Sky TV’s hold on the NZ market

By Ruth Laugesen In Current Affairs, Technology

Print Share

Getty Images

When the Olympics open in London in July, New Zealanders will for the first time have to watch the Games on Sky. State broadcaster TVNZ lost the rights in a bidding war with Sky, whose controlling shareholder is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Although Sky will screen hours of coverage each day on its free-to-air channel, Prime, the best events will be accessible only to those willing to pay the $72 a month for a basic subscription and Sky’s sports channels. The Olympics are just the latest sign of Sky’s slow-rolling conquest of the nation’s TV screens, courtesy of a broadcasting industry that, unusually in world terms, faces no special rules designed to thwart the emergence of outsized players. More and more premium content is disappearing behind Sky’s pay walls.

Once upon a time, a BBC show like The Hour would have been prime TVNZ fare. Today, you can only watch it on Sky. Ditto Mildred Pierce, Mad Men and Game of Thrones, which are all behind two Sky pay walls, requiring a basic sub and another $10 a month for the SoHo channel. A full package of sports, movie and other options costs over $150. This month, the launch of a SKY-TVNZ joint venture, a cheaper Sky subscription called the Igloo channel, will extend Sky’s reach, tempting some of the half of households that aren’t yet subscribers.

“Sky is overwhelmingly, unhelpfully dominant in New Zealand,” says an international expert on media regulation, Professor Dwayne Winseck of Carleton University in Ottawa. And as we stand on the brink of a revolution in media that should be bringing cheaper, on-demand content, Sky may be on the way to locking up access to that, too. With the laying of the Government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband (UFB) network under way, we were promised a new “a la carte” world of media, in which we would be able to watch movies and television shows when we want, via the internet, hopefully at a fraction of the cost of a Sky subscription. Pundits predict that by 2015, 80% of this country’s internet use will be video-watching.

But last month the Commerce Commission launched an investigation into whether Sky has unfairly shut out competitors in the growing market for entertainment delivered by broadband. At the heart of the commission’s probe is Sky’s confidential contracts with the major internet service providers, which Sky chief executive John Fellet confirms stop the providers entering into relationships with any other entertainment providers without Sky’s approval. The deals also prevent internet providers seeking their own broadcasting content, instead requiring them to ask Sky to get content for them. The commission is also investigating whether the media giant’s exclusive deals with Hollywood studios will keep newcomers from offering an attractive variety of film and television content to customers. And behind these concerns is a bigger one that Sky, a privately owned company, might hog the benefits of the taxpayer’s massive investment in broadband by being the player best positioned to deliver internet content.

The Government has promised that UFB will be available to 75% of households within 10 years. Says Winseck: “You have this $1.5 billion broadband initiative under way and the whole thing seems to be being geared for delivering Sky’s television package, as another distribution channel for Sky. It seems to me being bent very substantially to Sky’s interest. That seems to me to be a bit rich as a use of a government subsidy. The ISPs have entered into these contractual arrangements with Sky to only offer a full suite of television and entertainment-like services from Sky. “In most countries broadcasters are a lot weaker than the telecom providers and the internet companies; they’re a lot smaller. But the situation is upside-down in New Zealand. Sky’s dominance is everywhere, and in particular its infl uence on the internet service providers,” says Winseck, who was invited to speak at a Commerce Commission conference on broadband earlier this year.

Other commentators are worried lack of competition could turn the taxpayer’s broadband investment into an expensive white elephant, as without varied and cheap video content there will be little incentive for households to pay for faster broadband. Mediaworks has suggested Sky could end up reaching 62% of households once it adds its Igloo service, meaning a large portion of householders might not see ultra-fast broadband as necessary because they are already getting TV through Sky.


Sky chief executive John Fellet, photo David White

The man who has presided over Sky’s rise and rise in New Zealand is John Fellet, who opponents say has been a master of the business and political strategy needed to build his profits and keep the regulators at bay. Raised in Arizona, he trained as an accountant and then went into pay TV in the US, taking the helm here in 2001. Fellet, speaking from Sky’s headquarters in Auckland, acts puzzled when asked about Sky’s dominance. “If you look at all the hours of viewing that is done in the week, Sky channels and Prime represent about 37% of the total viewing. We would have less of a market share than Toyota. No one thinks that Toyota is huge. Certainly we would have a lesser footprint than the Warehouse or Trade Me in their respective genres.”

And he says he doesn’t have a grip on content, either. “I don’t own any content, I rent it,” he says, adding there are probably about 1000 individual contracts up for grabs each year. “Anyone can come along and say ‘Jeez, we can do that better, we’ll have a go at that.’ For instance, I lost Wimbledon to TVNZ; Maori TV owns the rights to Super League, they outbid me.” However, Sky in New Zealand is a standout for a number of reasons. First, it has a mammoth market share compared with the leading pay TV operators in other markets. Against Sky’s 49% of New Zealand households, the US’s leading pay TV company has 19.5% of its market, Australia’s 27%, the UK and Ireland’s 37% and Canada’s 18%. Second, Sky has mushroomed in an unusually deregulated environment. New Zealand’s competitive broadcasting industry was born with the launch of TV3 in 1989, when free-market thinking was ascendant. Winseck says he can’t think of any other OECD country with such light-handed broadcasting regulation as New Zealand’s.

“Most countries around the world have a pretty formalised regulatory framework, more formalised than yours, and have more definite guides on media ownership.” Here the only safeguards of competition are the comparatively weak general provisions of the Commerce Act. The Commerce Commission has taken a relaxed attitude towards the growing market power of Sky. In 2006, it green-lighted Sky’s purchase of free-to-air channel Prime, and in May, it okayed the Igloo venture between two of the three biggest players in the market, Sky and TVNZ. Now, while other OECD countries are introducing new forms of regulation to ensure fair play as the telecommunications and media industries converge, New Zealand is looking even more out of step. The upshot is that Sky has quickly built formidable economic power in a tiny market, dwarfing competitors. Sky made $120 million in profit in the 2011 financial year, compared with a measly $2 million for TVNZ. TV3 is particularly weak, with its parent company,

Mediaworks, hobbled by debt. Controlling shareholder Ironbridge is finalising a debt-restructuring deal. Sky also has the advantage of being part of News Corp’s global media empire, giving added clout in content bidding wars. Sky has been smart, using its deep pockets to develop attractive offerings such as the MySky device, which users rave about. MySky offers a form of on-demand viewing by making it easy to record and store multiple programmes, building a library of content. But this is just the sort of control viewers would get if they had access to an online operator like America’s Netflix or Hulu, which offer open access to big libraries of content for just US$8 a month. For any new players that might want to enter the New Zealand media market, though, key entry points are blocked.

High above New Zealand, Optus D1 is the only available satellite, and Sky leases seven of its eight transponders. When it comes to digital transmission, limited capacity is available, and the bulk of that not used is owned by Sky. The big hope, as ultra-fast broadband’s fibre-optic cables are progressively laid across the country, is that the internet will be the portal for a new wave of competition. But according to new entrant Quickflix, from Australia, Sky makes it devilishly hard to get in. Quickflix has found it difficult to make deals with New Zealand internet service providers to deliver movies and TV shows in zero-rated form, in other words, so that downloaded content doesn’t count towards the consumer’s broadband data limit.

“There have been internet service providers who have first and foremost been concerned about the contracts they have with Sky, and while I’m not privy to those contracts, of course, there have been at least one or two that have indicated they may have difficulty completing a deal with us. What I do know is that the first consideration for a lot of these people with reseller agreements is Sky,” says Quickflix Australian chief executive Chris Taylor. “Pressure being applied in any way, shape or form, whether contractually or otherwise, around unmetering a service or collaborating with a service that’s going to provide a very different price point and a very different product to New Zealanders, is in my mind, a demonstration that Sky does wield an enormous amount of power in the market.”


Getty Images

Quickflix, like Netflix, offers a new-generation service in which subscribers can pick an unlimited number of movies and TV shows, download them over the internet, and watch them on their TV, iPad or games console for a monthly subscription fee. Fellet counters that there is nothing in its ISP contracts that prevents ISPs offering unmetered services to Quickfl ix, and that Sky itself can’t get unmetered deals with all of them for its online offerings. Quickflix has secured zero-rated deals with Orcon and Slingshot. Sky, which offers replays of programmes online for its subscribers through i-Sky, has a zero-rated deal with Vodafone, Orcon, Slingshot and a number of other small players.

Fellet rejects Taylor’s complaint that Quickflix has been unable to get rights to HBO shows because of Sky’s deals with HBO. He says although Sky has all the New Zealand rights for TV screening of HBO shows, it does not hold rights for later screenings through video streaming. TelstraClear and Mediaworks are two other trenchant critics of Sky’s market power and have taken aim at Sky in recent submissions to a Commerce Commission draft report on broadband uptake. TelstraClear, which sells Sky content to cable customers in Wellington, Kapiti and Christchurch, says video-on-demand is “woefully underdeveloped” in New Zealand and that effective competition is being “frozen out” by restrictions Sky imposes on its internet partners. Both TelstraClear and Mediaworks want to be able to buy Sky TV content and then add their own offerings on top.

TelstraClear argues that to survive, a provider of pay TV in New Zealand must be able to offer live premium sports, of which Sky is the only rights-holder. For this reason, TelstraClear has little choice but to deal with Sky, but then faces restrictions on adding other content to the Sky line-up. “Although Sky appears happy to tolerate limited, marginal competition, the restrictions present in its ISP agreements enable it to exert suffi cient control and ‘hold up’ ability to ensure that players like TCL are unable to develop into a source of real competition,” says Telstra Clear in a submission to the Commerce Commission For his part, Fellet says some of the complaints leave him feeling “hard done by”.

“I’m willing to listen and work through it.” But he says he would be nervous giving other players Sky’s content, “and them withholding exclusive content from me”. He also doesn’t accept Sky has enjoyed unusual freedom in a lightly regulated broadcasting environment. Australia and the US, he contends, are as lightly regulated. Yet Australia’s Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has a brief that includes promoting competition and ensuring diversity of control of infl uential broadcasting services. Australia also has anti-siphoning legislation designed to ensure pay TV doesn’t corner the rights to all the mustwatch sporting events.

The Australian approach was seen in conditions recently imposed on top pay TV operator Foxtel in its $2 billion takeover of regional operator Austar. Competition watchdog ACCC put an eight-year restriction on additional acquisitions by Foxtel, banned full control of some channels and banned Foxtel from buying exclusive rights to some types of content. This despite the fact that only about 27% of householdssubscribe to Foxtel and Austar put together. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission also has wide regulatory powers, with a mandate to restrict media concentration in TV and radio markets, to protect communities from monopolies, and to enhance diversity in media ownership. It sets limits on the number of broadcast stations a company owns.

The Commerce Commission investigation for the first time puts Sky on the back foot. Fellet, however, is cheery, saying it is an opportunity for Sky to dispel a plethora of disinformation. “We’ll walk them through, show them our contracts. I don’t know that you can say I lead a charmed life, I just haven’t done anything that’s been illegal.” In line with Sky’s argument that there is nothing holding back competitors, Fellet bubbles with talk of competitors he expects will soon be breathing down his neck. “Sky would have probably the slowest net gain [in users] in its history this year. There are just too many ways to enjoy content.” Apple TV, for one, is taking Sky viewers. He told the Commerce Commission broadband inquiry that along with Quickflix, “Sky anticipates the imminent entry of other major international players into the New Zealand market”, such as Netflix and Hulu.

However, late last year a Netflix senior executive was quoted as saying the company was not yet interested in entering the New Zealand market because of poor internet services, low broadband caps and difficulty obtaining content licences. Fellet says there are no barriers to new entrants in terms of availability of rights to streaming video, and that Sky itself holds no streaming video-on-demand rights, or rights of first refusal to such content. Labour’s broadcasting spokesperson, Clare Curran, says Sky’s outsize market position has put the regulatory framework firmly on the agenda. “Sky has pushed back over and over and over again, against any form of regulation. The big question is, has its time come. It’s about fairness, ultimately. Should Sky have the power that it has in our market?”

But Communications Minister Amy Adams has repeatedly said she does not believe regulation is needed, saying it could stifle innovation in a fast-changing sector. She refused comment for this article, citing the Commerce Commission investigation.  Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Paul Brislen is sceptical that the Commerce Commission inquiry will change much. “I haven’t seen the contracts, although the ISPs that have them assure me they are entirely onerous, and the sooner we get rid of them the better.” He thinks the forces Sky is up against are bigger than the Commerce Commission. He says tech-savvy viewers are increasingly bemused by Sky’s high pay walls, and are walking around them by pirating material or bypassing country restrictions and subscribing to Netflix and Hulu.

“Even my mother-in-law is quite happy to have a conversation about how to pirate TV content. The market has moved on. The gatekeepers are losing control. I can be watching a programme half an hour after it screens in the US, and I frequently do. I’m ashamed to be doing it, I would like to pay someone for it, but I don’t want to buy a whole lot of channels full of programmes I don’t want – thank you, Sky – or wait 18 months or a year to see the programme – thank you, TVNZ.” For those who don’t want to have to roam the back alleys of the internet in search of freer choice, things need to change in this country’s claustrophobic TV market, says Dwayne Winseck. “You guys have a small television market, and a small television industry. It seems to me what you want to be doing is loosening things up as much as you can to get as many providers and sources in as you can, as opposed to saying three is good enough.”

TV lover’s guide to the new world of on-screen entertainment


TV1, TV2, TV3, Sky’s Prime, Maori Television, Four, CTV, Triangle Television and several smaller channels. Viewable on analogue and digital (Freeview) frequencies.
DOWNSIDE: Fewer of the most desirable TV programmes than there used to be, and few of the top sporting events.


Sky TV offers 110 channels, made up of a basic service of 57 channels and additional premium channels such as sports, movies, the Arts Channel and SoHo. TelstraClear resells Sky channels. MySky box allows viewers to record and store content to watch later. Sky also off ers pay-per-view options.
Igloo: cheaper version of Sky, launching in June. Requires $200 box, then a monthly subscription of $25 for 11 channels. Also access to pay-per-view sports events, movies and TV series.
UPSIDE: Lots of choice.
DOWNSIDE: Cost – average Sky customer pays $71 a month. No avoiding buying a lot of unwanted content.


Television shows and movies delivered over the internet, viewable on computers, TV and a variety of devices, some in high defi nition.
TVNZ and TV3 on demand: Watch recent shows through broadcasters’ websites.
TelstraClear broadband customers can watch TV3 content eff ectively for free: it is zero-rated and thus doesn’t count towards their broadband data cap.
iSky: Lets Sky TV subscribers watch programmes they have missed on their computer through the iSky website. Data is zero-rated for customers of Vodafone, Orcon, Slingshot and several other small providers.
Apple TV: With a $159 Apple TV box, movies can be downloaded through iTunes for watching on a TV, computer, iPad or iPod. New releases start at $6.99, library titles at $4.99. No broadband deals.
Quickflix: Pay an introductory subscription of $9.99 a month for the first year, rising to $16.99 after July 1, for unlimited movies and TV shows. Can be watched on a computer, internet-connected TV, iPad, iPhones and PlayStation 3 games consoles. Data zero-rated for Orcon and Slingshot customers.
NetFlix and Hulu:
The American services envied here. Cost US$8 a month for unlimited movies and TV shows. Not available if you have a New Zealand IP address. However, those who are technically confident can subscribe via a VPN (virtual private network) that links to a US address, at a cost of $5-$10 a month. Information on how to do this is on the internet, or hire a geek to do it for you. Pirating: Illegal, but it’s happening. Content available from a variety of peerto- peer websites.
UPSIDE: Control over what you watch, when you want to watch it. Cheaper than pay TV, more variety than Freeview.
DOWNSIDE: New Zealand’s slow broadband speeds. Consumes broadband data allocation – a movie chews through 2-4 gigabytes in high definition and 1-2 gigabytes in standard defi nition. Pirates risk running foul of the three-strikes copyright law that could mean a fine of $275-$15,000 after two written notices.

More by Ruth Laugesen

Comments Skip to Comment form

11 Responses to “Sky TV’s hold on the NZ market”

  1. Simon Ragoonanan Jul 16 2012, 12:53pm

    Hey Bex & Sol,

    Care to elaborate? If you're throwing around accusations like that, please say why.
    Report Report
  2. duncan_stuart Jul 6 2012, 11:13am

    I really feel that Ruth Laugeson mangled her thesis with this article. She took a top-down view of how things operate, and I find it bizarre that she even posit that Murdoch is somehow controlling the content of SKY.

    When SKY first launched here, the naysayers frankly doubted that New Zealanders would even consider paying for their television services. The SKY proposition seemed indefensible. But over the past 20 years the marketplace has changed. Our hunger for televisioon has remained pretty contant (we watch on average 21 hours a week or around 3 hour per night) and TV represents easily our most popular leisure activity. It brings us sport, laughter, music movies, entertainment and informaiton. It is a window to our world.

    Some people are more enthusiastic about television than others, and as a market researcher I've seen several studies that show that people who are more enthusiastic about the medium - the real TV enthusiasts - are very likely to opt for paid television bought to them by SKY. Nobody coerced them - they simply weigh up their options and go: Pay TV with more choice and no adverts? or Free television with limited choice and 12 minutes of advertising every hour?

    I believe TVNZ (in particular) has further tipped the scales in favour of SKY by offering incresingly formulaic programming (there's a point where comfy routine becomes, simply boring) and a second-rate news service that - correct me if I'm wrong - these days covers fewer stories in an hour, with less depth, than they did a decade ago. The closure of TVNZ7 (a question of government funding I guess) will also tip the scales, just another notch, toward SKY.

    I'm not always a fan of the free market but in this case at least 50% of NZ households have spoken with their wallets. They love TV and they love it even better in the format and range that SKY offers.

    Ruth didn't appear to consider these willing viewers in her article.

    I can only think that her thesis, presumably, is that broadcasting should remain in the public commons - as a free medium. Just as, say, national parks should remain open to all citizens. There's some merit in that argument, but that debate is not enhanced by attacking just one player in the current system. It takes more than SKY to do that particular tango. You'd need to go back to various Governments who in the 1950s warranted that broadcasting ought to be within the realm of public ownership - and then in the 1970s and onward decided, by and large that private ownership may not be so bad. I seem to remember that we cheered when Hauraki was granted its radio license, and we cheered when we got a third and private channel in the 1980s.

    But once these steps had been taken there was no going back. Privatisation meant that not all content (certain sports) would end up on public broadcasting.

    Another stakeholder in this move to privatisation is, of course, the world of professional sporting bodies, and we need look no further than the NZRU as a case in point. In the professional era they are willing to sell their broadcasting rights to the highest bidder - and they applaud this system because it benefits their own organisation.

    So lets see. We have the public, we have the Governments of the day, we have the sporting bodies and providers of content. We have the public broadcasters. All had a role in creating what Ruth is wringing her hands over. Why didn't Ruth examine the roles of these players?

    Duncan Stuart
    Report Report
  3. DeepRed Jul 4 2012, 9:29pm

    Finally, someone has the cojones to call a spade a spade.

    The latest is that Ross Patterson has not been re-appointed Telco Commissioner, and it's probably because he had SKYNET, oops, SKY TV in his sights.
    Report Report
  4. Toby Manhire Jul 2 2012, 2:05pm

    Here is the letter published in the print edition from the Sky TV chief executive John Fellet:

    Seeing the June 30 Listener cover makes me wonder if your reporter was in the same interview as me. Alongside a rather unsavoury cartoon pig are three headings, all of which are misleading. The article that follows isn’t much better. Turning to the first headline, it is simply incorrect to say Sky “hogs” our TV. TV ratings released by Nielsen for April 2012 show TVNZ has a combined 40.1% audience market share, Mediaworks 18.6% and Prime 5.3%, while Sky has 32.3% spread across many channels. I’m not sure how second place constitutes hogging.

    Second headline. Rupert Murdoch has no “power” over what we watch. All of Sky’s New Zealand content is purchased by Sky’s New Zealand staff. Nationwide News Ltd, a subsidiary of News Ltd, has a 44% stake in Sky and one representative on Sky’s board, but our other six board members are all well-known New Zealand business people. In any event, management and, in particular, our programming departments make decisions on which content to buy for our subscribers. As for the Olympics headline, Prime will have the most extensive free-to-air Olympic coverage in New Zealand’s history, showing 23.5 hours a day. This coverage includes hockey, athletics, rowing, equestrian, cycling, boxing, weightlifting, sailing, wrestling, boxing, gymnastics, football, swimming and the opening and closing ceremonies. Yes, Sky Sport subscribers will get access to up to eight channels, but I can assure you the coverage on Prime will be full of New Zealand athletes competing on the world stage. Surely that is better than having just one channel showing just 12 hours of coverage each day, which is what was shown on TVNZ last Olympics?

    Which brings us to the crux of the matter – what is best for the consumer? The debate about Sky having too much power is driven by other businesses who want an easy way to make money. They’re calling for regulation to try to get a special advantage without ever talking about how this actually benefits consumers. It’s nonsense to say Sky is blocking access to on-demand content – we’ve just had Quickflix launch here – and to suggest the purpose of ultra-fast broadband is to deliver Sky content will come as news to the Government, which is investing in UFB to improve the country’s productivity, particularly in the business, health, education and government sectors. Sky has not “quickly built formidable economic power” in the market – we’ve been investing in New Zealand for 22 years, with 14 years of losses before we broke even.

    The fact is it’s a great time to enter the New Zealand market because it’s getting easier to deliver content by using the internet. The real reasons companies are not falling over themselves to get here is we have a very small market and current broadband costs are unappealing. Neither of these issues is Sky’s fault. And it issimply laughable for Quickflix’s Chris Taylor to blame Sky for his inability to negotiate successfully with internet service providers. Professor Dwayne Winseck’s comments signifi cantly overstate the effects of our telco agreements on the New Zealand market. If your reporter had bothered to read Sky’s public submissions to the Commerce Commission on demand side study issues, she would have known Winseck has incorrectly assumed both the terms and effects of our agreements based on his experience in North America. His opinions are based on assumptions, not facts. All in all, a very disappointing, inaccurate and unbalanced article. Quite what your reporter’s motive was for writing such a blatantly anti-Sky piece only she would know.
    Report Report
  5. Graham Astley Jul 2 2012, 10:00am

    The Canadians have banned Fox News from operating in their country because Fox News tells lies. Why do we need Fox News here?
    Report Report
  6. Satellite Jul 1 2012, 9:07am


    As the owner of a satellite equipment design & install company in CHristchurch, the ide that thee is only one satellite (optus D1) above us is 100% incorrect. I access 6 satellites at my home ant that is easy!!
    The reality is that NZ is lazy when it comes to accessing TV from the satellite. MANY countries including the UK and USA and most of Europe regularly access 2 or 3 satellites as a norm.

    We have been hood winked by Sky in NZ and sadly they have become the 'default' provider of television in New Zealand. Some would argue that "unless you have Sky you are odd" or out of touch. Sky have given us the 'you make the call - we'll do the rest' scenario and that is how New Zealanders have become blind to what else could be done. This goes for the broadcasters as well. We do have a small market here and it would be a brave operator to go to a different satellite but not impossible.

    TVNZ is also to blame in my view. Freeview's biggest supporters appear to be Media Works. TVNZ 7 could EASILY have been the same as SBS from Australia by serving up high quality programming that would attract the discerning viewer and paid for with advertising targeted at them instead of the innane dros served up as so called high quality TV One and TV2.
    TVNZ had the nerve to advertise on the last day of TVNZ7 that they had other programming on TV One, TV2, TVNZ6 and Heartland. Last time I checked, the last two on the list are Sky only!!
    Thanks very much for removing the last decent channel in New Zealand.
    Report Report
  7. Damian Christie Jun 30 2012, 12:43pm

    Good piece (not sure what those random trollers are on about, sounds like they might be the ones getting paid under the table).

    I think the old John Gilmore quote, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" could be applicable here, particularly if as described, the UFB ends up being locked up by Sky (or anyone else for that matter). Faced with an overpriced stranglehold, more and more people will turn to piracy. Just as this has forced broadcasters to be quicker to play overseas series than they once were, at some point it'll have to drive prices down too.

    And while I don't think it's desirable that great series are tied up in expensive subscriptions, nor do I think that we have any right per se to freely view high-budget overseas shows. We're not talking about food, shelter, clothing, the right to vote... we're talking about Game of Thrones.
    Report Report
  8. Toby Manhire Jun 29 2012, 8:43pm

    Hi Sol. Puzzled that you, like Bex before you, trash the piece without so much as a single example. Do elaborate!
    Report Report
  9. sol333 Jun 29 2012, 6:25pm

    Sheesh. Someone is clearly paying this journalist under the table. Not impressed by the sensationalism, false information and general lack of journalistic integrity rife in this article. Very one sided and ill informed, and yes I have done my research... PROPERLY, not a good look. I just joined here because I have enjoyed many of the listeners articles. Then I stumble over this debacle. Not impressed Ruth. Who are you working for? The Listener or TVNZ? Lol
    Report Report
  10. Toby Manhire Jun 29 2012, 3:57pm

    Hi Bec. What are you on about?
    Report Report
  11. Bex Jun 29 2012, 12:16pm

    Ruth I am disappointed that once again another reporter is printing complete rubbish and biased information. I feel I cant trust anything that is published these days. In future i will note not to read anything published by you. Please in future make a half arse attempt to do some research on the topic you intend to write about.
    Report Report

Post a Comment

You must be to post a comment.

Switch to mobile version