Politics NZ Politics

Who will get your vote in this years election?

  • National

    Votes: 17 26.2%

  • Labour

    Votes: 13 20.0%

  • Act

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • Greens

    Votes: 9 13.8%

  • NZ First

    Votes: 5 7.7%

  • Māori Party

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
MrFrankWhite said:
Uhh you cant come in, rapidly change the variables and then project the same trajectory...
Click to expand...
Huh?

He’s projecting smoking will only drop to 5% of the population in 2061 - 35 years time and making a big deal out of it, blaming National and calling them corrupt.

It’s about 5% now based on the MOH stats and due to die out anyway in a few years, regardless of govt policy.

There no issue yet he keeps bringing it up, getting all bitter and angry about it as though it’s the end of the world. Flogging a dead horse 🤷‍♂️
 
Its obviously not front page news, cos Aus is used to crims killing crims. But its a direct reflection of policy. Vapes are now illegal in Aus. Smoking is on the rise.
 

Nationwide schools survey reveals increase in teens susceptible to smoking, confirms big rise in vaping​

High school-age kids are showing renewed interest in taking up smoking tobacco for the first time in 30 years.
Results of a major survey have not only confirmed rapid uptake of vaping by teens aged 12 to 17 in the past five years, but they paint a worrying picture of increased susceptibility to smoking.

The Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey — which reached more than 10,000 students from 83 schools across the country — found the number who admitted to puffing on a vape in the past month had quadrupled in the past five years across all age groups.
Along with the big increase in vaping, the percentage of teens who were considered susceptible to taking up smoking because they had experimented with cigarettes, or did not give a firm commitment to never smoke, also surged from 11.1 per cent in 2017 to 15.3 per cent this year.
The survey, which ran from March last year to July this year, is the biggest study of adolescent substance use in Australia.
Usually conducted every three years, it was delayed by the COVID pandemic.
Professor Sarah Durkin, head of Cancer Council Victoria Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, said the earlier a person started experimenting with cigarettes, the greater their chance of becoming a regular long-term user.
“These data show that vaping is rapidly increasing among Australian adolescents — with now almost one-third having ever tried it,” she said.
“Studies that track young people over time find that those who vape are around three times as likely to take-up smoking later.
“So, while tobacco control over decades has driven down adolescent ever-smoking to 13.5 per cent in this latest survey, it would be unwise to ignore the significant increase in the proportion of 12–17-year-olds who are susceptible to smoking.”

Professor Durkin said it was critical to intervene before occasional smoking or vaping became regular use.
“Currently, just 2 per cent of students smoke at least weekly and only 5 per cent have vaped at least 20 of the past 30 days,” she said. “So we have a small but rapidly closing window to act to prevent those children who are experimenting from going on to face a lifetime of nicotine addiction and health harms.”
Young people who vape are three times three times as likely to take-up smoking later. Pixabay
Cancer Council Australia chief executive Tanya Buchanan said the data underscored the importance of comprehensive policy to prevent and reduce smoking and vaping.
“Young people don’t want to smoke — they’ve grown up with graphic health warnings and plain packaging so think smoking is unattractive,” she said.
“They also consider vaping to be an entirely different behaviour to smoking but may be unaware that they are three times as likely to take up smoking if they vape.”
Professor Buchanan said a “harmful and powerful industry” was intent on luring teens into a lifetime of nicotine addiction, but government measures coming into force next year would help protect them.
A ban on importing disposable vapes will come into effect on January 1, alongside measures that will make it easier for doctors to prescribe e-cigarettes where clinically appropriate to people looking for support to quit smoking.
 
Damo said:
This is purely my opinion but I think Newshub and TVNZ failing is a lot due to the changing in the times, hardly anyone I know even watches TV anymore.
This coming from a 30 - 40 year old who works with a lot of <30 year olds as well as people fresh out of school.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, it's public TV as a whole. Our head office is taking all advertising off channels 1,2,3,Prime and focusing on social media.
 
PullingTeets said:
You're not wrong, it's public TV as a whole. Our head office is taking all advertising off channels 1,2,3,Prime and focusing on social media.
Click to expand...
Warner bros were going to can TV3 and gut it anyway.

TVNZ has been used as a cash cow for the various governments to run as a commercial enterprise. I have no problem with that part, as long as it's countered with a decent public broadcasting service, which is really where journalism and reporting belongs in my opinion.

This government in particular needs to be held to account. In true authoritarian fashion the accountability is being dismantled in front of our eyes.
 
defensivebomb said:
i also think the presenters overplay their hand, thinking they each offer something special that is really critical in delivering news to us. I remember in the mid 2000s, Judy Bailey got paid $800k by TVNZ to present the news. And TVNZ argued "that's her market value". That was 20 years ago. On that salary, inflated to today would be $1.3m!!!!

But the reality is, I don't care who reads me the news. In fact, I don't like Andrew Saville, and John Campbell
Click to expand...
The gravy train has derailed for this lot, finally.
Didn't John Hawkesby get $1m pa at some stage to move stations? Most of them could be replaced by anyone literate for a fraction of the cost.
Their awards night was a joke, black tie event where almost everyone got a prize for something even though it was a closed shop.
As others have said, the world has moved on from TV and advertising just as it has for many other industries and nobody sheds a tear. Workers have been facing this for the last 40 years.
 
Talking to a mate last night who is a small contractor and does small jobs for a large Govt entity.
He got a job drilling 200mm deep holes into a concrete slab. Before starting he was approached by one of the two H&S officers and told he would have to attend a meeting with the in house asbestos manager before starting. He asked why, given the absence of asbestos in concrete. Didn't matter, no work without meeting. He went to the meeting where four people, all from the asbestos team attended and after a chat was given the okay to proceed.
 
dean said:
The gravy train has derailed for this lot, finally.
Didn't John Hawkesby get $1m pa at some stage to move stations? Most of them could be replaced by anyone literate for a fraction of the cost.
Their awards night was a joke, black tie event where almost everyone got a prize for something even though it was a closed shop.
As others have said, the world has moved on from TV and advertising just as it has for many other industries and nobody sheds a tear. Workers have been facing this for the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
And Judy Bailey was on about $750k, wasn’t this about 25-30 years ago?
 
dean said:
Correct, something like that. What say did taxpayers have in what she and others could be paid from the public purse?
Click to expand...
As always, there's a context.

And the troughing, public purse narrative is a right wing trope to say that "they", whoever they are at this point, are stealing money from "us", the taxpayers.

Even handedness should see that that's applied to corporate welfare as well, but often isn't.

I appreciate it's your viewpoint, no worries there, but a wider context is that tvnz as part of the neoliberal reforms was forced into a commercial remit in 1989 -

1712953988218.png


So in that context, ratings wars become a vital tool in attracting the advertising dollar.

In Judy Bailey's day there were no unaccountable greedy giant faceless corporations owned by unaccountable billionaires stealing 90% of intellectual property and content and not paying for it, and hoovering up all the advertising too.

But that seems to sit well with this government - Melissa Lee is standing by while our public and private journalism is gutted.

Cynically one might say that removal of accountability will sit well with this lot. There you go, I've just said it.

Up the wahs.
 

Attachments

  • 1712953886448.png
    1712953886448.png
    33.1 KB · Views: 10
I enjoy Simon Wilson's measured comment and he has a timely perspective as well:

Simon Wilson: Trust down, jobs gone, what’s the media going to do now?​


By

Simon Wilson​

13 Apr, 2024 05:00 AM11 mins to read


OPINION
Trust in media has dropped 20 percentage points in the last five years. The AUT annual Trust in News survey was released on Monday with the startling news that New Zealanders’ trust in media has fallen from 53 per cent in 2020 to 33 per cent this year.
What a week. Warner Bros. Discovery confirmed it was closing down its entire Newshub operation, including Three’s flagship 6 o’clock news. And TVNZ confirmed it was closing Sunday, Fair Go and some news programmes, scaling back its digital, youth-oriented service Re:News and making other cuts to its journalism.
A leading social scientist suggested to me on Tuesday that New Zealand might become the first country in the world to lose linear TV.
Linear TV is broadcast TV – the programmes you watch as they are being broadcast – rather than the programmes you choose to watch when you go to a media app or website.

​

In the media we like to tell ourselves we’re not making baked beans. It’s true. News media isn’t a commodity product, it’s crafted by highly skilled people who work hard to do a good job. Most of them could get much better-paid work doing something else, but they do journalism because they like it and, especially, because they believe in it.
Still, what if we were making baked beans? If people told us they didn’t like the taste, we’d do something about the recipe pretty damn quick.

Read More​

Journalism has to do the same. In the mainstream we’re losing audiences to social media. In broadcast and print, we’re losing out to apps and websites.
ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise with NZME.
We’re responding by building the strength of our own apps and websites, as we should. That involves the quality of what we offer online, the breadth of coverage and style of how we do it. And, importantly, the revenue-generating potential and the algorithmic wizardry required to succeed. It’s a new and fast-changing world and we’re learning about it, just like our audiences.
But is there enough debate about what news is and what it should be? Is there bias in the ways we choose stories and frame them, the language we use and the values we reinforce with those choices?
The AUT survey contains some telling results. Among them:
  • That overall trust figure has dropped a few points each year from 2020 but this year it fell suddenly, from 42 per cent to 33 per cent.
  • Trust in social media and search engines has also fallen.
  • AUT piggybacks on a Reuters survey of 46 countries, which had an average trust rate of 40 per cent. We’re doing worse than the mean.
  • We’re among three countries where trust is notably lower: the others are the United States and Britain.
  • Trust is highest among the young and the old, lowest among 45- to 64-year-olds.
  • Trust is lowest among Pākehā, with “other European” and Indian New Zealanders also showing up strongly.
In a wider sense, these results shouldn’t be a surprise. Declining trust in all sources of information is one sign of a fraying society and who doesn’t think that’s what we’ve living in now.
LRL53BM6VZG2NJKIKEQ2KVIKQI.jpg

But look at those demographics: the trust problem is led by middle-aged Pākehā.
Where have we heard that before? Only everywhere.
I know, I’m one of them. I reckon that means I’m allowed to say this.
Turns out the people who complain the most about media are the people who complain the most about everything. Taxes and rates. Having to drive more slowly in suburbs and on dangerous open roads. Climate change. Housing density. Breaking the cycles of violence and illness associated with poverty. And especially the rise of te reo Māori and all the other ways Māori get “special treatment”.
ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise with NZME.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Of course the people who complain the most about social and cultural change are the people who complain the most about the media. In the media, we reflect those changes, as they evolve in schools and suburbs, workplaces and sports fields. But those who complain the most don’t want to hear about these things and don’t think they should be happening.

The way most media do this is not exclusionary. Weather presenters, for example, could hardly be more inclusive: they haven’t abandoned the name Dunedin, they’ve just added Ōtepoti. But the complainers don’t want warm and friendly inclusion. They want it all to stop.

And yet paradoxically, because this demographic complains the longest, loudest and most often, their views get into the media more than everyone else’s.

All this makes it easy to think the media is dominated by these issues. TV presenters reflect the changing te reo Māori-infused language of Aotearoa New Zealand and it leads to noisy debates about whether it should be happening.
“Tēnā koutou katoa” has become common, and so has shouting “Woke!”

It won’t have escaped many that the big drop in trust in media has coincided with the age of Covid. We’ve become a more fractured and angry society, and many people are alienated. It shows up in everything from driver behaviour to shoplifting to ram raids, social media abuse to family harm callouts and threats to the safety of bus drivers and politicians.

And in relation to media, the sudden drop in trust last year suggests we’ve reached a tipping point. The shouty arguments of the fringe have moved into the mainstream.
But this has nothing to do with the main reason media is in trouble.

It comes down to one big thing: money. TVNZ boss Jodi O’Donnell says 90 per cent of digital news advertising revenue goes to social media platforms and therefore leaves the country.
As Charlotte Grimshaw put it in the Listener this week, social media platforms are destroying local journalism. The question she asked was: Are we really going to let this happen?

The answer, to date, is yes. Those platforms have not only sucked up most of the available revenue, they feed off media companies for content, they pay very little tax, and we just let them do it. They’re hardly constrained by regulation and they’re among the biggest companies in the world.

And the Minister of Broadcasting, Melissa Lee, has not yet said a single coherent thing about it.

Digital media has a superpower: it can connect advertisers directly with individual consumers whose online behaviour marks them as good targets for those advertisers.
Broadcast TV and newspapers can’t do that. TV companies lost 14 per cent of their ad revenue last year and they know there is little prospect of getting it back.

But it’s not just social media that has the superpower. The apps and websites of mainstream media do, too. This is why media companies are refocusing to “digital first”.
Lack of revenue is crippling. It leads to staff layoffs, so there are fewer stories, less coverage of events and less time available for the remaining staff to keep standards high.

It means broadcast programmes and print titles are shut down. While the big shocks this week are about TV news, in the last few years we’ve lost dozens of community newspapers, magazines and supplements.
An exhaustive head count by the Spinoff this year noted there were 4071 professional journalists recorded in the 2006 census. With this week’s TV layoffs factored in, the figure could now be less than 1500.
Lack of revenue also inhibits innovation. We know it’s essential, but it’s not easy when there’s no money to employ new talent, to experiment and launch new ventures.

Next problem: media consumption is changing fast. TikTok leads the way right now but it’s not even eight years old. What worked yesterday doesn’t work today and what works today may not work tomorrow.
We know we need new ways of doing the news. But what, and how?
I took part in a podcast on Tuesday evening for the Working Group, which pops up in the top five political podcasts listened to by New Zealanders. We debated the political issues of the day.

The podcast itself was watched and listened to live and remains available for anyone to do that at any time. But that’s almost the least of it. With the involvement of a broadcast partner, it also gets sliced and diced into a whole lot of smaller pieces of content, for TikTok, Instagram, linear radio and other platforms.
The reach it can achieve from all that is exponentially larger than what the original show does on its own. Media companies will probably have to get really good at this, but it isn’t easy.

And will it last? Journalists and media companies use social media to promote their work. But social media is becoming less interested in that. Instagram doesn’t want you to leave Instagram and go read something at the Herald. It wants you to stay on Instagram.
Among people under 25, the most popular media form in the world right now is said to be the six-second video. On TikTok and Snapchat.
And it’s thought that the time people take to decide if they want to watch a video is 0.013 seconds. That’s swipe, swipe, swipe, as fast as your finger can move, until your brain goes yep! And then off again, swipe, swipe.
How do you package news into that? Should you even try?

And AI is on its way. Google “Wayne Brown port” at the moment and you’ll get a range of news reports and analysis from the media. How long before you’ll just get an AI-generated answer?
In the search for relevance and profitability, not all the decisions media companies have made seem wise. Why close community newspapers and websites, when we know readers love local news and retail advertisers need to connect to them? Communities are only going to become more important in this fraught world.

Why close Sunday and Fair Go when they’re among the most-watched, loved and best-quality programmes you offer? You’re just telling viewers you don’t care about them.

Why cut back Re:News, which in style and target market seems like the closest thing to the future TVNZ has?
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that such measures – in print and broadcasting – are not about regrouping to a position of strength, so the companies can marshal their resources and go boldly forth. Instead, they seem merely to be managing decline.
Ah yes, but what about all that other bias: the bias intrinsic to all that opinion writing? You might think I’m biased about this myself, but I would say that alongside the news, media have a valuable role in presenting analysis and points of view.

You might think what I write is a beacon of reason and hope, but others tell me it’s absurd propaganda for the left. Conversely, I think what some of the other Herald columnists write is absurd propaganda for the right, although I know they have readers who believe they are beacons of reason and hope.
What the Herald tries to do is present well-argued points of view. We value being a pluralist newspaper: you can read us all and make up your own mind.
How do media manage their way through all this? Who the hell would know.
But in my view, a couple of things are worth clinging to.

First, we need to stake a bigger claim to the hearts and minds of people who believe in a decent, inclusive, cohesive society. Let’s be biased towards them.
I believe we should do this because it’s the right thing to do, and also because it might even work. And yes, this is a constructive way of saying we should stop paying so much attention to all the angry people shouting at us.
Related, we have to keep working long and hard with advertisers to get them to share the dream.
Second, we have to get very nimble with the technologies, the methods and the styles with which we do news, current affairs, commentary and analysis. We have to be constantly upping our skills, and we have to take risks and be brave.
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
 
dean said:
Correct, something like that. What say did taxpayers have in what she and others could be paid from the public purse?
Click to expand...
I do believe that shows like q and a are a necessity as long as it’s unbiased, which I think it is. This governments being held to account just like the previous and their coalition partners were by the show and given the platform to convey their side what’s levelled at them. Newshub nation too was a worthwhile watch
 
MaybeTop8 said:
As always, there's a context.

And the troughing, public purse narrative is a right wing trope to say that "they", whoever they are at this point, are stealing money from "us", the taxpayers.

Even handedness should see that that's applied to corporate welfare as well, but often isn't.

I appreciate it's your viewpoint, no worries there, but a wider context is that tvnz as part of the neoliberal reforms was forced into a commercial remit in 1989 -

View attachment 6646

So in that context, ratings wars become a vital tool in attracting the advertising dollar.

In Judy Bailey's day there were no unaccountable greedy giant faceless corporations owned by unaccountable billionaires stealing 90% of intellectual property and content and not paying for it, and hoovering up all the advertising too.

But that seems to sit well with this government - Melissa Lee is standing by while our public and private journalism is gutted.

Cynically one might say that removal of accountability will sit well with this lot. There you go, I've just said it.

Up the wahs.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree MBT8. However, even in the old world the money paid to some TV hosts was ridiculous, largely based on a face.
The world has changed and those faceless billionaires are dictating terms. Again, I agree with you that some way must be found to tax them if it's not happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mt.wellington
General Weekly Threads
Replies
7
Views
751
Jonno13
  • Poll
General Best NSW cup or Junior.
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
Noitall
Social Crime.
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
6K
j_p
tajhay
General Tipping Competitions
Replies
17
Views
1K
John Nick
John Nick
mt.wellington
General Blueys Round Review 2024
Replies
5
Views
266
watcher
Back
Top