Found this link to the Today FM website via the Channel X page on the MediaWorks website.
The streaming page is also listed on there as well as still updates with what show would normally be playing.
https://portfolio.mediaworks.co.nz/home/player.html
Well thatās a throwback to a lot of my cool old work.
Iāve been listening to Anthemz on rova and they have the same station imaging as Channel X.
The Instagram page is public again, too.
It does too! May as well just call it Channel X lol
with the addition of MediaWorks news at the top of the hour.
Surely Anthemz as a brand is not that strong in Chch?
Edit: oh it actually has a breakfast host. Josh?
This is a MediaSpy Long Read (can we make that at thing, Iām making that a thing):
This is my opinion-piece in response to Baldrickās previous post. At 1300-ish words, itās a little long, in my occasionally traditional-styleā¦ sorry.
Firstly, Iād like to congratulate those who responded with constructive counter arguments. I also think those who didnāt respond can feel just as pleased by their restraint. We were in dangerous territory, skirting around one of those rabbit-holes ourselvesā¦ Iām sure OnAir was hovering nervously over that āLockā button. Thankfully, it needed be used. Hereās hoping that remains the case.
Secondly, there was a good point raised: Are Journalists taught about bias (inherent or intended), in their training, and so should training be bought back in-house? I can imagine they are taught to think critically and to be objective, but how aware is a generally middle-class reporter, for example, of the things they take for granted? Often in articles regarding overseas travel, I hear the phrase as the Overseas Experience (O.E.) as being a āright of passage.ā Do Journoās really believe this or are they reporting this as a fact from a known-source? Because as much as an O.E. might be common for a middle-income earner in their 20ās, itās just plainly not an option for those in the same age group living on or below the bread-line. Are they deprived of this inherent right? I didnāt go on an O.E., so does that make me immature or inferior somehow? So it seems, unless of course, this isnāt a right at all. So what is it? Surely it must be an opinion, derived from the reporterās own experience (thatās the inherent part). Now this phrase isnāt a big deal, some people go on O.E.ās and otherās donāt, who cares, right? But given journalists do use this phrase, isnāt that an indication of inherent bias?
Intended bias is a completely different matter, thatās the rabbit-hole stuff. People in this case pick and choose what they want to take and add to their narrative. Itās a bit like taking different parts of the Bible to make an argument fit what you want to say. The Bible is a very contradictory book, written by many authorsā¦ this mirrors humanity ā as a collective weāve got all sorts of ideas and opinions, running counter to some and agreeing with others. And thatās just fine. The fact the Bible mirrors society is a good thing ā to me it confirms that humans wrote it. I guess what Baldrick is saying, is that Journoās could be swayed toward doing this themselves, especially when a large sum of money gets involved. Well, Iād be surprised if many Journalistās sell-out like this. Scientistās, who know methodology makes what they do worthwhile, generally donāt, so why should a Journo? If you start putting forward bullshit, people tend to notice the smell pretty quickly. Journalism, like Science, is refutable. And thatās a good thing too.
To summarise the above, itās really hard to overcome inherent bias, generally because weāre not aware of it. It follows us like a smell but it generally doesnāt cause too much harm. From time to time, Journalists will do this; theyāre only human. I fail to see how training in-house would reduce that. If anything, institutional training is better equipped to make Journoās more aware of their inherent bases, as well as how to avoid intended bias.
When someone intends to mislead, it becomes a problem. Of course, blurring the line today is Journalism merges into Opinion. What I think is really needed is a better way to separate the two. In the days of the newspapers, this was always clearly demarcated. Then, there was a big banner that read āOpinion,ā but today these arenāt always so noticeable, and sometimes theyāre not even there. This could be more of a problem about lack of Editorial Staff than anything else. The number of Sub-Editors has shrunk dramatically in the past 50 years. Youād be hard-pressed to find a Subbie anywhere nowdays, even genuine Editors are rare as henās teeth. So with the reduction of Editorial Staff, is there a greater chance of inherent bias slipping into stories? With less eyes going over copy, there probably is; but thatās something for an academic institution to ponder overā¦ thatās their job. Iām sure plenty have already and if pressed, theyād be happy to tell you about it. I donāt think the media needs to go hunting to find an answer with this one; they just need to make the banners bigger, louder and clearer.
Thirdly, I come to the place of Te Tiriti in Journalism. The Principles of The Treaty of Waitangi were drawn up to help codify what is a very basic agreement between representatives of the Crown and representatives of Iwi. As I understand them, the principles are: Partnership, Protection and Participation. Partnership guarantees equal status amongst all people (as stated clearly in Te Tiriti). Protection ensures the Crown has a duty to treat Maori as they do anyone else in the Commonweath (also clearly stated in Te Tiriti). And Participation encourages us to all share and work together, by engaging and collaborating to improve the lot of all inhabitants of Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu / New Zealand (not so clearly stated in Te Tiriti, but implied by other means). Now, what part of those three principles is detrimental to a news story written by a fund that was voluntarily governed by those three things? If they were compulsory, would it have altered any of those stories? I doubt it would have.
We all know the media has changed a lot in the past 50 years. Gone are the days of trusted local newspapers (morning and evening), a reliable local radio station or a choice of two TV channels to digest the news through. Technology has done what technology does; it finds new ways of doing old things. The media is no exception to this. All fragmentation has allowed for is greater siloing of content (one-theme wonders, if you will), where like-minded people gas about their favourite thing. Thatās fine, but Iāve read articles about how societies evolve faster when the sciences and arts intertwine more. Just look at Leo Da Vinci. So is siloing media-content a good idea? Probably not.
I think we need more cross-pollination of news, stories and opinions, not less. Working together generally achieves better results. The old formula of reading the paper in the morning, listening to the radio during the day and watching telly at night is largely dyingā¦ which is a shame because you used to get at least two different perspectives on an event that way. Thatās what our cuzzies on the West Island have ensured as āplurality of voices.ā Not sure if thatās the exact phrasing, but it gets referred to on other threads, as you may be aware. How many other threads do you read? People can still consume widely today through digital means. But do they? Media or Tech companies donāt exactly share that sort of data, so I donāt really know. But I do believe getting people to mix their sources is probably the biggest challenge to good journalism. Iām not sure how it could be achieved today when there is so much choice out thereā¦ for everything but local journalism, that is. And thatās where Government funds for local news becomes essential. It isnāt about pushing an agenda, itās about pushing the news. So do society a favour; donāt just read your newsfeeds, read your local newspaper too.
Two months ago, I could have added āListen to Today FMā too, but the Money Shufflers won that argumentā¦ and that is another discussion entirely. As to what happens to the career of Tova OāBrien, Iām sure thereās no better person better positioned to answer that than herself. And as for her impartiality, youāll get a more convincing argument, Baldrick, if you can back up your claimsā¦ like a Journalist would. Otherwise itās just opinion. And as the morning host on a news-talkback station, she didnāt have to be impartial. She just needed to get to the bottom of things.
Interesting to see the support he has from some of his former colleagues, I thought the culture at Mediaworks was changingā¦
I think the support is in that he has been able to turn his life around - so says someone like Dave Letele - and that putting him in prison now would only serve to send that backwards. No one is saying what Nate did is good, but putting him in jail to do a sentence risks undoing that hard work in the community.
Weird that a Sunday afternoon show listened to by around 0.1 of the listening population in NZ justifies a write up (ok, cut and paste press release) on Radio Today.
Probably because they were sent the story, so itās free easy content. Basically the point of press releases.
I know. RadioToday just seems to have got exceptionally lazy over time.
Ian smith on senz has had a dig at sky
For not using justin Marshall at the upcoming rwc
GFK S1/2023
Major Metros Top Ten S4/22-S1/23
Newstalk ZB averaging a 19 share among the three major markets.
AUCKLAND
Newstalk ZB 16.5 - 17.2
The Breeze 10.0 - 10.2
Mai FM 8.1 - 8.1
More FM 5.9 - 5.7
The Edge 4.5 - 5.6
Coast 5.1 - 5.5
ZM 5.1 - 5.2
The Sound 4.7 - 5.2
Magic 5.4 - 4.2
Rock 3.2 - 3.8
CHRISTCHURCH
Newstalk ZB 17.1 - 19.6 (Largest share since 1998)
More FM 8.6 - 9.8
The Breeze 10.6 - 9.7
The Sound 12.5 - 8.9
The Rock 9.3 - 8.4
The Edge 8.0 - 7.9
Magic 6.9 - 6.8
ZM 6.1 - 5.3
The Hits 4.1 - 3.9
Hauraki 3.5 - 3.8
WELLINGTON
Newstalk ZB 21.6 - 20.2
The Breeze 9.0 - 10.6
ZM 6.3 - 6.9
The Rock 5.9 - 6.9
The Hits 6.8 - 6.7
The Edge 5.0 - 5.9
The Sound 6.4 - 5.9
Coast 4.0 - 5.5
Hauraki 4.6 - 5.4
More FM 5.9 - 5.2
Huge ratings for ZB.
Was Today bundled under āOtherā?
To my understanding Mediaworks rehired Nate last year as a producer for Daveās show.
Also makes sense.
And had been working in his charity.
Fantastic results for The Breeze all around. Top music station in both Auckland and Wellington and second in Christchurch.
Would Buttabean have had more than 1 producer then? Cos whenever I listened in he involved the producers a lot and they were mostly newbies from broadcasting school learning the ropes.