May 7, 2025 • 15 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Thursday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Let's Just Streamline This/Stay Classy, NZ/What Public Broadcasting Actually Is/Hosk Ruins it for Everyone
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk ZEDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The Rewrap there and welcome to the Rewrap for Thursday,
all the best bits from the Mike Husking Breakfast on
news Doalg ZEDB and a Sillier package. I am Glenn
Hart and today in New Zealand has got it wrong,
according to Husk, with their new class whatever they called.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
It, public broadcasting, comparing it in New Zealand with America
and snooker.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Don't talk to Mike about the snooker. What what did
I say? What it is that's right? Anyway? Before any
of that this pay equity thing, I think it's just
another one of these things where we just need to
make more Hosking based policy.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Yesterday interesting times in the Parliament. I told you about
Shane Jones a moment ago.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Brook ben Velden featured.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
What we are doing is making the system more robust,
workable and sustainable, and on that basis, I do not
agree with Thomas Coglan's characterization. However, I do agree with
a different journalist characterization, which was Mike Hoskin.
Speaker 7 (01:36):
From this morning and the article said reform for the
Pay Equity Act is good.
Speaker 8 (01:48):
The the the excitement settles down.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
There was excitement in the house over the mention of
my name, and you can.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
I think she got the fact that she got your
name right. She got it spot on, which often they don't.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
That's correct, But Jerry had to settle the rebel the
low rinters down because of course it's important when I'm
quoted in the House that you know things go well.
Speaker 6 (02:11):
What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable,
and sustainable, and on that basis, I do not agree
with Thomas Coglan's characterization. However, I do agree with a
different journalist characterization, which was Mike Hoskin from this morning.
Speaker 7 (02:29):
And this article said, reform for the Pay Equity Act
is good.
Speaker 8 (02:36):
Stop just wait till the the the the excitement settles down.
Just just wait, I said, just wait.
Speaker 6 (02:50):
He said, Christine Bartlett was too many a hero.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
She was a very like your point, you don't need
to finish because, of course you will have been listening
to the program yesterday and you will have heard my
editorial using exactly that. If I could just offer Brooks
some advice. Unfortunately, the reason that we're staying yeah, she
is still going.
Speaker 8 (03:07):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
She quoted books Mike Smithette and tire Mike Smianette. The
difficulty is the delivery lacked a little bit of something
at the end of the day, and that it didn't
come across us.
Speaker 5 (03:16):
Listen to this guy. These are my words.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Ain't sound as good as they did when I said them.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
She still going, she's still got Oh. No, she ran
the whole of Mike's went half hour. No, No, she
had no.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
No, it's nothing wrong with it. But she made a
very salient point. And what was interesting yesterday, and this
is why I allude to this, The pay equity issue
is never going to be sold because it never can
be solved, as I tried to point out on the
program yesterday. But what's so disingenuous about the Labor Party
and the Opposition in general, and you saw that in
their reaction to the use of my name, is that
(03:46):
they will not and they absolutely refuse to delineate or
differentiate between a job and what you pay for that job,
and whether it's fulfilled by a man or woman versus
a company or an industry that is predominantly men or women.
And they are two completely separate things. And Barbara Edmonds
(04:07):
why asked a question yesterday in a very emotive sort
of way, talking about when will they pay people what
they are worth?
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Now?
Speaker 5 (04:14):
What is worth?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Who decides that? And the person who decides that is
the person who writes the check. Now, do we live
in a country at the moment where there is a
job open and you would pay different money if the
person was a woman versus you would pay different money
if the job was held by a man. And the
answer is no, we don't do that. We moved on,
and that is not part of the debate. And yet
that's the part they still try and infiltrate the argument
(04:37):
with what we're talking about is industries that are predominantly
women or predominantly men, the rest time industry being predominantly women.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
At that point, you go, what is it worth? Now?
Speaker 4 (04:47):
What it's worth, of course, is what somebody is writing
the check is prepared to write and pay for. And
if you saw the numbers yesterday coming out from the
state sector, the average hourly rate in the state sector
is vastly higher than it is in the private sector.
People are being paid more in the public sector by
a substantial amount. And yet are you getting better service
from the public sector. So that's that's the part they
(05:09):
can't argue or can't understand. It doesn't matter how much
you pay somebody, it doesn't necessarily improve the service, whereas
the private sector does understand that. And at the end
of the day, you then get down to what they
call comparators. So we can't work out what a rest
home work is really worth. So what we'll do is
will compare you to a mechanic or a painter, which
of course literally makes no sense. And probably the best
(05:30):
argument yesterday was put forward by Winston Peters who argues
the original law, which was enacted in twenty seventeen, actually worked,
whereas the current law, which is just like apples and
pears and apples and cum quats, doesn't work. And all
they're doing is going back to something that he argues
did work in the first place.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, it's amazing how often Husking does seem to be
the driver behind a lot of policy for a lot
of parties, either forore or against it. But I do
it was very poor delivery from Van Velden there, and
(06:07):
I do wonder as not possible do they not have
the multi media equipment in Parliament to just like play
it back as it was broadcast straight off the news
talks that'd be website or even better still from this.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Podcast is can we look into that please, mister speaker
A rewrap?
Speaker 8 (06:29):
All right?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So we had Greg four An, outgoing chair of in
New Zealand Greg Fouran in the studio this morning. He
wasn't really there to talk about these sort of semi
flash new seats that they've got in some of the planes,
and Mike doesn't even think they're that flash.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
I struggle at times to say things I know it'll
be easier not to say. In this case, it's about
e in New Zealand this morning. I love in New Zealand.
Don't get me wrong. I love in New Zealand because
I'm a patriot and I want them to do well.
I want them to do well because our tourism and
its success is critical. It's also critical that our airline
makes lots and lots of money. Also, I struggle because
their New Zealand is hated by a lot of people,
and not always rationally so. Flip side, the media seemed
(07:12):
to fall over themselves to give free publicity. Latest is
on the retrofit of their seven eight sevens are the
retrofit as years over due has added to the many
woes and worries they have with engines and lack of
planes and ensuing scheduling issues. But if you want an
insight into why they struggle, the retrofit might well be
another own goal. The worst recent fight we took was
(07:32):
from New York to London. It costs six thousand dollars
each one way. It was in United's Polaris class. They
call it first class. It's crap. It was small, cramped,
hopelessly out of date compared with what the world is offering.
At the front of the plane in New Zealand's new
business Premiere and Premier Lux looks like Polaris. It would
have been amazing if it was nineteen ninety seven. I
(07:55):
watched some of the media's videos. It looks like a
bad reno, old plain, new curtains. And you pay for
the privilege. And that's the point. You pay for the privilege,
if that's the right word. It's not like they're cheaper
than anyone else. Emirates we'll show for you from your
They will give you Cavia literally Cavia and Don Pergon.
They will make you a cocktail in the lounge. They
will give you a massage. You can close the door
(08:16):
on your suite. You have an individual air conditioning unit
in your suite. They have showers on board the plane.
Singapore is similar. Guitar a class leading in business. Quantus
next year will blow your mind with their new products.
Why are they doing all this? The front end of
the plane is booming globally. The world is willing to
pay increasingly absurd amounts of money. To fly here to
(08:37):
London is twenty thousand dollars, but demand massive. That's what
A in New Zealand is chasing with their new product.
Have a look at the video, then look at the
competition and tell me I don't have a point and
they aren't missing the boat, not being mean, just telling
it like it is.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, I think with my limited experience, I fly I
finn business class, why but on two different than traps.
And that's a mistake because with the first time you
do it, it's fantastic. The second time you do it
(09:15):
you do start making comparisons and what you should actually
be doing, of course, is comparing it to cattle class
which we normally fly. And can I just point out
that I wasn't paying either of these times. They were
actual business traps, that our business was providing the travel costs,
so I could go on then. But yeah, so it
(09:39):
is a bit of a privileged position, isn't it. I
don't know how many people were listening to those comments
about but the flesh end of the plane and being
yeah are so true. They're dreaming if they think people
are going to like those flesh feets the rewrap. Now,
as Trump continues to doze his way through the public
(10:01):
service in the US, can we learn an your lessons
here in New Zealand.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
A little bit about way excitement. A couple of weeks
ago when Winston Peter's two up on the Breakfast Show
at the National Broadcaster and got a bit bothered with
the question line so threatened to cut the funding. This,
of course, was hot air. Many in the Beltway, though sadly,
had their sense of humor, if not the absurd surgically
removed at birth, so they took it seriously. No such
thing is going to happen, of course, for a series
(10:26):
of pretty obvious reasons, none of which I'm going to
bore you with now. But the earnestness with which they
grimaced was based on the idea that there are those
who can and do threaten public broadcasters around the world.
The latest is mister D. Trump of Washington, who has
signed an executive order to stop funding PBS, among others. This,
like everything else, is headed to court and may well win,
(10:47):
because the argument of weight appears to be public broadcasting
and its funding is a congressional thing, and therefore an
executive order from the bloke in the corner office doesn't count.
The Trump argument, and this is worth pondering, is that
public money undermines independence, and the media is vastly changed
in recent years and a government operation is no longer necessary.
And I actually have some sit for that argument. Public
(11:09):
radio here has the concert program for example, It plays
a lot of classical music. Very few people listen to it.
Why are we paying for it? Commercial radio doesn't cover everything.
Of course, children's educational programming we don't cover. But having
said that, I don't think public radio does that either.
In America, publicly funded television invented Sesame Street. I mean,
that's of value. Here we have New Zealand on air.
(11:31):
Why do we have that as well as publicly funded
television and radio. Why don't we just have a funding
system for product we want to promote and tender it
to those who want to run it on their platforms.
Is it a fair question to ask here that, although
they claim neutrality, would a snap pole of people on
the street suggest radio and television New Zealand and neutral?
(11:52):
Is the BBC seen as neutral? Is the ABC in
Australia a bastion of straight up and down middle balance?
As always with Trump, the seat of a decent thought
is lost in the noise in the bluster. But ask
the question, what is so unique about public Talian public radio?
Whether here in America? Are here America, Britain, Australia that
needs so much of our money?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So as Trump vaned Sesame Street, I remember that happening.
I know it doesn't want anybody to go to the
movies anymore. This is really getting out of control. No
Oscar the Grouch, I mean he's becoming Osten the Grouch.
In my view, the rewrap asked very grouchy about the
(12:34):
Snooker coverage and they put it on for him and
then look what happened Snooker.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Do not talk to me about Snooker ever again. Good morning,
Mike Jazzin Tong's journey to the world title is truly impressive,
longer than any player in crucible history, winning nine rounds
one hundred and seventy two frames. There is little doubt
the cyclone has earned his title. When you say one
hundred and seventy two, I heard somebody say one hundred
and eleven. Doesn't matter. He played a lot of snooker.
(13:01):
We got the ratings from Sky Barry Hearn, who runs
Snooker as I told you earlier on the programs, claiming
one hundred and fifty million people watched it out of
Southeast Asia, which would mean globally hundreds of millions of
people watched it, which would make it a significant sporting event.
In other words, right up there with something like F one. Here,
no one watched it. Despite my best fits, nobody watched it. Well,
they did, but not many. The biggest session, which was
(13:23):
on a night, was nine pm for obvious reasons. Most
of it was overnight two or three in the morning.
It was forty five thousand people. So the number you
really want is in totality, how many people watch the
snooker now? The critical answer is overall. This comes from
Sky overall audiences were slightly lower than the last time
we broadcast in twenty twenty two, so the audience has
gone down.
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Now.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
I could argue, well, if you stuck it on every
year instead of being sporadic about it, you might have
grown an audience. But I'm not going to argue that
I'm going to take defeat on the chin. I sproop
the snooker as being an event they should hold, and
as they quite rightly say, we strive to secure the
content that we know our customers love, and we pulled
out stops to get World Snooker Champs this time around.
(14:03):
As always, we will use this viewership data to inform
future content to its content decisions. Now, next to you,
when you come to me going why isn't the snooker on,
I'm going to go, I got it on for you.
The HOSK went to bat for you, and you didn't
back them up.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
I actually wonder if you're partially responsible for the low viewership.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
Because I told them what was going on in the radio.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
You gave it to what Yeah, and you made it
sound perhaps more exciting than it actually is.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
I think Andrew Sevil would agree with you somehow.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, let's leave it a mystery. It's just one of
those mysterious things, you know. It's a bit like the
cheese rolling or the tomato best of all, you know,
everybody throws tomatoes. We don't really know why that's happening.
We're just it's just enough to know that it is happening.
Somebody's told us that it's happening. We don't actually have
(14:54):
to watch it every year, do we. Let's leave it
like that. It's a bit like with the pope. We
don't have to sit there for hours on end. There
were there three four hours going quite laid into the
night today. For it was a white smoke, was a
black smoke, and it was black smoke than I mean,
(15:16):
all the people who were voting for no Pope got
their way. I know, nobody was voting for no Pope.
And yet the headline on two different international news networks
was no Pope elected, which of course isn't true because
nobody was voting for no Pope. What can you do?
(15:36):
Grumpy old me, grumpy old husks, Another grumpy old Friday
for you tomorrow. No fun Friday, Always fun Friday.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
See there for more from news talks that'd be listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk ZEDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The Rewrap there and welcome to the Rewrap for Thursday,
all the best bits from the Mike Husking Breakfast on
news Doalg ZEDB and a Sillier package. I am Glenn
Hart and today in New Zealand has got it wrong,
according to Husk, with their new class whatever they called.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
It, public broadcasting, comparing it in New Zealand with America
and snooker.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Don't talk to Mike about the snooker. What what did
I say? What it is that's right? Anyway? Before any
of that this pay equity thing, I think it's just
another one of these things where we just need to
make more Hosking based policy.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Yesterday interesting times in the Parliament. I told you about
Shane Jones a moment ago.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Brook ben Velden featured.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
What we are doing is making the system more robust,
workable and sustainable, and on that basis, I do not
agree with Thomas Coglan's characterization. However, I do agree with
a different journalist characterization, which was Mike Hoskin.
Speaker 7 (01:36):
From this morning and the article said reform for the
Pay Equity Act is good.
Speaker 8 (01:48):
The the the excitement settles down.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
There was excitement in the house over the mention of
my name, and you can.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
I think she got the fact that she got your
name right. She got it spot on, which often they don't.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
That's correct, But Jerry had to settle the rebel the
low rinters down because of course it's important when I'm
quoted in the House that you know things go well.
Speaker 6 (02:11):
What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable,
and sustainable, and on that basis, I do not agree
with Thomas Coglan's characterization. However, I do agree with a
different journalist characterization, which was Mike Hoskin from this morning.
Speaker 7 (02:29):
And this article said, reform for the Pay Equity Act
is good.
Speaker 8 (02:36):
Stop just wait till the the the the excitement settles down.
Just just wait, I said, just wait.
Speaker 6 (02:50):
He said, Christine Bartlett was too many a hero.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
She was a very like your point, you don't need
to finish because, of course you will have been listening
to the program yesterday and you will have heard my
editorial using exactly that. If I could just offer Brooks
some advice. Unfortunately, the reason that we're staying yeah, she
is still going.
Speaker 8 (03:07):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
She quoted books Mike Smithette and tire Mike Smianette. The
difficulty is the delivery lacked a little bit of something
at the end of the day, and that it didn't
come across us.
Speaker 5 (03:16):
Listen to this guy. These are my words.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Ain't sound as good as they did when I said them.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
She still going, she's still got Oh. No, she ran
the whole of Mike's went half hour. No, No, she
had no.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
No, it's nothing wrong with it. But she made a
very salient point. And what was interesting yesterday, and this
is why I allude to this, The pay equity issue
is never going to be sold because it never can
be solved, as I tried to point out on the
program yesterday. But what's so disingenuous about the Labor Party
and the Opposition in general, and you saw that in
their reaction to the use of my name, is that
(03:46):
they will not and they absolutely refuse to delineate or
differentiate between a job and what you pay for that job,
and whether it's fulfilled by a man or woman versus
a company or an industry that is predominantly men or women.
And they are two completely separate things. And Barbara Edmonds
(04:07):
why asked a question yesterday in a very emotive sort
of way, talking about when will they pay people what
they are worth?
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Now?
Speaker 5 (04:14):
What is worth?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Who decides that? And the person who decides that is
the person who writes the check. Now, do we live
in a country at the moment where there is a
job open and you would pay different money if the
person was a woman versus you would pay different money
if the job was held by a man. And the
answer is no, we don't do that. We moved on,
and that is not part of the debate. And yet
that's the part they still try and infiltrate the argument
(04:37):
with what we're talking about is industries that are predominantly
women or predominantly men, the rest time industry being predominantly women.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
At that point, you go, what is it worth? Now?
Speaker 4 (04:47):
What it's worth, of course, is what somebody is writing
the check is prepared to write and pay for. And
if you saw the numbers yesterday coming out from the
state sector, the average hourly rate in the state sector
is vastly higher than it is in the private sector.
People are being paid more in the public sector by
a substantial amount. And yet are you getting better service
from the public sector. So that's that's the part they
(05:09):
can't argue or can't understand. It doesn't matter how much
you pay somebody, it doesn't necessarily improve the service, whereas
the private sector does understand that. And at the end
of the day, you then get down to what they
call comparators. So we can't work out what a rest
home work is really worth. So what we'll do is
will compare you to a mechanic or a painter, which
of course literally makes no sense. And probably the best
(05:30):
argument yesterday was put forward by Winston Peters who argues
the original law, which was enacted in twenty seventeen, actually worked,
whereas the current law, which is just like apples and
pears and apples and cum quats, doesn't work. And all
they're doing is going back to something that he argues
did work in the first place.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, it's amazing how often Husking does seem to be
the driver behind a lot of policy for a lot
of parties, either forore or against it. But I do
it was very poor delivery from Van Velden there, and
(06:07):
I do wonder as not possible do they not have
the multi media equipment in Parliament to just like play
it back as it was broadcast straight off the news
talks that'd be website or even better still from this.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Podcast is can we look into that please, mister speaker
A rewrap?
Speaker 8 (06:29):
All right?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So we had Greg four An, outgoing chair of in
New Zealand Greg Fouran in the studio this morning. He
wasn't really there to talk about these sort of semi
flash new seats that they've got in some of the planes,
and Mike doesn't even think they're that flash.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
I struggle at times to say things I know it'll
be easier not to say. In this case, it's about
e in New Zealand this morning. I love in New Zealand.
Don't get me wrong. I love in New Zealand because
I'm a patriot and I want them to do well.
I want them to do well because our tourism and
its success is critical. It's also critical that our airline
makes lots and lots of money. Also, I struggle because
their New Zealand is hated by a lot of people,
and not always rationally so. Flip side, the media seemed
(07:12):
to fall over themselves to give free publicity. Latest is
on the retrofit of their seven eight sevens are the
retrofit as years over due has added to the many
woes and worries they have with engines and lack of
planes and ensuing scheduling issues. But if you want an
insight into why they struggle, the retrofit might well be
another own goal. The worst recent fight we took was
(07:32):
from New York to London. It costs six thousand dollars
each one way. It was in United's Polaris class. They
call it first class. It's crap. It was small, cramped,
hopelessly out of date compared with what the world is offering.
At the front of the plane in New Zealand's new
business Premiere and Premier Lux looks like Polaris. It would
have been amazing if it was nineteen ninety seven. I
(07:55):
watched some of the media's videos. It looks like a
bad reno, old plain, new curtains. And you pay for
the privilege. And that's the point. You pay for the privilege,
if that's the right word. It's not like they're cheaper
than anyone else. Emirates we'll show for you from your
They will give you Cavia literally Cavia and Don Pergon.
They will make you a cocktail in the lounge. They
will give you a massage. You can close the door
(08:16):
on your suite. You have an individual air conditioning unit
in your suite. They have showers on board the plane.
Singapore is similar. Guitar a class leading in business. Quantus
next year will blow your mind with their new products.
Why are they doing all this? The front end of
the plane is booming globally. The world is willing to
pay increasingly absurd amounts of money. To fly here to
(08:37):
London is twenty thousand dollars, but demand massive. That's what
A in New Zealand is chasing with their new product.
Have a look at the video, then look at the
competition and tell me I don't have a point and
they aren't missing the boat, not being mean, just telling
it like it is.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, I think with my limited experience, I fly I
finn business class, why but on two different than traps.
And that's a mistake because with the first time you
do it, it's fantastic. The second time you do it
(09:15):
you do start making comparisons and what you should actually
be doing, of course, is comparing it to cattle class
which we normally fly. And can I just point out
that I wasn't paying either of these times. They were
actual business traps, that our business was providing the travel costs,
so I could go on then. But yeah, so it
(09:39):
is a bit of a privileged position, isn't it. I
don't know how many people were listening to those comments
about but the flesh end of the plane and being
yeah are so true. They're dreaming if they think people
are going to like those flesh feets the rewrap. Now,
as Trump continues to doze his way through the public
(10:01):
service in the US, can we learn an your lessons
here in New Zealand.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
A little bit about way excitement. A couple of weeks
ago when Winston Peter's two up on the Breakfast Show
at the National Broadcaster and got a bit bothered with
the question line so threatened to cut the funding. This,
of course, was hot air. Many in the Beltway, though sadly,
had their sense of humor, if not the absurd surgically
removed at birth, so they took it seriously. No such
thing is going to happen, of course, for a series
(10:26):
of pretty obvious reasons, none of which I'm going to
bore you with now. But the earnestness with which they
grimaced was based on the idea that there are those
who can and do threaten public broadcasters around the world.
The latest is mister D. Trump of Washington, who has
signed an executive order to stop funding PBS, among others. This,
like everything else, is headed to court and may well win,
(10:47):
because the argument of weight appears to be public broadcasting
and its funding is a congressional thing, and therefore an
executive order from the bloke in the corner office doesn't count.
The Trump argument, and this is worth pondering, is that
public money undermines independence, and the media is vastly changed
in recent years and a government operation is no longer necessary.
And I actually have some sit for that argument. Public
(11:09):
radio here has the concert program for example, It plays
a lot of classical music. Very few people listen to it.
Why are we paying for it? Commercial radio doesn't cover everything.
Of course, children's educational programming we don't cover. But having
said that, I don't think public radio does that either.
In America, publicly funded television invented Sesame Street. I mean,
that's of value. Here we have New Zealand on air.
(11:31):
Why do we have that as well as publicly funded
television and radio. Why don't we just have a funding
system for product we want to promote and tender it
to those who want to run it on their platforms.
Is it a fair question to ask here that, although
they claim neutrality, would a snap pole of people on
the street suggest radio and television New Zealand and neutral?
(11:52):
Is the BBC seen as neutral? Is the ABC in
Australia a bastion of straight up and down middle balance?
As always with Trump, the seat of a decent thought
is lost in the noise in the bluster. But ask
the question, what is so unique about public Talian public radio?
Whether here in America? Are here America, Britain, Australia that
needs so much of our money?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So as Trump vaned Sesame Street, I remember that happening.
I know it doesn't want anybody to go to the
movies anymore. This is really getting out of control. No
Oscar the Grouch, I mean he's becoming Osten the Grouch.
In my view, the rewrap asked very grouchy about the
(12:34):
Snooker coverage and they put it on for him and
then look what happened Snooker.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Do not talk to me about Snooker ever again. Good morning,
Mike Jazzin Tong's journey to the world title is truly impressive,
longer than any player in crucible history, winning nine rounds
one hundred and seventy two frames. There is little doubt
the cyclone has earned his title. When you say one
hundred and seventy two, I heard somebody say one hundred
and eleven. Doesn't matter. He played a lot of snooker.
(13:01):
We got the ratings from Sky Barry Hearn, who runs
Snooker as I told you earlier on the programs, claiming
one hundred and fifty million people watched it out of
Southeast Asia, which would mean globally hundreds of millions of
people watched it, which would make it a significant sporting event.
In other words, right up there with something like F one. Here,
no one watched it. Despite my best fits, nobody watched it. Well,
they did, but not many. The biggest session, which was
(13:23):
on a night, was nine pm for obvious reasons. Most
of it was overnight two or three in the morning.
It was forty five thousand people. So the number you
really want is in totality, how many people watch the
snooker now? The critical answer is overall. This comes from
Sky overall audiences were slightly lower than the last time
we broadcast in twenty twenty two, so the audience has
gone down.
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Now.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
I could argue, well, if you stuck it on every
year instead of being sporadic about it, you might have
grown an audience. But I'm not going to argue that
I'm going to take defeat on the chin. I sproop
the snooker as being an event they should hold, and
as they quite rightly say, we strive to secure the
content that we know our customers love, and we pulled
out stops to get World Snooker Champs this time around.
(14:03):
As always, we will use this viewership data to inform
future content to its content decisions. Now, next to you,
when you come to me going why isn't the snooker on,
I'm going to go, I got it on for you.
The HOSK went to bat for you, and you didn't
back them up.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
I actually wonder if you're partially responsible for the low viewership.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
Because I told them what was going on in the radio.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
You gave it to what Yeah, and you made it
sound perhaps more exciting than it actually is.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
I think Andrew Sevil would agree with you somehow.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, let's leave it a mystery. It's just one of
those mysterious things, you know. It's a bit like the
cheese rolling or the tomato best of all, you know,
everybody throws tomatoes. We don't really know why that's happening.
We're just it's just enough to know that it is happening.
Somebody's told us that it's happening. We don't actually have
(14:54):
to watch it every year, do we. Let's leave it
like that. It's a bit like with the pope. We
don't have to sit there for hours on end. There
were there three four hours going quite laid into the
night today. For it was a white smoke, was a
black smoke, and it was black smoke than I mean,
(15:16):
all the people who were voting for no Pope got
their way. I know, nobody was voting for no Pope.
And yet the headline on two different international news networks
was no Pope elected, which of course isn't true because
nobody was voting for no Pope. What can you do?
(15:36):
Grumpy old me, grumpy old husks, Another grumpy old Friday
for you tomorrow. No fun Friday, Always fun Friday.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
See there for more from news talks that'd be listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.