Talk:NZ On Air

Television?

This entry seems focussed on NZoA's funding for music, which is a very minor part of their overall budget. Is there someone who has enough details (perhaps someone from NZoA) who can add more about their other activities? Also the inclusion of the broadcast/TV sidebar is probably unnecessary. Arjoll 10:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nzoa logo.jpg

Image:Nzoa logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious editor bias

The remarks on Mr McElrea and the program The G C fail seriously to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards, as well as being faulty in their grammar. I say this, though I agree with the remarks on McElrea, and suspect I would probably agree with the remarks on the G C if I had ever watched it. Can someone knowledgable please recast it more neutrally and grammatically? Koro Neil (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism

Most of these appear to be very minor things and the sources are one-off articles (often blog entries or opinion pieces). This section needs to stick to serious Controversies not "that crappy thing got funded rather than me" type stuff. Things that were in the media for weeks and caused people to resign etc. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These controversies are in no way "they funded their band an not mine" style of argument. If a specific act is mentioned it is only in regard to the impact that one arts funding has had on the wider picture. All the entries in this heading are examples of matters of breech of policy and misconduct which illustrate a complex political situation that is a test case for such things, in that NZ on Air is a Autonomous Crown Entity with little or no accountability to anyone except itself. These controversies have caused sizable ripples. The 21st birthday party was reported nationwide and required a response to the minister. Likewise the Conflict of interest event raised serious issues of govt intervention into matters it was supposed to be kept out of, ie the other side of the Autonomous crown entity coin. One side limits accountability the other side limits intervention from govt interests.

What we are seeing in recent times is either a culmination of poor policy decisions or a seemingly increasing spiral of policy level controversies that have raised comment from national journalists. Simon Sweetman is a journalist for the Dominion post and his 'blog' is in no way some spotty teenagers 5th form poetry. It is the main music comment piece for the stuff network and is read on a national level by a large number of people and industry alike. John Drinnan is a major political and industry commentator as is Vicki Anderson. The 5000 ways site while a minor blog is the leading authority on the statistics of NZ on Air videos knowing more about the subject than the organisation itself does, purely because it has bothered to do the math on the activities of the organisation and made the results public; and Sounds Like Us NZ Music is the leading watchdog on the organisation, recognised again on a national level. If you think these are unworthy sources then you don't know the subject matter very well. Please reconsider your understanding of the topic before you delete relevant material. Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Nzindie (talk)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:NOCRIT. While criticism sections are permitted on Wikipedia articles, they should not be given undue weight. In this case the Controversies and criticism section takes up more than half the length of the entire article. User:Nzindie, the editor who added this, either needs to do some serious pruning or it will be done for them. The section should be a quarter its present length, at most. BlackCab (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the controversies are not particularly controversial. For example, the issue of music video archiving. As far as I know, the only people who are bothered about this are me (Robyn Gallagher - the blogger quoted in the article!), Nzindie and music blogger Peter of Dub Dot Dash. It's certainly not a big media issue like The GC or Annabel Fay stories.

Likewise, the Titanium issue is similarly not a major controversy. Simon Sweetman writes about lots of things on his blog. That does not mean they are all suitable topics for Wikipedia. I haven't found mention of this issue anywhere else in the media.

As for using my blog (5000 Ways) are a resource - I'm flattered, but such comments on a blog are not suitable as a reference for a Wikipedia entry. And besides - they're out of date. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The criticism of the music manager game isn't criticism of NZ On Air. They partly funded the game, but they did not produce it. In the same way that criticism of a funded television programme does not equate to criticism of NZ On Air, criticism of the video game is criticism of the game's producer, InGame. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be a lot more info in the other sections of this article. There is a lot of information that needs to be expanded on like the formation of the organisation. Who were the key players, how policy was evolved. How policy has changed and why. The Controversies section deals with a lot of this. ie Annabel Fay's album funding lead in part to the cancellation of the album funding system according to The NZ Herald.

It would be great if the people who are cutting out valid sections of this article spent a bit of time instead expanding the other areas of it. Also a large proportion of media not generated by the organisation is about the controversies. They're a highly controversial organisation who draws a lot of criticism for some of their policies and decisions. That is the reality and it should be acknowledged and address in an article on the organisation. If you do a google search you will find much discussion of these points, and very little else, because that is the accurate picture when discussing this topic, how ever much you might want it not to be. Robyn created a quote by the prime minister the other day which he never actually said in order to change the perception of support and understanding for their GC program. That's not helpful at all. We need to keep it to what is actually being said and reported and create an accurate and open picture of this topic. Save the puff aspects for the organisations own web site which we can freely link to. Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Robyn2000 There is comment on the titanium issue in a John Drinnan article. Easily found with google. He offers some positive comment on the situation from an industry point of view, as well as questioning the double dipping aspects of it. I didn't want to overload the entry with detail but feel free to add that link also if you feel it necessary to make it a worthy and well linked article

Regarding The unaccountability of 1/4 of a funded catalogue is a new controversy that your good work has brought to light. I haven't seen anywhere people saying this is a good thing, but what comment has been made on this topic by informed people I have linked to. Remember this is NZ we are talking about, it's a small small country with tiny media. These people are the key voices in the debate in many cases.

Also the section was titled controversies originally not criticism. I think Robyn2000 changed that. I don't think bits in this section need to be considered critical of the organisation. I think the management wasn't at fault in the conflict of interest case. They didn't force the pulling of the program, although their reaction to it raised a few eyebrows. The situation highlights the difficult path a organisation like this must tread in order to remain impartial and if people and students are looking for information on this topic and its complexities then this information would be invaluable to creating a wide picture.

Also the indie music manager game entry is a controversy, not necessarily a criticism, although how the project unfolded does raise questions of accountability. These are big figures of taxpayers money. This is a record of how some of it is spent and how the intended audience reacted. How that is viewed is up to the reader. We're only listing articles on the subject and outlining the issue. That's how it should be going, correct? Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I changed the section title to "Controversies and criticism" as some of the issues listed are not controversies. Robyn2000 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Duncan Greive North & South feature gives the "controversies" about the right weight: a paragraph. The criticism seems to be about perceived misuse of funds (21st celebrations, Annabel Fay, The GC, Titanium), the conflict of interest claim and criticism of their quality of a computer game. That's about what it's worth. For the sake of balance, NZ On Air's response — if it has given one — should be provided as a rebuttal. BlackCab (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. A paragraph with good references is all that's needed. For perspective, there was a lot of criticism when Shortland Street launched in 1992 with NZ On Air money, but it's not listed here because nowadays no one cares. Will the issues currently listed in this article still seem controversial in five, 10, 20 years time? Robyn2000 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The single-paragraph that BlackCab has done looks about right. I was a bit concerned about including Inside Child Poverty previously but I think it fits within the list since it was about NZOA trying to influence broadcasters. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely the article is about what happens now, not about trying to second guess what will be relevant 20 years in the future. The controversy over Shortland Street could well be relevant to how the organisation has evolved but we're not going to know that unless someone writes it up. Perhaps you could address this as it would flesh out the picture a lot better than censoring any critical comment on the organisation. If you knew your nz on air media you'd know that Duncan was responsible for a massive article for real groove magazine in may 2010 addressing the short comings of the organisation, which you can download here http://publicaddress.net/assets/files/RG0510-NZonAir.pdf. It's 4 solid pages of issues and discussion. I'm unsure why your intent is to cleanse this page. These are important issues and developments for the organisation. They're not necessarily negative, they're just what's happened and you're welcome to help the article by including your own links so long as you don't fabricate quotes etc. Blackcabs suggestion of including nz on airs rebuttal quotes if they exist would be a great start. Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not an issue of censorship, but balance within the article. It's a major organisation, but has only a small article. To make the criticism/controversy a major, dominant part of a small article robs it of balance. A criticism section that is only a couple of paragraphs balances the depth of coverage of that criticism with the depth of coverage overall. You also need to be careful about (a) complying with Wiki policies on reliable sources (which would include blogs and news websites without a reputation for fact checking and balance) and (b) avoiding conduct that would suggest you are using the article for agenda-pushing. Finally, please sign your posts, which you can do simply by adding four tildes at the close of your comment. (like this: ~~~~. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

so rather than delete the valuable information being presented how about expanding the other sections. As you say, its a big organisation with a small article. If people keep deleting relevant material it's not going to get any bigger. If Robyn really wants to create a well balanced article perhaps she can put in the time to flesh it out with real detail instead of making up quotes from the prime minister and trimming actual events from the page.There is very little information on who the people where who created the broadcasting act which created NZ on Air. Various controversies have shaped policy. This doesn't have to be viewed as a bad thing. It's how the system evolves. Annabel Fay's funding had a positive effect on the organisation in that it killed off the bloated Album Funding. That's not a bad thing, and it's worth of note. Can we try and correctly phrase and expand on material without immediately deleting everything. Google some references and stick them in etc.Nzindie (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can do that, Nzindie. I haven't had any previous involvement to see who the major contributors have been or what state the article has been in, but if you can see areas where the article needs strengthening, then work on it. You clearly have strong opinions about its failings, but a Wikipedia editor should be willing to contribute to make the article more comprehensive by adding material from all relevant perspectives. BlackCab (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems it's most wiki editors job to delete as much content as they can. I'm well informed on the 'failing's" although I prefer to see them as developments because they often lead to a better, more stream lined organisation. I've added a lot of content here with informed references. Perhaps you can look at the section again and try not to delete so much. It's an accurate representation of the media comment on the organisation, for now. I'm sure someone will be along anytime soon and expand on the other areas. Give it time. Nzindie (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My medium-term plan is to look at updating the rest of the article, including adding much needed references. Like all of us, Wikipedia is something I do in my spare time, so I have to fit it in with other priorities in my life. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better that you didn't Robyn. You appear to have a conflict of interest and according to these guys that's not a good stand point to contribute to Wiki Pages from. I'm personally concerned you fabricated a quote from the PM to back and angle you were trying to shoe horn into a point. Would you care to explain why you did this? Nzindie (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote fabrication (presumably this one: [[1]]) is really not a fabrication at all. Robyn2000 has shown no sign of having a conflict of interest. Haminoon (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it was just a paraphrasing of a quote, with a reference linking to the original article that had the quote. I did it simply because the original quote was a bit cumbersome and would have needed a lot of context to explain it. I have no conflict of interest with NZ On Air, in fact, I've openly been critical of them on my music video blog. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if another editor thinks the angle of an edit I've made on an article could be improved, they are welcome to rewrite it. Robyn2000 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice you people haven't written a single letter to this page in the last few weeks. Surely you can't be more about erasing that contributing?Nzindie (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Been working on other pages nzindie. Do you want to collaborate on a Jay Clarkson / Breathing Cage page? That's coming up soon on my todo list. Haminoon (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

By collaborate you mean I'd have to write it and then you'd delete most of it with the promise of filling it out later with more balanced information but then you'd never actually do it? Cos if so, then pass. Nzindie (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I never said I would expand the NZonAir page.Haminoon (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you get back in there and restore some of the valuable info you deleted. That'd be a good use of your time and might go some way to expanding wiki in other areas.Good will and all that.Nzindie (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)