-
Complete bullshit. Media is special because? Nearly every sector has been hard hit but they get special help.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback but they give us the news and when you listen to the questions they ask in these pressers, clearly they are providing a great and essential service
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback you scratch my back....
-
@taniwharugby Including questions like "Will the second tranche of support funding be much higher than the first?"
NZ journalism during the Pandemic seems to be a mix of
- Drip feed snippets of press conferences a bit at a time and (try to) make it look like investigative journalism
- Agency pieces from overseas
- Social media comments
- Local equivalents of the old "Anyone here a white woman and been raped" i.e. Anyone think they should get more PPE ? or Anyone want to [ insert banned lockdown activity]? or even Anyone want to [ insert banned lockdown activity] while wearing PPE?
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
I'm sure the world will be a better place when Stuff, the Herald, Newstalk ZB and TV3/Newshub disappear, and we get left with blogs, TVNZ and RNZ.
Also not sure where this advertising revenue is coming from if they pivot - advertisers usually want eyeballs/ears above all else.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
I'm sure the world will be a better place when Stuff, the Herald, Newstalk ZB and TV3/Newshub disappear, and we get left with blogs, TVNZ and RNZ.
Also not sure where this advertising revenue is coming from if they pivot - advertisers usually want eyeballs/ears above all else.
You mean like what the govt is doing to the rest of the economy with its overkill lockdown? They are shredding players in every industry.. and leaving consumers with fewer options. Part of a govt induced deep recession... maybe they should, have thoughtthat the draconian lockdown a little more.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
I'm sure the world will be a better place when Stuff, the Herald, Newstalk ZB and TV3/Newshub disappear, and we get left with blogs, TVNZ and RNZ.
Also not sure where this advertising revenue is coming from if they pivot - advertisers usually want eyeballs/ears above all else.
You mean like what the govt is doing to the rest of the economy with its overkill lockdown? They are shredding players in every industry.. and leaving consumers with fewer options. Part of a govt induced deep recession... maybe they should, have thoughtthat the draconian lockdown a little more.
Of course, big government, big brother, deep state. All the experts bought and paid for, all the politicians in it for the cash and the pork. With any sort of luck, we'll be a cross between Cuba, Venezuela and USSR.
All hail our Bolshevik overlords (I don't want to be in the first re-education classes).
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Media took a 30% hit to advertising revenue after the GFC (because spending didn't rebound after), and that's the fear again. We can hate them all we like, but that's an industry at risk, unless we just want state-owned news sources.
or news sources that actually provide what people want and not just left wing propaganda outlets. Stuff is great example. iT has a ludicrous left wing slant, especially around climate change, and yet wants a handout, perhaps if they were not so shite they would have more advertsising.
Sadly they do try and provide what people want.
Often however, it just isn't what we as individuals want to read. You, because you dislike any view to the left of your political position. Me, because Mark Reason.The fact that we both know that they provide thing that we don't like shows that their usual metheods work to a degree.
I do admit that when they started asking for donations to continue quality journalism I thought that maybe they shoud look at starting first.
They are incredibly left wing. They dont try to provide what people want, they try to provide what a sub section wants. They even try to justify to not allow any views arguing against climate change action can be allowed on their platform. That is not journalism, that is activism.
and you know this how? because you read it there? target achieved.
Readership is not always people who agree with the message.
If we are solely talking about advertising revenue then that is based on reach not quality.
If we are talking quality, then I agree with you ion some aspects.
No because I used to read there quite abit, now I hardly ever go there. Maybe once every few weeks instead of once a day. So no.. target most certainly not achieved.
So you used to read it when National were in power and didn't mind it but now Labour are in power you dislike it?
Nope. Stopped reading when national were still in power. Similar time to when a thread started about how shite they were.
Coronavirus - New Zealand