Susan Wood and her ego

[miSTa]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3466754a10,00.html

Talk about full of her own self importance.

She needs to learn that its not about the person its the program. Take Paul Holmes nobody followed him when he went to Prime.

Personally, I wouldn't renew her contract.

[SPman]

Shes not on contract

[Lou Girardin]

What would you have done?
Told the court, "no I'm not worth $450,000 and I don't know what I'm doing here"

[jrandom]

hmm.

its a lot of money either way, of course, but don't forget, us girls get a bit emotional about these things. I'll bet she *did* yell at her kids, too.

poor kids.

their private-school teachers probably had to take time out from attending to the other 4 in their class to comfort them the next day.

but she has a point; if her services were worth $450K last year, then, well...

depends how much employee protectionism you want, really. peoples opinions get skewed when its the rich pricks complaining, but what if this was Joe Westie getting told that he could only stay on at the workshop next year on $35K instead of the $45K he's getting at the moment for the same job?

sympathies might lie differently, but the principles would not have changed.

[Colapop]

$450k? I dunno is the job worth it? I know it's a nationally broadcast show but let's be real the audience is probably only ever going to be 1 million people tops. This is not the 'States and presenters here need to get some realism in their heads. Sure I understand that they are in leading roles but $450k?? I don't see that working 25 hours a week is worth that.
(I wouldn't say no if it was offered to me - even 1/2 that)

[Hitcher]

$450,000 is all about ego and bullshit. There is no "market" for these fluffy roles, so how can Susan make any credible claims about what she may be worth? TVNZ's board has difficulty defending such rates of remuneration in the Court of Public Opinion, which is also where Susan has to win her case. State Sector CEOs all earn less than $350,000. I'd like to see Susan attempt their jobs (well, it could be entertaining for a couple of weeks).

[robnz]

must be real bitch earning 350.000 a year. wonder what it feels like?

[Smorg]

STUPID WOMAN I TOLD HER SHE WAS BETTER OFF SERVING ME, I FED HER CLOTHED HER AND IN RETURN SHE PLEASURED ME...............what more could a woman want? :apumpin: :apumpin: :apumpin:

[kerryg]

Who cares? Get over it. It's a matter between her and her employer. Personally I think this public fascination with what someone earns is peculiar. It's none of our business. Naturally she's going to sell her services for what she can get, and naturally she's not going to take a paycut without a fight (would you?), so hence she's going to talk up her value while TVNZ talks it down. Christ it's not Albania folks....it's called capitalism. Good on her for getting paid that much.

[Paul in NZ]

Who cares? Get over it. It's a matter between her and her employer. Personally I think this public fascination with what someone earns is peculiar. It's none of our business. Naturally she's going to sell her services for what she can get, and naturally she's not going to take a paycut without a fight (would you?), so hence she's going to talk up her value while TVNZ talks it down. Christ it's not Albania folks....it's called capitalism. Good on her for getting paid that much.

I for one don't think the 'public' are fascinated at all... I think the TV News industry is fascinated with it (and their own importance) and wrongly believe it is something we care about. A product of too many New Idea interviews perhaps. I put their self serving announcements regarding the Quantas Media awards etc etc in the same boring basket. WHO CARES for goodness sake you arrogant twats!

There is something horribly wrong when the TV news IS the news! It's even more terrible when the News Reader of the year gets more air time than 'Life saver' or Ambo of the yer...

[Colapop]

I for one don't think the 'public' are fascinated at all... I think the TV News industry is fascinated with it (and their own importance) and wrongly believe it is something we care about. A product of too many New Idea interviews perhaps. I put their self serving announcements regarding the Quantas Media awards etc etc in the same boring basket. WHO CARES for goodness sake you arrogant twats!

There is something horribly wrong when the TV news IS the news! It's even more terrible when the News Reader of the year gets more air time than 'Life saver' or Ambo of the yer...

That's more the truth of the matter - slow news week.

[kerryg]

I for one don't think the 'public' are fascinated at all... I think the TV News industry is fascinated with it (and their own importance) and wrongly believe it is something we care about.

That's a good point Paul. The media, however, drive public interest. If they don't report it we can't know about it. If you are saying they shouldn' t report it, well I think that's potentially a slippery slope. Perhaps the key is good sound editorial oversight but at the end of the day it's a free country and a free press, warts and all, is an important element in keeping it so.

I think there is a tall poppy/penis-envy/kiwi clobbering machine thing going on here. Even our esteemed PM talking about Judy Bailey's salary for "about 4 minutes of work" a day or something. She should keep her opinions to herself. FFS TVNZ is run as a commercial enterprise. The Board has a governance role, not a management role, and should stay out of management matters. If the Government wants to control every management decision they should make it a Government Department again. Even then she, as a politician, not a career civil servant, would find herself antagonising lots of people in the bureaucracy if she started bleating about their salaries. This is not pre-glasnost Russia, even if some of our politicians wish it was.

[TLDV8]

$450,000 is all about ego and bullshit. There is no "market" for these fluffy roles, so how can Susan make any credible claims about what she may be worth? TVNZ's board has difficulty defending such rates of remuneration in the Court of Public Opinion, which is also where Susan has to win her case. State Sector CEOs all earn less than $350,000. I'd like to see Susan attempt their jobs (well, it could be entertaining for a couple of weeks).


Not forgetting they have given themselves something like twelve million dollars in bonus's and salary increases in the last 18 months or so...they have been out of control with their self importance since even before the Hawksby saga..they were told to pull their heads in and they agreed,as soon as the smoke had cleared they were at it again....... if the standard of general television was of a reasonable standard it might be bareable..it is like a old boys club gone mad...i couldn't give a toss if a chimp was reading the news etc as long as it was quality viewing.

[Swoop]

Perhaps now is a good time for the government (do we have one yet?) to sell off the state-owned TVNZ and have it run along the lines of TV3, by a comercial company. Judy Bailey is a fabulous presenter, as is Susan Wood. Getting rid of the "toxic gnome" was a great move. Nobody followed holmes to Prime TV so now he is serving his contract out by cleaning the urinals... :blip:
Remember this is all taxpayers money being spent on these people...

[Paul in NZ]

That's a good point Paul. The media, however, drive public interest. If they don't report it we can't know about it. If you are saying they shouldn' t report it, well I think that's potentially a slippery slope. Perhaps the key is good sound editorial oversight but at the end of the day it's a free country and a free press, warts and all, is an important element in keeping it so.

I think there is a tall poppy/penis-envy/kiwi clobbering machine thing going on here. Even our esteemed PM talking about Judy Bailey's salary for "about 4 minutes of work" a day or something. She should keep her opinions to herself. FFS TVNZ is run as a commercial enterprise. The Board has a governance role, not a management role, and should stay out of management matters. If the Government wants to control every management decision they should make it a Government Department again. Even then she, as a politician, not a career civil servant, would find herself antagonising lots of people in the bureaucracy if she started bleating about their salaries. This is not pre-glasnost Russia, even if some of our politicians wish it was.

Not really... I for one quite like Ms Wood and have utterly no objection to her sticking up for her rights or negotiating whatever salary she can.

Fact is... Not everyone CAN do her job!

By all means they should report it but they should be responsible. Her plight is not news as such. It's a novelty act. There are far more important things going on everyday of the week that this self serving bollocks bumps off the front page but it persists because people inside the industry are all fascinated by themselves. I mean whats more important? Her loosing 100K a year of a hell of a lot of engineers loosing everything at Air NZ?

The TV/news industry uses the public media to promote itself and fluff it'self up to justify the high salary base that drifts down through the sector. They don't own it, we do and I really think it is irresponsible or inappropriate (or merely tasteless)...

When the media start making the news we are on a slippery slope alright. The slippery slope of the cult of personality. Remember she is a news / current affairs presenter. Not chief censor or oppinion maker. She present the news! Not stars in it!

[kerryg]

if the standard of general television was of a reasonable standard it might be bareable.....


100% agree. It's such shite at peak viewing times that I very rarely even turn it on these days. But then it's ratings driven. So reality shows and DIY do-up shows and makeover shows and American crime shows etc etc dominate, not necessarily because of merit but because they're POPULAR. Gotta give the people what they want, even if it's not good for them. ;) That's the way it works unless you have a commercial-free State-funded broadcaster, like the National Program on radio. There's lots of intelligent stuff on the National Program (some deadly boring shite too it has to be said)...but who would watch it if its equivalent was on TV? So for it to work it has to disregard ratings and that can't work if it is run as a business that has to return a profit to its owners.

[ManDownUnder]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?

[kerryg]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?


Nicely and succinctly summarised :niceone:

[Beemer]

I admit I'm a bit jealous of anyone earning that much money - I may be a journalist but never had the desire to go into tv so I'm happy with my life, but you could buy a lot of bikes for that money!

I think what Susan Wood is complaining about is the cut in her salary for what she can see as no good reason. She is currently on $450,000 which is a shitload of money, but she probably draws in quite a few viewers for TV1 and at least she appears to do more work for her money than Judy Bailey does for hers! If people had been switching off or there had been lots of complaints about the show, there would be justification for cutting her pay or firing her. I know I'd be pissed off if I were earning $450,000 and was told next year I'd be earning $100,000 less.

But I agree with people who say that tv presenters are people doing a job, they should not be treated as celebrities (nor should 'stars' from Shortland Street!) and their salaries should be a bit more in line with the actual work they do, rather than the medium in which they do it.

[madboy]

IMO if she can get $450k, good on her. Plenty of people get paid an awful lot of money for doing what is perceived as bugger all (look at some IT jobs historically). But if the market is now only paying $350k, then live with it. That's the risk you take working in a volatile area.

I have no sympathy for her in that if she loses $100k, then fine. But I can also understand where she is coming from in her legal argument too. I'd be spouting forth whatever crap I had to in order to justify my argument in an employment court too.

It just sucks to know she makes so much money more than me... sniff sniff...

[Blackbird]

There's a lot of common sense on this thread :niceone:

Irrespective of the amounts and egos involved, if she believes (or more accurately, if her lawyer believes..) that she has been treated in an unlawful manner, then it has to be tested in a Court of Law. I presume that Mediation either failed or was considered inappropriate.

[wendigo]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?

Of course on the other side, if her employer only wants to offer her $350k and risk her leaving - so be it.

Where's the big deal?

Thing is, with the BEE GEEs, if you don't want to see them, you don't buy a ticket and hence you don't pay for them. Unlike Mz Woods case.

If Mz Woods truly thinks she is worth 450 k a year, why doesn't she do what the rest of us mere mortals do when we are unhappy with our jobs & feel undervalued and underpaid? Go of and get another job. The market pays your worth. Or percieved worth.

[Hitcher]

Far as I' concerned - she's a performer and that's her medium.

We don't go bitching about the BEE GEEs getting paid gazillions when they come to town, just because people are willing to pay money to see them.

Why complain about Susan Wood?
Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.

[miSTa]

but she has a point; if her services were worth $450K last year, then, well...


But she is the only one who thinks her services are worth $450K, thats the difference.

As for taking your employer to court, ridiculous, time to say "fuck you" and move on.

[ManDownUnder]

Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.

Both are paid according to the amont of viewership they attract.

If Susan Wood doesn't sttract/retain the viewership, the revenue going to the station by way of advertising drops, and her employer is quite entitled to pay her higher or lower depending on that revenue generating ability.

Whether the revenue streams are in the public or private sector is a secondary point surely?
MDU

[ManDownUnder]

Thing is, with the BEE GEEs, if you don't want to see them, you don't buy a ticket and hence you don't pay for them. Unlike Mz Woods case.

If Mz Woods truly thinks she is worth 450 k a year, why doesn't she do what the rest of us mere mortals do when we are unhappy with our jobs & feel undervalued and underpaid? Go of and get another job. The market pays your worth. Or percieved worth.

As per my post to Hitcher, maybe that's what we're seeing. The public isn't watching, the ratings are down, the money from ads ain't pouring in... and she's being given an offer to consider.

Seems like shes making some noise and or posturing to see if she can improve the offer, and I expect TVNZ are doing what they can to keep it as low as possible. It's negotiating a new contract.

No biggy - just people making noise while trying to determine an agreed rate of pay.

[kerryg]

Because the Bee Gees aren't paid from taxpayer funds. Susan Wood is. Big difference.


At the risk of being PEDANTIC (heaven forefend) it can probably be argued that she is not being paid from taxpayer funds in that sense. She works for an SOE that operates like a private company. Its management have a responsibility to generate revenue so that it returns a dividend to its shareholders ,and so should make management decisions based on the same kind of criteria that private sector managers do. If they pay Susan Woods/whomever $$$ to retain her services because they consider that that amount is her value to the business measured by viewer numbers (and so advertising revenue) they are investing in an asset in order to produce profit. It is far too simple to think of her cost as simply an expense.

[kerryg]

She present the news! Not stars in it!

Actually that's open to argument. How many people would watch the news if you or I presented it, Paul ? The front-person is a performer, a personality. That's why a good one has a high value.

[rogson]

The fact is Paul Holmes leaving his "celebrity fronted" show and not being able to take his viewers with him has been quite an eye opener for media watchers.

They have realised the "celebrity" fronting the show doesn't have the influence they thought. Its only natural that would lead to an attempt to devalue the celebrity role.

And to the Board of TVNZ, please explain to me how appointing a celebrity to run a business that employs celebrities doesn't raise conflict of interest issues.

[Lou Girardin]

The fact is Paul Holmes leaving his "celebrity fronted" show and not being able to take his viewers with him has been quite an eye opener for media watchers.


But not a surprise to those with common sense. The ratings never dropped when Holmes had fill-ins taking his place.
The TV industry does appear to be a huge circle jerk at times, a bit like Parliament.

[Hitcher]

Whether the revenue streams are in the public or private sector is a secondary point surely?
I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.

[jrandom]

I don't like paying tax. You well may.

I don't mind.

I like the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that I am purchasing civilisation.


I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks

[grin]

reeeeeally?


support services for folks with high needs kids

your imagination's on fire with hypothetical stuff for the masses today, innit?


and fighters for the Air Force

granted. fighters are dead sexy, and make pretty noises when they fly overhead.


blonde bints... channel I prefer not to watch.

what TVNZ really needs is the *right* career civil servant to run it.

me, I want to see more programmes about agriculture.

[Blackbird]

I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.

So we prefer the blonde bints on TV3 or Prime??? Personally, I think Susan has tits that emote much better :innocent:

[Lou Girardin]

If we're going to have fighters, I want piston engined '40s models. They sound REALLY good and would probably be as much use as a Skyhawk in reality.

BTW Susan Wood doesn't look all that hot in her gym gear, so $350K is about right. :yawn:

[wendigo]

As per my post to Hitcher, maybe that's what we're seeing. The public isn't watching, the ratings are down, the money from ads ain't pouring in... and she's being given an offer to consider.

Seems like shes making some noise and or posturing to see if she can improve the offer, and I expect TVNZ are doing what they can to keep it as low as possible. It's negotiating a new contract.

No biggy - just people making noise while trying to determine an agreed rate of pay.

Don't think shes strengthened her bargaining position. By going to court, she has now made herself unemployable wrt any other broadcaster employer. She's also burnt her bridges with her current one. If you want to strengthen your position, you rattle the sabre, not screw the pooch.

My guess is, as a number of other replies on this thread have pointed out, the fad of the celebrity presenter is pretty much spent, so she's going for the big score before disappearing into obscurity. Note the '"significant" compensation for hurt and humiliation'. If she wins she's going to get a shitload. If she loses? Well what happens then. Does she still get a job worth 350 k a year?

[jrandom]

Susan Wood doesn't look all that hot in her gym gear, so $350K is about right. :yawn:

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.

[kerryg]

I don't like paying tax. You well may. I would prefer that my taxes were invested on things like hip replacements for old folks, support services for folks with high needs kids, and fighters for the Air Force; rather than on blonde bints to emote the politically correct news to me on a channel I prefer not to watch.


Here's the other bit of MDU's post which you seem to have overlooked

If Susan Wood doesn't attract/retain the viewership, the revenue going to the station by way of advertising drops, and her employer is quite entitled to pay her higher or lower depending on that revenue generating ability

It is entirely possible that by getting the right person (I cannot say that Susan Woods is such a person, I don't have the information to make that judgement so let's keep this general) in the role viewership goes up, advertising revenue goes up and TVNZ makes more money and pays more by way of dividend to its shareholders...so you get more hip replacements. It MIGHT be justified to pay....I dunno, name a figure... $10 million dollars a year to someone if they draw big enough audiences. We really have to get over this difficulty about high salaries to media personalities IF (I accept that this is a big IF) their big salaries are determined by the big profits they generate for their employer. Obviously if they are being paid inflated salaries but are not performing , they should be toast.

[Indiana_Jones]

I wish I got 450,000 Hawksby's for doing bollocks :D

-Indy

[kerryg]

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.


Yes, yes, yes.

Pity of the ratings-driven system is that her "Face to Face" show (which actually gave us some informed and intelligent interviews with people worth interviewing) has been canned because of poor ratings. One of the few shows I make a point of watching.

[ManDownUnder]

Don't think shes strengthened her bargaining position. By going to court, she has now made herself unemployable wrt any other broadcaster employer. She's also burnt her bridges with her current one. If you want to strengthen your position, you rattle the sabre, not screw the pooch.

My guess is, as a number of other replies on this thread have pointed out, the fad of the celebrity presenter is pretty much spent, so she's going for the big score before disappearing into obscurity. Note the '"significant" compensation for hurt and humiliation'. If she wins she's going to get a shitload. If she loses? Well what happens then. Does she still get a job worth 350 k a year?

I hear ya - I can only guess the broadcasting industry in NZ is sufficiently small that they all either knew about the situation already or they would have PDQ. Going public might (might) be a move to garner sympathy or force the hand of the employer by making them do something now (rather than last minute when her contract expires) and giving her more time to negotiate "up"

Don't know what happens if she loses - maybe she's banking on a lack of anyone to replace her?

MDU

[kerryg]

I wish I got 450,000 Hawksby's for doing bollocks :D

-Indy


Would that be a John or a Kate?

[jrandom]

Would that be a John or a Kate?

in Indy's case, I strongly suspect that it would be a John.

[yungatart]

I say she should go for it. She was paid $450 K last year and is now expected to be happy with only $350 k for the same job- I wouldn't be happy taking a 20% (ish ) pay cut and I suspect not many of the rest of you would either.

[Lou Girardin]

personally, I DGAF what she looks like. I think she's an insipid and deadly-boring interviewer.

bring back Kim Hill, I say. onscreen, she's so... titillatingly scary.

in fact, a 7pm current affairs show with Kim Hill?

*that* might get me turning the telly on.

Kill Him?
The only thing scary about that overrated hag is the thought that she'd have your eye out with her Parkinsonian hand twitches.
Pilger demolished her.

[jrandom]

Kill Him... overrated hag... Pilger demolished her.

I didn't see that interview. give us a description, eh?

talking of interviewer demolitions, anyone else remember Holmes reduced to "b-b-b-buuuuh, uhhh..." by Maggie Thatcher?

*loved* it.

[kerryg]

Kill Him?
The only thing scary about that overrated hag is the thought that she'd have your eye out with her Parkinsonian hand twitches.
Pilger demolished her.


Jeez Lou you must be getting a better class of woman than me. I reckon she's rather fine........in a kind of scary way..

but then I do like to be disciplined, mistress

Yeah and I heard about (but didn't see) the Pilger interview. He's not as good looking though

[kerryg]

I didn't see that interview. give us a description, eh?

talking of interviewer demolitions, anyone else remember Holmes reduced to "b-b-b-buuuuh, uhhh..." by Maggie Thatcher?

*loved* it.

Lou'll tell you but don't trust him 'cos he's biased against the splendid a luverly Kim...

but I saw an excerpt and Pilger absolutely told her off for being ill-briefed and advised her to read more. I think he was having a hormonal problem or a bad hair day or something but he was pretty harsh

[kerryg]

talking of interviewer demolitions, anyone else remember Holmes reduced to "b-b-b-buuuuh, uhhh..." by Maggie Thatcher?

*loved* it.


That was because she had both his testicles in her vise-like grip...you'd go b-b-buuuh too (or then maybe not)

[SuperDave]

"It had affected her eating and sleeping and led her to yell at her children."

:laugh:

What a crack up. Gready bitch.

[jrandom]

but I saw an excerpt and Pilger absolutely told her off for being ill-briefed and advised her to read more.

hmmm, not too surprising.

Kim's one shortcoming seems to be that she doesn't like to switch between the antagonistic and supportive approaches - she picks one at the start and sticks with it, with no off-balancing shots halfway through.

presumably she went with 'antagonistic' for that interview. oops.

[wendigo]

I hear ya - I can only guess the broadcasting industry in NZ is sufficiently small that they all either knew about the situation already or they would have PDQ. Going public might (might) be a move to garner sympathy or force the hand of the employer by making them do something now (rather than last minute when her contract expires) and giving her more time to negotiate "up"

Don't know what happens if she loses - maybe she's banking on a lack of anyone to replace her?

MDU

Risky strategy. Yer man Holmes proved everyone's replacable. Definitely going going for the sympathy vote by bringing up shouting at the children. Nice and pc mind. Nothing as un-pc as giving the fuckers a clip round the earhole. If I were as stressed out as she claims to be, I'd be prone to do more than yell. "Bit of pain never hurt anybody."

[ManDownUnder]

Risky strategy. Yer man Holmes proved everyone's replacable. Definitely going going for the sympathy vote by bringing up shouting at the children. Nice and pc mind. Nothing as un-pc as giving the fuckers a clip round the earhole. If I were as stressed out as she claims to be, I'd be prone to do more than yell. "Bit of pain never hurt anybody."

Yeah - but in the absence of a better option?

Anyhoo - it's all 2nd guessing. I'm just going to wait and see

[Lou Girardin]

hmmm, not too surprising.

Kim's one shortcoming seems to be that she doesn't like to switch between the antagonistic and supportive approaches - she picks one at the start and sticks with it, with no off-balancing shots halfway through.

presumably she went with 'antagonistic' for that interview. oops.

She lost it and threw his book across the table.
When she asked Pilger how she should prepare herself (in a sarcastic manner)
He said, "read".
If Pollies are terrified of her, it says more about their pitiful intellect than her ability.

[jrandom]

She lost it and threw his book across the table.

oh dear.

thats the problem with female interviewers, they should really only be at work 3 weeks out of 4...

[Lou Girardin]

oh dear.

thats the problem with female interviewers, they should really only be at work 3 weeks out of 4...

Are you saying that wimmin should be disempowered due to a biological imperative?
How tremendously non-PC of you.
Are you Wayne Mapp incognito?

[jrandom]

Are you saying that wimmin should be disempowered due to a biological imperative?

yeah, that.


Are you Wayne Mapp incognito?

I already done told you.

I'm Rodney Hide.

[Motu]

Kill Him?
The only thing scary about that overrated hag is the thought that she'd have your eye out with her Parkinsonian hand twitches.
Pilger demolished her.

I've only seen one Kim Hill interview,and it was that one - what a stupid bitch....if I see her face I change chanels or hit the off button.Sue Wood? Have hardly seen her show as I never watched Holmes either,but no news reader is ''worth'' half a million bucks.Does she practice in front of a mirror? News is facts,lay them out in front of me - I need no ''actor'' to ''present'' them to me.

[Paul in NZ]

Actually that's open to argument. How many people would watch the news if you or I presented it, Paul ? The front-person is a performer, a personality. That's why a good one has a high value.

No No.. Thats not at all what I'm saying. A good news presenter is an asset (refer to my earlier comments that not everyone can do her job) BUT... All the coverage is not required for her to win her argument. I have no beef with her or her salary. (companies pay a lot more to place ads on top shows)

My beef is with the self important media industry taking every opportunity to push their issues on our medium. Valiant cameraman attacked etc etc.. it's bollocks

[Indiana_Jones]

in Indy's case, I strongly suspect that it would be a John.

That's correct Fish :niceone: , now here's Frosty with the weather.

-Indy

[Swoop]

I've only seen one Kim Hill interview,and it was that one - what a stupid bitch....if I see her face I change chanels or hit the off button.Sue Wood? Have hardly seen her show as I never watched Holmes either,but no news reader is ''worth'' half a million bucks.Does she practice in front of a mirror? News is facts,lay them out in front of me - I need no ''actor'' to ''present'' them to me.

Very well said Motu! The media is there to present us with only the facts, and then let us decide what to make of them. Unfortunately they seem to believe we cannot make a decision for ourselves and therefore will give us the solution of "what to think". Highly opinionated presenters are the bane of our society... :argh:

[heavenly.talker]

$450,000 is all about ego and bullshit. There is no "market" for these fluffy roles, so how can Susan make any credible claims about what she may be worth? TVNZ's board has difficulty defending such rates of remuneration in the Court of Public Opinion, which is also where Susan has to win her case. State Sector CEOs all earn less than $350,000. I'd like to see Susan attempt their jobs (well, it could be entertaining for a couple of weeks).

Susan probably could give a fair go at attempting the CEO's jobs. She has an MBA from Otago is well versed in what is happening in the external enviornment both domestically and internationally, has great communication skills, and obviously inspires people to listen to and trust in her (in other fancy managment words has presence and leadership abilities). To top that she is calm under pressure and can adapt to change easily. That sounds like 75% of characteristics that public CEO roles advertise for.

Just because she is blonde and we get to see the fuffly side of her nightly does not mean that she is a light weight in the intellectual department!!!

$450 k is alot of money...but look what Paul Holmes was getting...she does the same job for a fraction of his old salary and has still managed to maintain the ratings...where is the pay equity there?

[Paul in NZ]

She has an MBA from Otago is well versed in what is happening in the external enviornment both domestically and internationally, has great communication skills, and obviously inspires people to listen to and trust in her (in other fancy managment words has presence and leadership abilities). To top that she is calm under pressure and can adapt to change easily. That sounds like 75% of characteristics that public CEO roles advertise for.

Feck! She is WAY better looking that our CEO and is almost human! Has my vote!

[heavenly.talker]

Feck! She is WAY better looking that our CEO and is almost human! Has my vote!

lol!!!

Yeah when I saw her on 3 news the other night I was surprised at how warm she appeared to be...almost like she is human :whistle:

[miSTa]

$450 k is alot of money...but look what Paul Holmes was getting...she does the same job for a fraction of his old salary and has still managed to maintain the ratings...where is the pay equity there?

Precisely why it's not about the person, there is no need for pay equity. A business should always be looking for the minimum of cost of the service/product that they supply. If they can get away with paying someone less without any or a acceptable loss in the service/product then that's what they will do, and are doing in this case.

[Racey Rider]

Seemed a bit 'rich' last night, her and her $450 000/year telling me on the dole the Auckland Rescue Helicopter needs Me to give to it!

[Swoop]

Susan probably could give a fair go at attempting the CEO's jobs. She has an MBA from Otago is well versed in what is happening in the external enviornment both domestically and internationally, has great communication skills, and obviously inspires people to listen to and trust in her (in other fancy managment words has presence and leadership abilities). To top that she is calm under pressure and can adapt to change easily. That sounds like 75% of characteristics that public CEO roles advertise for.

Just because she is blonde and we get to see the fuffly side of her nightly does not mean that she is a light weight in the intellectual department!!!

$450 k is alot of money...but look what Paul Holmes was getting...she does the same job for a fraction of his old salary and has still managed to maintain the ratings...where is the pay equity there?


May I add that she dosen't rudely interrupt, or talk over, interviewees then demean them.
Great interviewing skills! Go Susan!

[Skyryder]

The only reason we have celebs in the news industry is because of the print media i.e. the womans mags. If someones having a baby, getting divorced, buying a new home, or some other pointless drivel there they are, all airbushed and and photoshoped on the cover of a gossip mag. They promote themselves knowing full well that their popularity will be a factor in wage negotations.

Three hundred and fifty thousand.................that's still way too much.

Skyryder

[Ghost Lemur]

The solution is simple.

Refuse to renew her contract. Even if she's willing to accept the paycut. And give half a dozen young up and coming presenters jobs for the equivilent of her salary.

Let her get what she thinks she's worth elsewhere.
Worked well for Holmes.... :killingme

Least John Campbell is entertaining and doesn't take himself to seriously.

[Pixie]

Even our esteemed PM talking about Judy Bailey's salary for "about 4 minutes of work" a day or something. She should keep her opinions to herself.
Pinko govts thrive on the politics of envy

[Pixie]

Remember this is all taxpayers money being spent on these people...
No, it's money from the advertisers,who pay Wood's salary in the first 3 hours of the year's broadcast.
Of course we pay in the end when we fall for the ads

[crashe]

Well when her contract runs out, she may well be out of a job...
TVNZ may not want her back, since she has taken them to court...
So I hope that she is saving all her dollars...

[Pixie]

I've only seen one Kim Hill interview,and it was that one - what a stupid bitch....if I see her face I change chanels or hit the off button.Sue Wood? Have hardly seen her show as I never watched Holmes either,but no news reader is ''worth'' half a million bucks.Does she practice in front of a mirror? News is facts,lay them out in front of me - I need no ''actor'' to ''present'' them to me.
These 7:00 PM shows are not news,they are made up shit.i.e. the water powered bike

[Pixie]

The only reason we have celebs in the news industry is because of the print media i.e. the womans mags. If someones having a baby, getting divorced, buying a new home, or some other pointless drivel there they are, all airbushed and and photoshoped on the cover of a gossip mag. They promote themselves knowing full well that their popularity will be a factor in wage negotations.



Skyryder
Or in an election

[Brian d marge]

My mate had his wedding paid for by NZ womens weekly ...and he isnt getting 1/2 what woods gets

Stephen

[Lou Girardin]

May I add that she dosen't rudely interrupt, or talk over, interviewees then demean them.
Great interviewing skills! Go Susan!

Doesn't provide much insight either.
She's now known as Susan "as a mother" Wood.

[Hitcher]

Kim's one shortcoming
What's this? The Kum Hull Fan Club? The woman has numerous shortcomings as an interviewer, which are highlighted more by television than radio. Pilger chewed her up because not only had she underprepared for the interview, but also she had formed strong opinions of him and his views. Hence the quick slide into argument rather than interview. Sloppy. But nobody watches, so who cares?

[Hitcher]

Susan probably could give a fair go at attempting the CEO's jobs. She has an MBA from Otago is well versed in what is happening in the external enviornment both domestically and internationally, has great communication skills, and obviously inspires people to listen to and trust in her (in other fancy managment words has presence and leadership abilities). To top that she is calm under pressure and can adapt to change easily. That sounds like 75% of characteristics that public CEO roles advertise for.
All good points. But I wasn't criticising Susan Wood, only her remuneration. She would have to take a drop in pay to become a State-sector CEO.

[jrandom]

What's this? The Kum Hull Fan Club?

I want to have her babies.


The woman has numerous shortcomings as an interviewer, which are highlighted more by television than radio.

that is true. numerous, though? I think they could be described fairly sucksinctly. in any case, she amuses me. I can do my own research; when it comes to live interviews, I want thigh-slapping hee-haw goodness. on radio at least, she delivers.


also she had formed strong opinions of him and his views

she does that with everybody.

perhaps I should elusidate. she doesnt so much enlighten as amuse. I like being amused.

...

"What? Simply saying 'No it isn't' isn't an argument."

"Yes it is!"

"No it isn't!"

[Biff]

If you're in sales role you may work off commission. As this lady was, in effect, on a temporary contract, and she clearly wasn't pulling in sufficient viewers, then tough sh*t IMO. You get what you're worth.

She has the personality of a rabid wombat anyway. She should start up her own show with Paul Holmls. In SIberia.

[jrandom]

She has the personality of a rabid wombat anyway.

i have never met a rabid wombat. what are the defining charicteristics of a wombat when it is a rabid one?


Syberia

if this phonetic misspelling conceals a devilishly cunning and humourous pun of some sort then I fear that I am missing the boat.

[Biff]

i have never met a rabid wombat. what are the defining charicteristics of a wombat when it is a rabid one?

Dribbles a lot, talks shite and misspells place names.


if this phonetic misspelling conceals a devilishly cunning and humourous pun of some sort then I fear that I am missing the boat.

I am a rabid wombat.

[Hitcher]

if this phonetic misspelling conceals a devilishly cunning and humourous pun of some sort then I fear that I am missing the boat.
Ms Pot? Meet Mr Kettle. Give me an O for Oarsome...

[ManDownUnder]

Ms Pot? Meet Mr Kettle. Give me an O for Oarsome...

Is that the same "O" used in Opostrofy?

[Hitcher]

Is that the same "O" used in Opostrofy?
You should be asking David Tua, Tua...

[ManDownUnder]

You should be asking David Tua, Tua...

oh...

remaining 10 letters in here

[Lou Girardin]

She won!
Poor TVNZ. Too bad, how sad - never mind.
They could always sack Ralston. That'd save a few hundy grand and improve ratings to boot.

[Hitcher]

A pyrrhic victory. TVNZ got spanked for lack of consultation with Ms Wood. The Authority noted that her contract expires at the end of the year and that her current $450,000 salary was crass and vulgar. No ruling was made on costs.

[miSTa]

A pyrrhic victory.

Thanks for that fancy bloody word - had to go and look it up. Would have to agree. It was also interesting that Wood was told she was naive as well.

[TwoSeven]

A pyrrhic victory. TVNZ got spanked for lack of consultation with Ms Wood. The Authority noted that her contract expires at the end of the year and that her current $450,000 salary was crass and vulgar. No ruling was made on costs.

You may want to make that quote properly, rather than making part of it up :)

[Hitcher]

You may want to make that quote properly, rather than making part of it up :)
Read the whole thing then.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10354039

[Lou Girardin]

A pyrrhic victory. TVNZ got spanked for lack of consultation with Ms Wood. The Authority noted that her contract expires at the end of the year and that her current $450,000 salary was crass and vulgar. No ruling was made on costs.

Not quite. They'll now need a very good reason to not renew her contract. If they don't, it'll just compound their image problems and result in even lower ratings.
Which will cost them far more than the $150,000 that they're fighting over.

[ManDownUnder]

Not quite. They'll now need a very good reason to not renew her contract. If they don't, it'll just compound their image problems and result in even lower ratings.
Which will cost them far more than the $150,000 that they're fighting over.

you mean the $150k per year they're fighting for...

big diff, and aftyer 6 months the NZ public won't care anyway. Swap in a session of the naked news, ratings go through the roof, pay the people in question $80k/year each and Bob's your Aunt's favourite boyfriend

[jrandom]

The Authority noted that her contract expires at the end of the year...

they also noted that no apparent reason existed behind this expiry date, and that the relevant clause was probably null and void, ie, she should expect to continue on as a permanent employee, with contract renewal presumably being automatic.

ah, employee protectionism enshrined in law; the reason why the hounds of hell themselves couldn't drag me into being an employer in NZ.

[Lou Girardin]

you mean the $150k per year they're fighting for...

big diff, and aftyer 6 months the NZ public won't care anyway.

They seem to be caring now, ratings are in freefall. Strangely enough since my mate Bill started.
Besides, she's a bargain compared to Holmes and that woman that used to read the news. You know the one, the Mother of the Nation.

[TwoSeven]

Read the whole thing then.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10354039

Sometimes it pays to read things carefully. I picked up from the original post that the Judge implied it [the salary] was vulgar etc. However, the quote is as follows



Mr Robinson said ordinary New Zealanders found it very difficult to comprehend the salaries of the magnitude paid to presenters.

"There is a view that such salaries are extreme, extravagant and even obscene."


This actually means that the judge is stating an opinion on what he thinks ordenary NZrs think. Thats completely different from what was stated in the previous post.

Its called chineese whispers.

[Pixie]

They seem to be caring now, ratings are in freefall. Strangely enough since my mate Bill started.
Besides, she's a bargain compared to Holmes and that woman that used to read the news. You know the one, the Mother of the Nation.
Speaking of Bill:I didn't realise how unoriginal and plagiaristic NZ TV could be,until I saw the McLaughlin Group on a TriangleTV PBS feed.
It seems that this is the template for The Ralston Group or some years ago on TV3.
The ridiculous thing was Ralston even tried to copy McLaughlin's idiosyncratic
farewell on each episode.
And when they copied the Weakest Link- they got Louise Wallace to dye her hair red because the bint on the original pommy series had red hair-we know how the weakest links are.

[Lou Girardin]

ah, employee protectionism enshrined in law; the reason why the hounds of hell themselves couldn't drag me into being an employer in NZ.

Yeah, let's return to the good old days of unfettered capitalism. When you could force children to work 14 hour shifts in the mines and sack anyone at anytime for anything.

[jrandom]

Yeah, let's return to the good old days of unfettered capitalism. When you could force children to work 14 hour shifts in the mines and sack anyone at anytime for anything.

I strongly support employee protectionism, the same way I strongly support the necessity for professional toilet-unblockers.

I just wouldn't ever want to be involved with the pointy end of either.

[TwoSeven]

I thought it was good that an employer finally got caught out trying to screw an employee over. Good on her for sorting that mess of a company out.

[Lou Girardin]

I strongly support the necessity for professional toilet-unblockers.

I just wouldn't ever want to be involved with the pointy end of either.


So you're bigger than a Goldfish then?

[jrandom]

So you're bigger than a Goldfish then?

too small to eat, too big to flush.

[Hitcher]

too small to eat, too big to flush.
The Koi carp of Kiwibiker.

[Lou Girardin]

too small to eat.

You must live a disappointed life.

[Biff]

You must live a disappointed life.

She wouldn't know. She has a memory span of around 8 seconds.

[Lou Girardin]

She wouldn't know. She has a memory span of around 8 seconds.

That'd be why they jump back on the hook.

[Brian d marge]

Give me 50 bucks and a six pack of trappist ale , oh and a pkt of unsmoked danish middle back bacon ,,,and I will read the news ... ill even dye me hair red ...if thats whats needed ...
The fifty gazzillion dollars you save by re employing woods as the tea lady on task force green rates ,,, you can put MOTO GP , live AND still have money left over to what Katrina prumm kick but in the womans MX .....

Hey Ill even flash a bit of cleavage ,,,that will get the nations hearts apumpin

Stephen
:spudguita

BTW thats per program ...I am not that cheap you know

[heavenly.talker]

Hey Ill even flash a bit of cleavage ,,,that will get the nations hearts apumpin


Please send picture of cleavage along with CV as soon as you get this message.:spudbn:

[miSTa]

When you have cleavage like this does it really matter about the CV?

[TwoSeven]

Please send picture of cleavage along with CV as soon as you get this message.:spudbn:

Has anyone noticed that austrailian presenters have no cleavage.

[heavenly.talker]

When you have cleavage like this does it really matter about the CV?


Holy smoke batman...she's nearly wearing that bikini!
lol

[heavenly.talker]

Has anyone noticed that austrailian presenters have no cleavage.


Maybe that don't eat as much chicken over the ditch?

[Biff]

Paul Holmes has cleavage. Alledgedly.

[Timber020]

Paul Holmes has cleavage. Alledgedly.

That explains it, knew he didnt have talent

[Brian d marge]

Please send picture of cleavage along with CV as soon as you get this message.:spudbn:
As requested here is a shot of me cleavage ,,, I must add that one of these pictures if fake ,,,I leave it to your imagination as to whom I really am ..and why I would be perfect for the news ,,,,,,,

Stephen

[SARGE]

BTW Susan Wood doesn't look all that hot in her gym gear, so $350K is about right. :yawn:


that brunette weather girl on 3 is wicked hot

[Lou Girardin]

that brunette weather girl on 3 is wicked hot

Toni Marsh. Yeeeessssss!
She does look great in gym gear:blip:

[heavenly.talker]

As requested here is a shot of me cleavage ,,, I must add that one of these pictures if fake ,,,I leave it to your imagination as to whom I really am ..and why I would be perfect for the news ,,,,,,,

Stephen

I'tll have the one on the right...I'll either brown bag him or use him with the lights off! lol

[miSTa]

As requested here is a shot of me cleavage

Didn't need to see that - ta :finger:

To get back on track, Toni Marsh, on a scale of one to ten you'd have to her one, then another one, another one....

[Lou Girardin]

I'tll have the one on the right...I'll either brown bag him or use him with the lights off! lol

You'll probably need a torch to find it then.
Steroids, ya know.

[Indiana_Jones]

I think susan wood is a crusty old dyke who's lost that lovin' feeling ? :|

-Indy

[jrandom]

You'll probably need a torch to find it then.
Steroids, ya know.

sigh.

they shrink balls, not willies. and only a few varieties hurt libido. most flavours enhance it.

[Swoop]

that brunette weather girl on 3 is wicked hot

Toni Marsh!! mmmmmmmmmmmm

She would look stunning even wearing an old potato sack:blip:

[Motu]

sigh.

they shrink balls, not willies. and only a few varieties hurt libido. most flavours enhance it.

working across from a jim I've noticed something else that shrinks - 6 planks fit now where 2 was a standard size.

[Lou Girardin]

sigh.

they shrink balls, not willies. and only a few varieties hurt libido. most flavours enhance it.

Look what they did to you!
Changed species.

[Lou Girardin]

Toni Marsh!! mmmmmmmmmmmm

She would look stunning even wearing an old potato sack:blip:


She could wear my sack.

:Oops: said it out loud.

[heavenly.talker]

You'll probably need a torch to find it then.
Steroids, ya know.


...that's what glow in the dark condoms are for!!!:lol:

[heavenly.talker]

She could wear my sack.

:Oops: said it out loud.


Are you sure they don't call you Arkwright?
:blip: :blip: :lol: :lol: