Letters: Do those who manage rugby want to see a crowd? I have listened to RNZ with growing concern

NZ Herald

18 hours ago

What is wrong with the people responsible for such genuinely awful planning? Had they started the early fixture a bit later and ensured a wait between games of, say, just 15 minutes before a 4.35pm kickoff for the NPC game, the crowd of probably 12,000 or so people would likely have stayed and enjoyed both games.
The vast majority of the significant crowd immediately left at the first game's final whistle and the remaining crowd by the time of the next kickoff, as seen on TV, was the proverbial 'two men and a dog'!
This was the first time we had attended at Eden Park for many years. We won't be back.
In retrospect, it was 'the smart move' to leave as soon as the schools game ended as, when I gave up in disgust and turned the telly off, Taranaki were giving Auckland a good old-fashioned thrashing.
Roger Hawkins, Herne Bay.
Covid inquiry
I am wondering why the citizenry of New Zealand are surprised when some politicians will not attend the Royal Commission on the Covid response.
We elect our leaders to act on our behalf. Normally, everything is transparent and follows due process.
A pandemic is an interruption to the normal business of a country; it requires instant, sometimes repugnant outcomes for the people and makes the deliverer of the message very unpopular. Being told to isolate and how and when we may leave our homes is anathema to New Zealanders but in the instance of a pandemic of the severity of Covid, it was necessary.
Decision-makers did do what they thought right at that time, with what expert information and scientific knowledge was available to them.
Why is the 'rightness or wrongness' of those decisions now being queried? It was over and above the parameters of normal governance. It was a pandemic! Life-threatening. A once-in-a-lifetime event.
Yes, money was spent. How much and for how long was those leaders' decision to make. It is not now the privilege of today's political cohort to question the minutiae of detail of the whys and wherefores.
New Zealand did not have coffins lining the streets. Perhaps our island nation was saved by the unpopular isolation tactics returning citizens endured but they can be proud they contributed to the safety of all.
Do not turn this to a dollar mentality when measuring outcomes. A democratic society pays what is necessary to house and feed its criminals; provides succour to the needy, cares for the elderly – why pillory the decision-makers for money spent saving the nation in the time of a pandemic?
Robyn Tubb, Millwater.
RNZ's decline
As a former senior NZBC announcer, I've listened to RNZ National's decline with growing concern.
Richard Sutherland's recent criticism (Media Insider, August 16) confirms what many listeners know: standards have slipped dramatically. Today's RNZ presenters gabble through scripts, mangle pronunciations ('flowan' for 'flown,' 'pardy' for 'party'), and rush through te reo Māori with obvious discomfort.
This undermines both our official language's mana and RNZ's credibility as New Zealand's public broadcaster. The problem runs deeper than technical issues. RNZ has drifted toward commercial radio tactics. There is much gabbling and puerile banter, chasing ratings rather than serving its unique public mission. But public radio shouldn't sound like The Rock or ZM, it should offer something better.
Excellence means clear, accurate presentation with proper pronunciation of both English and te reo Māori.
It means substance over filler, cultural competence and an authentically New Zealand voice that maintains professional standards without stuffiness. The solution isn't complicated: establish clear broadcasting standards, provide ongoing professional development and create a culture valuing craft over ratings. Experienced broadcasters should mentor newcomers, passing on both technical skills and understanding of public radio's role.
RNZ National should be the best of New Zealand broadcasting; thoughtful, substantial and respectful of audience intelligence. The talent exists; what's needed is leadership willing to set and maintain standards. Our public broadcaster should make us proud, not require excuses.
James Gregory, Parnell.