The future of Aotearoa New Zealand television news and current affairs is in the balance at the two biggest TV broadcasters — both desperate to cut costs as their revenue falls.

The government says it is now preparing policy to modernise the media, but they do not want to talk about what that might be — or when it might happen.

On Monday, TVNZ’s 1News was reporting — again — on the crisis of cuts to news and current affairs in its own newsroom.

The extent of discontent about the proposed cuts had been made clear to chief executive Jodi O’Donnell at an all-staff meeting that day.

The news of cuts rocked the state-owned broadcaster when they were announced four days earlier.

In fact, it rocked the entire media industry because only one week earlier the US-based owners of Newshub had announced a plan to close that completely by mid year.

No-one was completely shocked by either development given the financial strife the local industry is known to be in.

But it seems no-one had foreseen that within weeks only Television New Zealand and Whakaata Māori would be offering national news to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who still tune in at 6pm or later on demand.

Likewise the prospect of no TV current affairs shows (save for those on Whakaata Māori) and no consumer affairs watchdog programme Fair Go, three years shy of a half century as one of NZ most popular local TV shows of all time.

Yvonne Tahana’s report for 1News on Monday pointed out Fair Go staff were actually working on the next episode when that staff meeting was held on Monday.

All this raised the question — what is a “fair go” according to the government, given TVNZ is state-owned?

Media-shy media minister?
After the shock announcements last week and the week before, Minister of Media and Communications Melissa Lee seemed not keen to talk to the media about it.

The minister did give some brief comments to political reporters confronting her in the corridors in Parliament after the Newshub news broke. But a week went by before she spoke to RNZ’s Checkpoint about it — and revealed that in spite of a 24-hour heads-up from Newhub’s offshore owner — Warner Bros Discovery — Lee did not know they were planning to shut the whole thing.

By the time the media minister was on NewstalkZB’s Drive show just one hour later that same day, the news was out that TVNZ news staff had been told to “watch their inboxes” the next morning.

In spite of the ‘no surprises’ convention, the minister said she was out of the loop on that too.

After that, it was TV and radio silence again from the minister in the days that followed.

“National didn’t have a broadcasting policy. We’re still not sure what they’re looking at. She needs to basically scrub up on what she’s going to be saying on any given day and get her head around her own portfolio, because at the moment she’s not looking that great,” The New Zealand Herald’s political editor Claire Trevett told RNZ’s Morning Report at the end of the week.

By then the minister’s office had told Mediawatch she would speak with us on Thursday. Good news — at the time.

Lee has long been the National Party’s spokesperson on media and broadcasting and Mediawatch has been asking for a chat since last December.

Last Sunday, TVNZ’s Q+A show told viewers Lee had declined to be interviewed for three weeks running.

Frustration on social media
At Newshub — where staff have the threat of closure hanging over them — The AM Show host Lloyd Burr took to social media with his frustration.

“There’s a broadcasting industry crisis and the broadcasting minister is MIA. We’ve tried for 10 days to get her on the show to talk about the state of it, and she’s either refused or not responded. She doesn’t even have a press secretary. What a shambles . . . ”

A switch of acting press secretaries mid-crisis did seem to be a part of the problem.

But one was in place by last Monday, who got in touch in the morning to arrange Mediawatch’s interview later in the week.

But by 6pm that day, they had changed their minds, because “the minister will soon be taking a paper to cabinet on her plan for the media portfolio”.

“We feel it would better serve your listeners if the minister came on at a time when she could discuss in depth about the details of her plan for the future of media, as opposed to the limited information she will be able to provide this Thursday,” the statement said.

“When the cabinet process has been completed, the minister is able to say more. That time is not now.”

The minister’s office also pointed out Lee had done TV and broadcast interviews over the past week in which she had “essentially traversed as much ground as possible right now”.

What clues can we glean from those?

Hints of policy plans
Even though this government is breaking records for changes made under urgency, it seems nothing will happen in a hurry for the media.

“I have been working with my officials to understand and bring the concerns from the sector forward, to have a discussion with my officials to work with me to understand what the levers are that the government can pull to help the sector,” Lee told TVNZ Breakfast last Monday.

A slump in commercial revenue is a big part of broadcasters’ problems. TVNZ’s Anna Burns Francis asked the minister if the government might make TVNZ — or some of its channels — commercial-free.

“I think we are working through many options as to what could potentially help the sector rather than specifically TVNZ,” Lee replied.

One detail Lee did reveal was that the Broadcasting Act 1989 was in play — something the previous government also said was on its to do list but did not get around to between 2017 and 2023.

It is a pretty broad piece of legislation which sets out the broadcasting standards regime and complaints processes, electoral broadcasting and the remit of the government broadcasting funding agency NZ On Air.

But it is not obvious what reform of that Act could really do for news media sustainability.

Longstanding prohibitions
The minister also referred to longstanding prohibitions on TV advertising on Sunday mornings and two public holidays. Commercial broadcasters have long called for these to be dumped.

But a few more slots for whiteware and road safety ads is not going to save news and current affairs, especially in this economy.

That issue also came up in a 22-minute-long chat with The Platform, which the minister did have time for on Wednesday.

In it, host Sean Plunket urged the minister not to do much to ease the financial pain of the mainstream media, which he said were acting out of self-interest.

He was alarmed when Lee told him the playing field needed to be leveled by extending regulation applied to TV and radio to online streamers as well — possibly through Labour’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

“Are you seriously considering the government imposing tax on certain large companies and paying that money directly to your chosen media companies that are asking for it?” Plunket asked.

“I have actually said that I oppose the bill but what you have to do as the minister is listen to the sector. They might have some good ideas.”

When Plunket suggested Lee should let the market forces play out, Lee said that was not desirable.

Some of The Platform’s listeners were not keen on that, getting in touch to say they feared Lee would bail the media out because she had “gone woke”.

That made the minister laugh out loud.

“I’m so far from woke,” she assured Sean Plunket.

A free-to-air and free-to-all future?
At the moment, TVNZ is obliged to provide easily accessible services for free to New Zealanders.

TVNZ’s Breakfast show asked if that could change to allow TVNZ to charge for its most popular or premium stuff?

The response was confusing:

“Well ready accessibility would actually mean that it is free, right? Or it could be behind a paywall — but it could still be available because they have connectivity,” Lee replied.

“A paywall would imply that you have to pay for it — so that wouldn’t be accessible to all New Zealanders, would it?” TVNZ’s Anna Burns-Francis asked.

“For a majority, yes — but free to air is something I support.”

When Lee fronted up on The AM Show for 10 minutes she said she was unaware they had been chasing a chat with her for 10 days.

Host Melissa Chan-Green bridled when the minister referred to the long-term decline of linear real time TV broadcast as a reason for the cuts now being proposed.

“To think that Newshub is a linear TV business is to misunderstand what Newshub is, because we have a website, we have an app, we have streaming services, we’ve done radio, we’ve done podcasts — so how much more multimedia do you think businesses need to be to survive?

“I’m not just talking about that but there are elements of the Broadcasting Act which are not a fair playing field for everyone. For example, there are advertising restrictions on broadcasters where there are none on streamers,” she said.

Where will the public’s money go?
On both Breakfast and The AM Show, Lee repeated the point that the effectiveness of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money for broadcasting is at stake — and at risk if the broadcasters that carry the content are cut back to just a commercial core.

“The government actually puts in close to I think $300 million a year,” Lee said.

“Should that funding be extended to include the client of current affairs programs are getting cut?” TVNZ’s Anna Burns-Francis asked her.

“I have my own views as to what could be done but even NZ on Air operates at arm’s length from me as Minister of Media and Communications,” she replied.

It is only in recent years that NZ On Air has been in the business of allocating public money to news and journalism on a contestable basis.

When the system was set up in 35 years ago that was out of bounds for the organisation, because broadcasters becoming dependent on the public purse was thought to be something to avoid — because of the potential for political interference through either editorial meddling or turning off the tap.

That began to break down when TV broadcasters stopped funding programs about politics which did not pull a commercial crowd — and NZ started picking up the tab from a fund for so-called special interest shows which would not be made or screened in a wholly-commercial environment.

Online projects with a public interest purpose have also been funded by in recent years in addition to programmes for established broadcasters — as NZ on Air declared itself “platform agnostic”.

Public Interest Journalism Fund
In 2020, NZ on Air was given the job of handing out $55 million over three years right across the media from the Public Interest Journalism Fund.

That was done at arm’s length from government, but in opposition National aggressively opposed the fund set up by the previous Labour government.

Senior MPs — including Lee — claimed the money might make the media compliant — and even silent — on anything that might make the then-Labour government look bad.

It would be a big surprise if Lee’s policy plan for cabinet includes direct funding for the news and current affairs programmes which could vanish from our TV screens and on-demand apps within weeks.

This week, NZ on Air chief executive Cameron Harland responded to the crisis with a statement.

“We are in active discussions with the broadcasters and the wider sector to understand what the implications of their cost cutting might be.

“This is a complex and developing situation and whilst we acknowledge the uncertainty, we will be doing what we can to ensure our funding is utilised in the best possible ways to serve local audiences.“

They too are in a holding pattern waiting for the government to reveal its plans.

But as the minister herself said this week, the annual public funding for media was substantial — and getting bigger all the time as the revenues of commercial media companies shrivelled.

And whatever levers the minister and her officials are thinking of pulling, they need to do decisively — and soon.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The union representing Television New Zealand staff is calling on the public to join a campaign protesting the broadcaster’s plans to axe programmes and cut jobs.

Last week TVNZ announced plans to cut up to 68 jobs — and scrap several long-running shows, including Fair Go and Sunday.

E Tū union spokesperson Michael Wood has told Midday Report the Save Our Stories campaign united workers, viewers and supporters to remind TVNZ of its responsibilities.

“TVNZ isn’t just some business, it’s a vital part of our society and Kiwis need a strong TVNZ to tell Aotearoa’s stories and hold power to account.

“This is about everyone — every single New Zealander is a stakeholder in this, so we invite everybody who wants to build and protect a strong media landscape to support the campaign.”

People could help by signing an open letter to TVNZ, and sharing the campaign video, he said.

“So many people have reached out to our union to show their support for TVNZ workers and ask how they can help. From prominent public figures, to people whose lives have been changed thanks to TVNZ’s coverage, to dedicated viewers who don’t want to see their favourite shows get the axe,” he said.

“These people can help by signing the open letter, sharing our video, and sending the message to decision-makers that our media is worth protecting.”

TVNZ staff from the E Tū union voted unanimously to reject the proposals.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned Facebook for carrying out its threat to block the sharing of its journalistic news content in Australia in retaliation to the federal government’s plan to make platforms pay media outlets.

The ban impacts on the reliability and pluralism of the information available on this social media platform, said the Paris-based global media watchdog.

“No posts yet” is the message that the Facebook pages of the Australian media have been showing since February 17, says RSF in a statement.

This blackout is deliberate. Facebook announced on February 17 that it would “restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content.”

The decision was taken in reaction to the Australian government’s proposed News Media Bargaining Code, under which platforms such as Facebook and Google would have to pay Australian media outlets for the content they display.

Facebook’s response, called the “nuclear option” by The Australian daily newspaper, is radical.

Australian media can no longer share or post content on their Facebook pages, while users in Australia can no longer see or share links to news on the platform, whether Australian or international news.

Facebook ‘abusing dominant position’
“Facebook is abusing its dominant position to defend its economic interests at the expense of online news reliability and pluralism,” said Iris de Villars, the head of RSF’s Tech Desk.

“Regardless of the proposed law being discussed, these restrictions affect the ability of Australian citizens to access reliable and independent information on this platform.

“We urge Facebook to reverse this decision, which totally contradicts its pledges to combat disinformation.”

To implement these restrictions, Facebook has been using machine-learning tools to identify news content publishers but this has had the collateral effect of blocking other kinds of content, including the pages of several NGOs such as RSF, public health bodies, governmental institutions and even entities that handle emergencies.

Facebook has not as yet responded to RSF’s questions.

Asia Pacific Report and Pacific Media Watch collaborate with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last week was a big one for the media. Not only did New Zealand’s biggest newspaper launch a new paywall, but Thursday was “World News Day”, and Friday was “World Media Freedom Day”. All of this prompts the question, how well is New Zealand society and democracy served by the media in 2019?

The World Press Freedom Index recently pronounced New Zealand as having the seventh most free media in the world (up one from eighth) – see: Press freedom threatened by business imperatives. The main point made by Reporters Without Borders, who authored the report, is: “The press is free in New Zealand but its independence and pluralism are often undermined by the profit imperatives of media groups trying to cut costs.”

Commenting on the latest rankings, RNZ’s media commentator Colin Peacock says “We’re still in the top 10 for global press freedom but our media need to be vigilant against incursions on their freedoms too” – see: Uncharted waters for media freedom.

Peacock discusses various challenges for the New Zealand media, especially in terms of the post-Christchurch environment in which the state appears to have more potential control over information. He points out, for example, “The forthcoming Royal Commission is bound to uncover things various agencies want to conceal or – at the least – ‘manage.’ Investigations by the media will overlap with the official ones and could bring them into conflict with agencies citing national security needs as a reason to withhold information.”

He also points to challenges in the law regarding whistleblowers in New Zealand, who don’t have much protection if they inform the media of “illegal, corrupt or unsafe” practices in their workplaces.

The big issue this year in media-democracy conversations has been the survival of media outlets, in the context of the declining traditional business model of newspapers and broadcasters. This has been hastened, of course, with the rising influence of social media. This is dealt with well in Bruce Cotterill’s column, We need real journalists, not just social media.

Cotterill emphasises the importance of a healthy media for scrutinising the powerful, but laments that the declining business model is [working] against this. He concludes: “We aren’t seeing enough depth or debate that a community needs to become fully informed. Sadly, it seems society is looking more and more at social media, despite its inaccuracies and agendas. We need more bright people who want to be great journalists. We need universities that are prepared to develop proper journalists. And we need news organisations, with business models that work, that are prepared to invest in those people and the stories that need to be told. And we, the public, have to be prepared to pay it. Then and only then, will we have the strong democracy and informed society that we all should want to be a part of.”

In terms of the business landscape, it’s worth looking at the definitive source of information about the changing patterns of business and what the various commercial models mean for democracy – see Wayne Hope’s blog post summarising AUT’s annual NZ Media Ownership 2018.

According to the head of TVNZ, Kevin Kenrick, “the New Zealand media is not sustainable in its current form”, and we can expect to see some major changes of ownership in the near future – see Colin Peacock’s TVNZ hints at bold digital moves.

One big and imminent change is the sale of Stuff, with increasing speculation being that TVNZ could even buy it. The significance of this is discussed by Peacock: “Absorbing the country’s biggest publisher of news and the country’s most viewed news website would certainly give TVNZ the digital heft TVNZ wants. And, when asked, Kevin Kenrick hasn’t ruled out making a bid for it. But that would radically reshape New Zealand journalism. TVNZ would end up owning most of the country’s newspapers and employing more of the country’s journalists than anyone else. It could extend state ownership to a branch of the media that’s always been out of the government’s reach.”

This is also discussed in detail in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s column, Minister reassures media over ‘plurality’ in wake of hints TVNZ may want Stuff. He says, “A takeover of Stuff’s online news business by TVNZ could leave NZ Herald publisher NZME and television channel three owner MediaWorks as the only remaining major national private media businesses, while also putting them in the position of competing for audiences against a stronger state-owned competitor.”

Also in this article is a discussion with the Broadcasting Minister, Kris Faafoi, about the potential creation of a new version of the old collaborative New Zealand Press Association (NZPA), with financial help from the state: “Faafoi said he was encouraged that RNZ, NZ on Air and Stuff were investigating a model pioneered by the BBC in Britain under which the BBC and British newspapers pool some resources to provide local reporting. It is understood other media companies including NZME and Allied Press, which owns The Otago Daily Times, are also involved in the talks. Faafoi said he expected an update on the initiative soon. But he said that would be only part of a solution for the media”.

Another Tom Pullar-Strecker column discusses this and how Faafoi is going as the replacement for Clare Curran as Minister of Broadcasting – see: Government could help pave way towards a solution for the media. Pullar-Strecker discusses the plurality problem of media ownership, and whether the state might end up undermining private media, and comments “Providing state subsidies to keep private media on ‘life support’ is not a great solution either though. It risks subverting the independence of all journalism, and voters probably wouldn’t swallow it anyway.”

And for another interesting discussion of how state-sponsored news reporting and analysis could undermine democracy, see Jeremy Rose’s Journalism courtesy of (foreign) taxpayers. He reports on how “Seven senior Kiwi journalists spent a week in Hawaii late last year and produced just one story between them. It didn’t cost their organisations a cent – the tab was picked by the US State Department.”

The Herald’s editorial director of business, Fran O’Sullivan, has recently made the case for the New Zealand government to step up and “put a price on a vibrant democracy” by backing “the New Zealand media so it remains a vigorous watchdog against the abuse of power” – see Hamish Fletcher’s New Year Honours: Back media, Herald writer Fran O’Sullivan urges Govt.

O’Sullivan says: “It’s more important than ever before that journalism does what it should and holds the powerful to account, in particular in business and government, where they do have the ability to strongly influence New Zealand and people’s livelihoods”.

Therefore, the New Zealand Government should be addressing the current media business model problems: “That doesn’t mean the Government should step in and run media, but you could also set up a public-private partnership in some of these areas where contribution is made in the same way it’s made to creative arts and looking at the value that we place on media in society and making sure that it is held up because it is absolutely essential when you look at what is happening internationally with foreign interference in elections and so forth”.

For an interesting – if bizarre – case study of how governments can attempt to influence the media, it’s worth looking at the recent run-in between political journalist Hamish Rutherford and Cabinet Minister Shane Jones. Back in March, the Stuff journalist broke a story about a potential conflict of interest for the Minister. Jones responded with an attack on Rutherford, describing him as a “bunny boiler” and threatening to dish dirt on him under parliamentary privilege.

Rutherford responded in a column, explaining his side of the story – see: Bunny boiler jokes aside, Shane Jones’ threats could be chilling.

Here’s the most important part: “This would be an extraordinary situation for us to be in and it would contradict media freedom in a small country. I believe that other journalists have also stayed with Jones. After nearly a decade of journalism in Wellington, I have socialised with MPs of every political party. If any MP believes that this is a way to escape scrutiny then they should make very clear that they feel that way. The fact that no-one from the Government has properly shot down Jones’ threat to malign me in Parliament will not deter me. But it should be a chilling warning of the potential consequences for anyone planning to question this Government’s integrity.”

Other state-imposed sanctions and infringements on media practices occur from time-to-time, and are of varying seriousness or concern. This week has seen some sort of victory for journalists’ legal right to protect their sources under the Evidence Act, with a Court of Appeal ruling that a 2014 broadcast story didn’t require the media to give away information in a subsequent defamation case – see Bonnie Flaws’ Court order to reveal Campbell Live story sources overturned.

The judge in the case sided with the media involved and said the removal of source protection for journalists in this case would “serve to chill the freedom of the media to report on matters of public interest”.

There is also continued debate about the role of the New Zealand media in dealing with the post-Christchurch situation, and especially the trial of the alleged shooter. The agreement of the New Zealand media about how to cover that trial is sparking some interesting debates in some interesting places. On the Russia Today (RT) website, for example, you can read Igor Ogorodnev’s critique: Media collusion to censor Christchurch mosque shooter trial is understandable… and deeply sinister.

Politico’s Jack Shafer had this to say: “New Zealanders needn’t worry about their government censoring the press. On Wednesday, five of the country’s major news outlets proved themselves only too happy to censor themselves” – see: Why New Zealand’s press just put on blinders for its biggest story.

Shafer argues: “This kind of thinking is normally seen in an authoritarian state, where “dangerous” ideas are officially cloaked from view by leaders worried about the threat to their own power.” Furthermore, “The pact might create a precedent the government will exploit every time it wants to stifle news coverage in the name of public safety.”

In response, The Spinoff’s Alex Braae strongly disagrees, saying “I don’t believe the overseas critics of this decision have any understanding of the context they’re talking about – rather they’re taking a theoretical position and running hard on it” – see: Overseas critics don’t get why our terror trial reporting restrictions matter.

For a more positive take on the power of the media, it’s worth reading The Christchurch Press editorial from last Thursday, celebrating World News Day, championing local journalism, and proclaiming that, True or false, we need the news. The newspaper points out that in New Zealand, as in the US, the media is a good bulwark against the dangerous rise of fake news.

But it’s the rise of public relations industry the newspaper takes aim at, pointing out the recent release of statistics on the number of PR jobs overshadowing journalists: “It was reported that, for every journalist, there are more than six people working in public relations. Twenty years ago, it was one journalist for two people in PR. In New Zealand, the rises and falls are similar. There were 2214 print, radio and TV journalists in the 2006 census, evenly matched against 2247 PR professionals. In 2013, the number of journalists had almost halved to 1170 and PR professionals had grown by more than 50 per cent, reaching 3510. People in PR are not necessarily the enemies of truth. But they are tasked with promoting the interests of clients, which means accentuating the positive and sometimes obscuring the negative.”

In response to such arguments, marketing and communications specialist Cas Carter has written in defence of the public relations industry, pushing back against the concept that “there are two sides at war: Journalists and PR people. This is not the case” – see : Why PR firms shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush as Trump.

Carter defends her industry: “And the demand for information has increased, as has the number of channels people expect to get it through.  Organisations can no longer rely on the media to get our story across – nor should we. In fact, these days organisations are writing and recording their own content and sending it directly to their audiences through websites, social media, publications, events and partnerships. The media takes advantage of that content to help inform their stories and meet ever-increasing demand to provide 24/7 coverage while facing rounds of budget and staff cuts.”

Finally, at the start of this year, The Spinoff’s editor-in-chief, Duncan Greive published a series of excellent analyses of the main media players in New Zealand, based on what he said were “anonymous conversations with senior executives”. The most interesting, were the following: RNZ in 2018: will well-meaning government interference end its dream run?, TVNZ in 2018: the public broadcaster finally remembers who owns it, Stuff: the media monster no one wants to own, NZME: the media giant still at war after all these years, and MediaWorks in 2018: is the toughest kid in the media finally going to be released from private equity prison?