Here we have employees working in an industry that they believe is dying. With that attitude, where is the incentive to get out of bed and go to work? How are they going to improve the product they have on offer when they are immersed in negative thoughts? It’s no wonder the organisation they work for is in the situation it is. It is rotting from the inside! It appears the staff being paid have little or no faith in the company or the industry in which they work.
Who’s paying them? Unfortunately it’s us, the taxpayers. This is a pretty sad state of affairs. I think this is a situation that requires government intervention, but we are unlikely to see it. Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith would no doubt view that as interfering in operational matters. He would leave the sorting out to an organisation that is clearly not capable of doing so.
If Trump were in charge, he would have no hesitation in closing this non-achieving beast down. He has already done so with non-performing government-run radio in America. If this under-performing outfit is to continue, surely it is beholden on the government to step in and right it. The government owns it on our behalf and we prefer that no more of our taxpayer dollars are wasted on it.
The reasons for the situation they find themselves in are purely of their own making. They are losing listeners because of their narrative, which might suit them but is out of step with the majority of the population. And there are occasions when the narrative is undeniably false. This is a virus that has been mutating in left-wing media outlets for a considerable time and they are paying the price for spreading, in many cases, blatant misinformation.
It’s the old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Richard Sutherland in his report – without giving names or reasons – said some presenters should not be on air. In my opinion that would be most of them. So who to replace them? An article in the Herald by the Media Insider editor, Shane Currie, came up with the following: Jack Tame, Tova O’Brien, Paddy Gower and Rebecca Wright. Are you serious??!
By suggesting these people, it is obvious Mr Currie has no comprehension whatsoever of the reasons for the dire situation Radio New Zealand finds itself in, any more than he does with the Herald (or the Horrid as some like to call it). The journalists at the left media, including TV1 and TV3, are all consumed by their leftist narrative and one can only conclude they don’t care how that is ruining the businesses they work for. Maybe they have no comprehension of the fact.
Radio is not dying. Newstalk ZB is evidence of that. The likes of Mike Hosking and Heather du Plessis-Allan have large audiences. Why? Because they are broadcasting a narrative that the majority identify with. Heather recently won ‘Broadcaster of the Year’, and deservedly so. She has a unique ability when it comes to talking to her audience. She could be sitting in the room with you on a couch opposite. This is the art of communicating in a one-on-one style. Her show is fast paced and laced with humour.
This is how you attract an audience. None of the people Shane Currie mentioned come anywhere near close to Heather. They would spout the same narrative that is the cause of the problems at RNZ. Morning Report is called ‘Moaning Report’ by some citing that is the reason they have switched to Hosking on ZB. They are prepared to suffer the adverts and the fact they think Hosking has a high opinion of himself (something he has in common with Trump). I doubt he would like the comparison.
If RNZ can’t recognise or won’t face the reasons for its downward spiral then their problems will continue. That is an untenable situation for us, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this outfit that appears lost in its own leftist bubble. If it doesn’t change course, it is headed for the rocks. This radio ‘ship of state’ is foundering on its own leftist activism. Sadly, nothing is likely to change.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
Who’s paying them? Unfortunately it’s us, the taxpayers. This is a pretty sad state of affairs. I think this is a situation that requires government intervention, but we are unlikely to see it. Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith would no doubt view that as interfering in operational matters. He would leave the sorting out to an organisation that is clearly not capable of doing so.
If Trump were in charge, he would have no hesitation in closing this non-achieving beast down. He has already done so with non-performing government-run radio in America. If this under-performing outfit is to continue, surely it is beholden on the government to step in and right it. The government owns it on our behalf and we prefer that no more of our taxpayer dollars are wasted on it.
The reasons for the situation they find themselves in are purely of their own making. They are losing listeners because of their narrative, which might suit them but is out of step with the majority of the population. And there are occasions when the narrative is undeniably false. This is a virus that has been mutating in left-wing media outlets for a considerable time and they are paying the price for spreading, in many cases, blatant misinformation.
It’s the old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Richard Sutherland in his report – without giving names or reasons – said some presenters should not be on air. In my opinion that would be most of them. So who to replace them? An article in the Herald by the Media Insider editor, Shane Currie, came up with the following: Jack Tame, Tova O’Brien, Paddy Gower and Rebecca Wright. Are you serious??!
By suggesting these people, it is obvious Mr Currie has no comprehension whatsoever of the reasons for the dire situation Radio New Zealand finds itself in, any more than he does with the Herald (or the Horrid as some like to call it). The journalists at the left media, including TV1 and TV3, are all consumed by their leftist narrative and one can only conclude they don’t care how that is ruining the businesses they work for. Maybe they have no comprehension of the fact.
Radio is not dying. Newstalk ZB is evidence of that. The likes of Mike Hosking and Heather du Plessis-Allan have large audiences. Why? Because they are broadcasting a narrative that the majority identify with. Heather recently won ‘Broadcaster of the Year’, and deservedly so. She has a unique ability when it comes to talking to her audience. She could be sitting in the room with you on a couch opposite. This is the art of communicating in a one-on-one style. Her show is fast paced and laced with humour.
This is how you attract an audience. None of the people Shane Currie mentioned come anywhere near close to Heather. They would spout the same narrative that is the cause of the problems at RNZ. Morning Report is called ‘Moaning Report’ by some citing that is the reason they have switched to Hosking on ZB. They are prepared to suffer the adverts and the fact they think Hosking has a high opinion of himself (something he has in common with Trump). I doubt he would like the comparison.
If RNZ can’t recognise or won’t face the reasons for its downward spiral then their problems will continue. That is an untenable situation for us, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this outfit that appears lost in its own leftist bubble. If it doesn’t change course, it is headed for the rocks. This radio ‘ship of state’ is foundering on its own leftist activism. Sadly, nothing is likely to change.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Haven’t listened to RNZ since Guyon Espiner insisted on delivering unintelligible diatribes in te reo on Morning Report. Furthermore Shane Currie’s ideas on prospective RNZ presenters illustrates precisely why I long ago cancelled my subscription to the Herald. Under Currie’s editorship the Herald is almost as biased as RNZ. At least taxpayers don’t fund the Herald (PIJF excepted). No chance I’ll return to either RNZ or the Herald unless neutral reporting is restored.
Mr Currie is of the same political block as those he named hence more of the same bias with better known names
It’s not just rnz though. At stuff, the same tactics are employed. Such as:
Samantha Hayes’ recent story on life expectancy It takes the oldest trick in the activist-journalism playbook: lead with a doomsday headline, sprinkle in a few despairing quotes, and airbrush away the facts that don’t fit.
The headline is pure alarmism: “Persistent shorter life expectancies for Maori, Pasifika ‘a disaster for all of us’.” Before the reader sees a single statistic, the moral cue is delivered: feel guilty, feel alarmed. But the hard data tell a very different story. Stats NZ reports that Māori life expectancy has grown by 3.1 years since the mid-2000s—faster than Europeans, faster than “Other” groups, faster than almost anyone. Gains for Pasifika and Asians are smaller, but the direction is the same: steady improvement. Disaster? No. Progress—real and measurable.
That awkward reality never troubles Hayes’ narrative. Instead, she takes Kevin Hague’s word as gospel. Hague is presented as a sober authority, the voice of reason calling for urgent “community-led solutions” and government alignment. What goes unsaid is just as important as what is printed. Hague is not a doctor, not an epidemiologist, not even a neutral observer. He is a career activist, former Green Party list MP, and lobbyist. His worldview is built on the gospel of inequity and Treaty principles. His place on the Public Health Advisory Committee was a Labour-era political appointment, not an accident of expertise.
Hayes doesn’t disclose any of this. She frames his ideological positions. That is not journalism; it is stenography. Worse, it is a breach of the most basic duty of transparency. Readers deserve to know whose agenda is being pushed, and why.
This is the deeper problem with Stuff’s activist bent. They dress up advocacy as reporting, strip away balance, and lean on emotionally loaded framing. The first major Public Health Advisory Committee report in 25 years is reduced to a single man’s despairing sermon. No hard recommendations, no measurable benchmarks, no critical scrutiny. Just “disaster,” repeated like a drumbeat.
The irony is glaring. Progress is happening—uneven, incomplete, but undeniable. Yet Stuff prefers to manufacture a crisis because it makes for better copy and aligns neatly with their ideological priors. Thomas Sowell called this the “vision of the anointed”: moral elites shaping the narrative, impervious to evidence.
The result? A public misled into believing failure where the data shows success. A debate framed around guilt and despair rather than fact and proportion. And an audience left with less trust in both journalism and government health committees.
The real scandal isn’t Māori or Pasifika life expectancy. It’s that Stuff and Hayes have turned progress into panic, sidelined facts for feelings, and allowed activism to masquerade as truth.
See the comments when Hosking observed much the same 19 August.
Just finished listening to RNZ Sat morning to 1pm. Quite apart from the presenters, near every programme has had a maori element. culminating in some old sage who is plotting for return to maori of National Park gifted long ago. Not a hint of question. And they wonder why so few listen.
Robert: if that was Chris Finlayson on rnz, sage would not be the word to first come to mind!
Post a Comment