        “I’ left with the feeling that you really just wanted to say: blah blah capitalist paradigm blah blah the internet is awesome blah blah Labour is just like the Nats and trying suppress our creativity blah blah NZ TV is shit blah blah TVNZ is a waste of money and resources.”

        True, that’s the most intelligent sentence you’ve come up with…the blah blah part is a bit simple, but that is your contribution.
        I’m left with the feeling that you’ve again tried and failed to critique me a fell flat on your face. Too many misguided assumptions, and a misunderstanding of context/grammer.

        • Carol 8.2.1.1
          16 May 2012 at 5:27 pm

          Is it just me and my friends who watch everything on the net?

          There are some people who do that and others who watch only TV sets. Myself, I watch some online, but at the moment I have a bit of a dodgy net connection and ondemand or any streaming gets frustrating because I often lose the connection.

          I still prefer watching TV if it’s possible. But I suspect that in future there probably won’t be such a distinction. That is, if the world doesn’t suffer some catastrophic perfect storm and the necessary resources become very scarce. I can’t connect my little HD TV to my computer for some reason. But I gather all newer models can do this.

          In the meantime, in Auckland there’s still Triangle. I like the mix of making low budget current events/political TV programmes for Triangle that also get made available online.

          I think it will be a couple of years, probably a lot longer, yet before high speed broadband will be available to all Kiwis.

          • weka 8.2.1.1.1
            16 May 2012 at 9:49 pm

            There are places in NZ where sometimes there is a waiting list to get a new broadband connection. And the broadband available isn’t always sufficient for watching TV.

        • Campbell Larsen 8.2.1.2
          16 May 2012 at 7:48 pm

          lolwhat?

          akshully I’m a big fan of yours fatty, it is hurtful when you are so mean.

          I love it how you so often manage to slag off Labour or the Greens (or the left in general) in your comments:

          http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04042012/#comment-454884
          http://thestandard.org.nz/why-labour-is-not-shifting-to-the-centre/#comment-448916

          I love it how you like to randomly denigrate people like AIDS sufferers and are so eloquent
          “hungry whores begging for more capitalist cock.” indeed.

          What did you say you were again? a social worker!!!???

          I love it how you manage to find ways to insert right wing memes into discussions
          “Maybe young women are getting pregnant on purpose”

          You’re all class.

          • fatty 8.2.1.2.1
            17 May 2012 at 11:02 am

            Cheers CL for bringing up some of my key points, allow me to reinforce them;

            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04042012/#comment-454884
            …This is indisputable, and one of my better comments…posted on April 4th, but has become even more relevant over the past week…In what way could you possibly disagree with this?;

            http://thestandard.org.nz/why-labour-is-not-shifting-to-the-centre/#comment-448916
            …Again, this has become more relevant over the past few weeks, Shearer continues to dance around and try to befriend everyone…meanwhile his inability to form a coherent sentence in front of a camera leaves him politically impotent. The way he is co-opting neoliberal discourse and echoing Donkey is something that no longer makes me angry…I now find it depressing and comical.

            “I love it how you so often manage to slag off Labour or the Greens (or the left in general) in your comments:”

            True, good point…I see Labour as THE problem…we will always have National bringing in their selfish policies, but its a shame that over the past 25 years Labour have done little more than reinforce selfish policies rather than resist and reverse them. The Greens are much better, but their move to ‘green capitalism’ (LOL) as the answer is a failure in my opinion. As stated in other posts, I am hesitant to use the left/right dichotomy as it has become so blurred since 1984. I consider the true left to be anti-capitalists (Zizek, david harvey, andre gunder frank, arturo gomes etc)…the left should listen to these people, rather than ignore them.
            I find if I enter a left/right argument here it becomes pointless, because Labour is considered left and National right…but I see them very similar…neoliberial economics, targeted welfare, biculturalism, individual responsibility etc. Lab/Nat are rightwing in my eyes, Greens and Mana are centrist…we have no left. So when you say I slag off the ‘left in general’…I take that as a compliment, cause its the true right (and vary rarely, the centrist Greens/Mana) who I am slagging off.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/daughter-my-generation-is-squandering-your-birthright/comment-page-1/#comment-461720
            The AIDs comment was poorly written and I apologised to you for it immediately (interesting reflection on you that you should bring it up and force me to apologise again…sorry)…but I clarified my poorly illustrated point, which for some reason you cannot get your head around, and is my key issue with the current Greens policy…”Capitalism is causing our problems, it shouldn’t be seen as part of a solution”

            “hungry whores begging for more capitalist cock.” I stand by that point!…to be honest I think that’s quite well written, I will be using that again.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/when-fiscally-neutral-costs-a-billion-a-year/#comment-455794
            No, I’m studying to be one, but the way things are going, I will be heading overseas to get a decent eduction. My student loan is too high, wages here are too low to pay it off and if I can get a scholarship I’m gone…maybe it’ll make you feel better that I am probably not going to become a social worker and am changing the direction of my studies…what’s your issue with me becoming a social worker? I don’t understand?

            http://thestandard.org.nz/teenage-dreams/#comment-470358
            Re-read this post CL, along with my follow up. I am suggesting that their is some truth to Key’s logic of “breeding for business”, but I blame the governments, economics and society, rather than teenagers. This is not a “right-wing” (National?) view because I oppose the idea that teenagers need to take personal responsibility. I am suggesting that getting pregnant is often a logical response by disenfranchised youth and society is to blame. I am blaming all of us, the generational inequality, social exclusion/blame of youth, capitalism and its economic inequality. I see the non-use of contraception by teens to be framed by invalid research.
            You may call this right wing rhetoric, but you completely misunderstand my point. I see it as a Marxist position because I am blaming the economic and social structure of NZ. I also suggest poor young women are not making passive mistakes, but that becoming a teenage mother can be logic response to impending poverty. I am completely refusing individual responsibility, instead I am demanding social responsibility. So “breeding for business” is a sick way to put it…I prefer “breeding for survival”. Its a Marxist perspective (true left) not right wing at all.

            “You’re all class”

            I’m not here for polite conversation, I’m here to argue points, so please argue away. The more often I disagree with someone, the more I learn…but you have to back up your points with logic, rather than a simplistic side-swipe. The best argument I have had on here is with carol over intergenerational inequality where she bombarded me with stats and highlighted david harvey as a reference. I learnt a lot from carol about babyboomers…you should learn to make a point.

            Trawling through and reposting my previous posts, and allowing me to reinforce them has been fun for me, but I still don’t understand what you are trying to achieve. I stand by all those posts, except the nasty AIDs reference – do you want me to apologise for that again? (although I stand behind the point that reference made).
            I think you can do much better than your above post, its way below the level of ‘pete george logic’.

            • prism 8.2.1.2.1.1
              20 May 2012 at 10:00 pm

              The long comments from fatty are timed at 11.02 and 11.07. I guess the first one is superfluous and takes up a lot of space on the thread. Perhaps the moderator could sort this.

              • fatty …
                20 May 2012 at 10:13 pm

                Sorry, they are the same reply. I didn’t realise and I am severely technologically challenged.

                • prism …
                  21 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

                  fatty You are able to put live links so not too challenged! When I learned to do that I felt pretty good and can now remember the procedure without referring to my notes. Hooray for me.

          • fatty 8.2.1.2.2
            17 May 2012 at 11:07 am

            Cheers CL for bringing up some of my key points, allow me to reinforce them;

            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04042012/#comment-454884
            …This is pretty difficult to dispute, and one of my better comments…posted on April 4th, but has become even more relevant over the past week…In what way could you possibly disagree with this?;

            http://thestandard.org.nz/why-labour-is-not-shifting-to-the-centre/#comment-448916
            …Again, this has become more relevant over the past few weeks, Shearer continues to dance around and try to befriend everyone…meanwhile his inability to form a coherent sentence in front of a camera leaves him politically impotent. The way he is co-opting neoliberal discourse and echoing Donkey is something that no longer makes me angry…I now find it depressing and comical.

            “I love it how you so often manage to slag off Labour or the Greens (or the left in general) in your comments:”

            True, good point…I see Labour as THE problem…we will always have National bringing in their selfish policies, but its a shame that over the past 25 years Labour have done little more than reinforce selfish policies rather than resist and reverse them. The Greens are much better, but their move to ‘green capitalism’ (LOL) as the answer is a failure in my opinion. As stated in other posts, I am hesitant to use the left/right dichotomy as it has become so blurred since 1984. I often claim here that Lab/Nats are centrist for the sake of argument…but to be honest, I consider the true left to be anti-capitalists (Zizek, david harvey, andre gunder frank, arturo gomes etc)…the left should listen to these people, rather than ignore them.
            I find if I enter a left/right argument here it becomes pointless, because Labour is considered left and National right…but I see them very similar…neoliberial economics, targeted welfare, biculturalism, individual responsibility etc. Lab/Nat are rightwing in my eyes, Greens and Mana are centrist…we have no left. So when you say I slag off the ‘left in general’…I take that as a compliment, cause its the true right (and vary rarely, the centrist Greens/Mana) who I am slagging off.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/daughter-my-generation-is-squandering-your-birthright/comment-page-1/#comment-461720
            The AIDs comment was poorly written and I apologised to you for it immediately (interesting reflection on you that you should bring it up and force me to apologise again…sorry)…but I clarified my poorly illustrated point, which for some reason you cannot get your head around, and is my key issue with the current Greens policy…”Capitalism is causing our problems, it shouldn’t be seen as part of a solution”

            “hungry whores begging for more capitalist cock.” I stand by that point!…to be honest I think that’s quite well written, I will be using that again.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/when-fiscally-neutral-costs-a-billion-a-year/#comment-455794
            No, I’m studying to be one, but the way things are going, I will be heading overseas to get a decent eduction. My student loan is too high, wages here are too low to pay it off and if I can get a scholarship I’m gone…maybe it’ll make you feel better that I am probably not going to become a social worker and am changing the direction of my studies…what’s your issue with me becoming a social worker? I don’t understand?

            http://thestandard.org.nz/teenage-dreams/#comment-470358
            Re-read this post CL, along with my follow up. I am suggesting that their is some truth to Key’s logic of “breeding for business”, but I blame the governments, economics and society, rather than teenagers. This is not a “right-wing” (National?) view because I oppose the idea that teenagers need to take personal responsibility. I am suggesting that getting pregnant is often a logical response by disenfranchised youth and society is to blame. I am blaming all of us, the generational inequality, social exclusion/blame of youth, capitalism and its economic inequality. I see the non-use of contraception by teens to be framed by invalid research.
            You may call this right wing rhetoric, but you completely misunderstand my point. I see it as a Marxist position because I am blaming the economic and social structure of NZ. I also suggest poor young women are not making passive mistakes, but that becoming a teenage mother can be logic response to impending poverty. I am completely refusing individual responsibility, instead I am demanding social responsibility. So “breeding for business” is a sick way to put it…I prefer “breeding for survival”. Its a Marxist perspective (true left) not right wing at all.

            “You’re all class”

            I’m not here for polite conversation, I’m here to argue points, so please argue away. The more often I disagree with someone, the more I learn…but you have to back up your points with logic, rather than a simplistic side-swipe. The best argument I have had on here is with carol over intergenerational inequality where she bombarded me with stats and highlighted david harvey as a reference. I learnt a lot from carol about babyboomers…you should learn to make a point.

            Trawling through and reposting my previous posts, and allowing me to reinforce them has been fun for me, but I still don’t understand what you are trying to achieve. I stand by all those posts, except the nasty AIDs reference – do you want me to apologise for that again? (although I stand behind the point that reference made).
            I think you can do much better than your above post, its way below the level of ‘pete george logic’.

  9. grumpy 9
    16 May 2012 at 11:43 am

    …sell it to Fox. We need a channel that’s “Fair and Balanced”…………………..

  10. Pete George 10
    16 May 2012 at 12:23 pm

    This campaign is far too late, especially if it’s intended to get a private members bill drawn from ballot and passed through all stages in 42 days.

    It seems to be being used as a political publicity stunt. There seems to be more people interested in protesting than there has been watching the channel.

    TVNZ7 has some reasonable programs but like almost everyone else I hardly every watch it. I don’t watch TV1 much either, and rarely watch TV2.

    We have far to many channels available with far too little quality. I’d rather see more emphasis on quality and flexibility to watch rather than keeping yet another channel.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      16 May 2012 at 2:33 pm

      I’d rather see more emphasis on quality and flexibility…

      None of which you’re actually getting from the commercial focus BS.

  11. warren 11
    16 May 2012 at 1:33 pm

    In calling TVNZ7 “yet another channel” shows you are missing the point entirely by lumping it with all the low quality commercial ratings-driven channels (ie all the other channels).

  12. Julian Haworth 12
    16 May 2012 at 2:31 pm

    A readers poll just carried out in the NZ Herald showed 68% support for keeping TV7.
    This is amazing given the political bent of readers of this paper. The poll results were pulled very quickly-maybe a little pressure exerted by Joyce and his puppet Key?

  13. Gerard 13
    16 May 2012 at 7:15 pm

    The argument that nobody watches TVNZ7 is nonsense. It’s just nonsense. We all know that.
    Yes we know that 1.4 Million people tuned into TVNZ7 according to AC Nielson. We also know that these figures are concealed and manipulated by TVNZ and those bent on having nothing but commercial TV in this country.

    We know we can afford a Public Television Service and until 30th June 2012 we’ve actually had public television. We know that every other OECD country apart from mexico thinks Public Service TV is valuable enough to fund. Much like a national art gallery, a national library or national museum.

    If National were at all serious about a “knowledge economy” it’s actions would speak louder than words with regard to Public Service Television. Instead of leading the way to a brighter future – they are no where to be seen. They avoid the conversation. They do not respond, don’t front up and hide. This is bad for democracy. This is bad for you and me.

    The idea that NZ On Air funding is contestable is fraught because you have to have a broadcaster’s approval that they will broadcast your program before you can seek funding. Try getting that approval when the only imperative are ratings and ratings show that the most popular shows are cooking shows, police shows, crime dramas, soap operas and reality TV. Hardly informing stuff.

    So those on this blog who are negative about TVNZ7 are truly the ignorant and the uninformed. Yes there has been some repeats of shows on TVNZ7 but they’ve been bloody good value. BBC documentaries, in depth media analysis like Media 7, political debate like Back Benchers, discussions about literature on the Good Word and in-depth interviews on Talk Talk. This sort of content ( and much more ) has been distinctively more informing and valuable than anything on TV1, TV2 or TV3. We should support more of this and less of the same old tired brainless entertainment the programming commissioners are locked into for the other channels. At a very minimum we should at least have one channel where New Zealanders can easily access this material. From the 30th June we will have none. No choice. Nothing.

    Those who don’t understand this may as well go live in another country because this country doesn’t mean anything much to them.

  14. prism 14
    20 May 2012 at 11:03 am

    Even though TV7 was an attempt to provide more public service stuff hasn’t it needed the purchase of a set top box if having an older tv without such built in features.? Or could I see it if I can find the right channel on my not very new tv? I know I will have to take some action of this soon because of the change from analogue to digital.

  15. captain hook 15
    21 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

    the whole point of the matter is that Tories dont want anybody to know anything.
    they just want them to buy!