0/5

NZ content still in contention

Updated: Seems I am not alone in noting the heavy NZ content on Australian screens...

2013-01-10_0141Seems I am not alone in noting the heavy NZ content on Australian screens…

Just days after my article, Peter Munro in the Sydney Morning Herald has also taken issue with the topic, including the very points I made about such content being stored up for summer, the local quota benefits and that ACMA took issue with the matter last year.

I’m happy to have put the matter on the table, together with input from the Screen Producer’s Association of Australia commenting.

Hopefully the attention warrants further scrutiny by the media watchdog, as SPAA suggested.

Update: I’ve been advised the SMH article was submitted to editors on January 1st so I take this in good faith and that, as I said, I am not alone in noticing the heavy NZ content…..

8 Responses

  1. Why is the NZ content even a problem?
    If the networks want to show new episodes of NZ shows instead of repeats of US shows over summer why is this a problem?

    The issue would be a lack of Australian Drama. I didn’t notice one this year.

    Neigbours, Home & Away, Packed To The Rafter, Winners and Losers, Tricky Business, House Husbands, Howzaat, Offspring, Puberty Blues, Underground, Rake, The Straits, The Slap, Redfern, Crownies, Jack Irish, Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries, Murder in a Hansome Cab, the one about the abortionist, Laid, Twentysomething, The Strange Calls.

    Plenty.

  2. The ACMA is interested in the area because the government is pandering to special interest groups like the car industry and the entertainment industry and becoming highly protectionist.

  3. Things will only change if NZ agrees to amend the agreements it has with Australia. This is unlikely as it would be to NZ’s disadvantage.

    There’s no problem with Australia and NZ recognising each other’s content as local – we form a single market and TV production should not be excluded from this. However, we are not seeing the emergence of a trans-Tasman TV industry, but rather seeing NZ producers making some money selling shows to Australia and Australian networks using them to effectively bypass local content requirements.

    Some of these problems are exacerbated by

    – television broadcasting licences – there can be no single trans-Tasman industry while there continue to be separate networks on each side of the Tasman – something unlikely to change unless Australian networks buy their NZ counterparts.

    – absence of local content requirements in NZ. This has not prevented many Australian shows appearing, but the number would certainly be higher if they applied the same local content quotas as Australia.

    The government should push NZ to apply local content quotas that would advantage Australian content, rather than trying to take away advantages for NZ content in Australia.

  4. ACMA has not “took issue” nor “raised concerns” about NZ content on Australian television. Chris Chapman said “ACMA notes” there is more NZ drama, as allowed under the legislation. Noting something is not taking issue nor raising concerns with something. I think you are putting words into Chapman’s mouth that are not there.

    And looking through the guide and seeing that there are more NZ programs on television at the moment than their usually is is not an ‘exclusive’. Apart from the quote from Matthew Deaner, there is nothing in that first article that warrants it being labelled as ‘exclusive’.

    1. I so don’t agree…. You need to understand the political way ACMA works within the bigger picture. The very fact they have even raised the matter means they have concerns about it, but as a statutory body they have to manoeuvre very tactfully, especially when the legislation allows for such content. This was extremely evident when Chris Chapman tactfully responded to questions regarding Kyle Sandilands. There was much more in what he didn’t say than what he did say. If ACMA had no issue with NZ content it would never have mentioned it at all. I am comfortable that reporting SPAA is calling for action warranted the Exclusive, and now the SMH piece further validates this. Thanks.

  5. How many times has this kind of thing happened David ? Too many times I suspect where big media do not acknowledge where they source or get their ideas from. I would be a little bit p…. off also.

  6. In the world of academia the lack of acknowledgment of a source counts as plagiarism.
    In media I assume the same.
    I also think moral and professional decency is needed.
    As I have said before this is a very reliable and professional blog with breaking news it would be great if everyone acknowledged your work professionally. I always like it when they do. Reward for your hard work.
    Thanks again for raising the NZ content as local content requiring change.

Leave a Reply