We've never had it so dull

Election addresses on the box - no thanks. Photo / Mark Mitchell

How many people, I wonder, get in the snacks and plump up the cushions every three years and settle in to watch the opening and closing leaders' addresses of the election campaign, shown by TVNZ, as it is required to do by law. None?

Most of us look forward to this dose of what is alleged to be democratically good for us in the same way that we look forward to a colonoscopy. Except, of course, a colonoscopy might ultimately do some good.

TVNZ has asked Parliament to, if it wouldn't mind, relieve it of this obligation, apparently because it's like, you know ... borrrrring.

Panties bunched, commentators berated TVNZ for trying to undermine the foundations of democracy as we know it. And fair enough, the Government has been doing that for more than two terms now with greater efficiency than any broadcast medium could hope to achieve.

Except, TVNZ didn't say that.

It is worth digging out TVNZ's submission because it shows that, despite what you might think based on the programmes it makes, there is at least one person at the broadcaster who understands the realities of modern-day media. Specifically, submission author Brent McAnulty, head of legal and corporate affairs.

In the submission, he writes that the obligation was imposed at a time when voters had a far more restricted menu of information sources about the policies of those seeking election; when TVNZ was the sole television broadcaster; and when it was a public service channel without a statutory requirement to behave like a commercial business.

Those were the days.

None of those conditions pertain now. So why should TVNZ have to act as though they do?

It has been suggested TVNZ's problem with broadcasting something no one wants to see could be remedied by making every TV channel show it at the same time.

What a great public health initiative that would be, as an entire country decided to go out for a walk or get into the garden.

But McAnulty is more sensible than that. He knows that the concept of public broadcasting having public obligations made sense when there was only public broadcasting.

Of course the electorate needed and needs access to as much information as it can about the people who want the opportunity to mismanage its Government every three years.

And coverage of politics that allows us to make up our own minds rather than view it through the skewed perceptions of others is not just essential but widely available.

Parliament itself is broadcast on the internet and on four TV channels, and has been for years.

We've never had it so dull.

And TVNZ is not trying to turn its back on election coverage because of low ratings, as the submission makes clear. McAnulty points to great figures for leaders' debates and election night coverage.

TVNZ is fortunate that it has one person on the payroll who understands its increasing irrelevance. People no longer watch television to find out what is happening in the world.

That customised news service we were told we could have when the internet was invented, delivering us only the news we were most interested in every day? It's here. Social media is the new news media.

Every day I click on a couple of dozen Facebook links to news stories from nearly as many news sources.

They are posted by people who, as my friends, are interested in the same sort of things I am and therefore usually post information that is of interest to me.

How television will meet that challenge remains to be seen.