I'm not sure what I've done to get under the nose of Throng.co.nz, but their post and regurgitation of a dull real estate gag suggests that my blog critiquing the use of taxpayer money to fund NZ's Got Talent has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Throngs shrill defensiveness and use of 'non-popular programming' like it's an intellectual phrase suggest a little brother complex far more knee capping than the tall poppy syndrome Throng set out to claim as the reason some found NZs Got Talent lacking any actual talent.
For the record, let me again point out what I wrote, I think a talent show is perfectly fine lite entertainment for TV One to screen at 7.30pm, my issue is should a foreign entertainment pop culture format gain $1.6m in taxpayer funding when TVNZ made a $14.1million profit.
Just because it's broadcast to the public, doesn't make it public broadcasting, this is a concept that Throng seem to have no value for.
Throng's claim is...
Forget what you’d like NZ On Air to be, this is what it is. It funds a broad range of shows for a broad range of audiences. Thankfully its funding model isn’t restricted to niche, low rating shows but also shows with mass appeal that require a significant amount of finance in order to go to air.
...so it's populism uber alles over at Throng huh?
If the base vulgarity is mass ratings as a measure of quality, why not just fund Porn Idol at 9pm? NZ on Air has a responsibility to fund broadcasting that goes well beyond the shits and giggles of prime time talent shows and pretending that funding a popular one makes it justifiable is churlish.
The X Factor on TV3 is also in line for NZ on Air money, will two lite weight talent shows broaden our cultural diversity?
Oddly Throng bring up NZ on Air's funding values as if that backs up the decision to fund NZGT...
Innovation - Encouraging new ideas and quality production standards.
Diversity - Promoting difference and competition to support the best ideas for the widest range of New Zealanders.
Value for money - Making sure cost-effective projects are enjoyed by significant numbers of relevant people.
...how does a copycat foreign tv show format innovate? Diversity is one hell of a stretch, and only works if you want to take Promoting difference and competition literally and as for value for money? $1.6million in broadcasting dollars from a network that made a $14.1m profit could have funded so much more for so much longer.
Throng end up sounding like the ones desperate to want to hate, which is a little ironic seeing as that's the title of the post.
PS: As for last weeks latest broadcasting triumph, 'The Ridges', its narrative structure made 'The GC' look like War & Peace. You know a TV show is pretty awful when NZ on Air tweet they didn't fund it after 15minutes of it screening.