Comments on: Dear editors: you are wrong to reject Commerce Commission’s draft decision

By: Priss

Priss — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 23:39:18 +0000

I read that open letter. I call BULLSHIT on it.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:57:30 +0000

The print media companies worldwide are in trouble because their revenues have dropped so drastically over the past ten years.

For example, Monday and Wednesday’s NZ Herald, Dominion, Press or ODT was what you bought when you were looking for a job just a decade ago. That was then and so on. The Herald on those two days now has about a page of employment advertising – it used to be a whole section.

I’d quite reasonably estimate on the basis of the thin items called newspapers being published these days, that NZME and Fairfax have had a 50% fall in revenue since 2000.

By: In Vino

In Vino — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:11:14 +0000

In reply to Frank Macskasy. Yes, I think we agree. Commercialism leads to a race to the bottom combined with monopoly, which, ironically, stems from a system of competition that starts with many competitors, but results in the winners becoming monopolies, the very opposite of what free enterprise is meant to result in. Deeply flawed...

By: Frank Macskasy

Frank Macskasy — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:14:46 +0000

The height of irony; the free market supposedly operate best when “healthy competition” exists.

Having a near monopoly of newspapers and radio stations seems to run counter to this most basic tenet of neo-liberalism.

If a near monopoly is supposedly such a good thing, we might as well nationalise the entire Fourh estate and do away with advertising altogether.

If the high standards set by Radio NZ is any indication, this cannot be a bad thing.

By: In Vino

In Vino — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:32:49 +0000

In reply to Pete. For heaven's sake, am I the only one who thinks that advertising revenue is the worst possible way to fund any kind of news medium? Why has nobody else ever raised this point?

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 05:33:47 +0000

If were a judge hearing this case or the chair of some group hearing submissions on this case, and a group of editors claimed that this change in ownership would not result in “falling prey” to commercial agenda, you’d have to give the claim due consideration. For about 1.5 seconds. Then you could tell it like it really is. Two words should suffice: “Fuck off.”

By: CLEANGREEN

CLEANGREEN — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:34:38 +0000

We used to all actually look up to Editors of our papers but since the 1970’s their standards and moral compass have been corrupted so no-one we know now actually has any respect for the media or their editors except you Martyn at the only truthful “voice of the people”.

All those editors are definitely corrupted, and all their names should become a “Media wall of shame” for our future generations to remember this shame we bestowed upon them.

By: garibali

garibali — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:31:24 +0000

The horse has already bolted. I am opposed to this merger. I would rather see them go under than witness our current situation get infinitely worse by allowing the merger.

By: Afewknowthetruth

Afewknowthetruth — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:33:09 +0000

Commercial interests and truth are incompatible -mutually exclusive even. So we get commercial agendas -almost entirely short term- instead of truth, not only from the mainstream media but also from the government.

How can anyone be at all surprised?

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:07:01 +0000

“The merger would not result in loss of plurality of voices”?

NZME came into being with mergers and now on Radio Sport we hear the same people whose columns we read in the Herald.

No result in loss of plurality of voices?