You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone

News media are good at telling us about other people but not so good at explaining the importance of their own existence. That has to change.

The standing of journalism has been undermined by characterising government funding of it as bribery. That has to change.

The New Zealand public either do not know or wilfully choose to ignore the fundamental reason why journalists are a vital part of a democratic society. That, too, has to change.

Unless the general public starts to value the role of professional journalism and demand its survival (and improvement) they are in danger of waking up one morning to find it gone or, if not gone, then reduced to the point where it can no longer hold power to account.

Today Koi Tū: The centre for Informed Futures has published a position paper on the media titled If not journalists, then who? It is a rhetorical question because there is no viable substitute for the role of the journalist in a free society.

I am an honorary research fellow at Koi Tū and I am the principal author of the paper. Today’s commentary, however, is written in my private capacity and should not be seen as necessarily reflecting the views of Koi Tū.

I don’t intend to use this commentary – delayed a day to coincide with publication of the paper – to set out its contents. You can read the paper here: informedfutures.org/if-not-journalists-then-who Rather, I want to discuss how I hope it will be used in essential development of public dialogue, the formation of government policy, and actions by the media themselves.

However, for context, let me quote from the media release that accompanied the paper:

“The paper paints a picture of an industry facing existential threats and held back by institutional underpinnings that are beyond the point where they are merely outdated. It suggests sweeping changes to deal with the wide impacts of digital transformation and alarmingly low levels of trust in news…

“Both news media and government are held to account in the paper for the state in which journalism in New Zealand now finds itself.  The mixing of fact and opinion in news stories is identified as a cause of the public’s low level of trust, and online analytics were found to have aberrated news judgement previously driven by journalistic values. For their part, successive governments have failed to keep pace with changing needs across a very broad spectrum that have been brought about by digital transformation.”

It suggests a wide range of initiatives from a concerted campaign to persuade the public of the value of democratically significant journalism, through levying transnational platforms to help pay for it, to coordinated reform of up to 17 Acts of Parliament affecting media that are no longer fit for purpose.

No one should delude themselves that there are simple answers to the issues confronting the industry. The problems and solutions are interwoven matrices that test legal/political/social boundaries and include essential questions of sovereignty. They occur in an environment with unprecedented low levels of institutional trust – in both media and government.

Four years ago I called for a reset of our media landscape in the aftermath of Covid: https://knightlyviews.com/nz-media-must-rise-from-covid-blitz/ . I likened the need to the effects of the Second World War on the world’s financial systems and the Bretton Woods Conference that provided their reset.

I am now reiterating that call for a reset.

We need a concerted effort by both media and government to ensure not only the survival but the enhancement of a type and scale of journalism that New Zealand’s pluralistic society needs for its political and social wellbeing.

That will require some serious soul-searching on the part of media organisations and the journalists within them. How can they imagine they are doing their jobs as they should be done when two-thirds the country don’t trust them and many actively avoid engaging with the news? And don’t tell me it’s all the fault of social media. It certainly hasn’t helped, but our news media must look closer to home for cause and effect.

They do not need to re-define what they do so much as re-examine and re-dedicate themselves to the values and norms that evolved over time to reflect and reinforce the purpose for which they were given a privileged place in society. I don’t use the work ‘privileged’ in the sense that journalists have been showered with worldly goods. If anything, employers have undervalued them in a monetary sense. Their privileges acknowledge their right to be in certain places as the eyes and ears of the public, and to be protected against reprisals when fulfilling that role.

Equally importantly, they need to take the public along with them on that journey and ensure that the worth of their calling is impressed upon the people who are the real beneficiaries of the work they do.

In the paper, and after seeking input from various media organisations, I wrote a statement of principles that I believe encapsulates the role of journalists in this country and, indeed, in any country that values itself as a democracy. This is what I wrote:

“Support for democracy sits within the DNA of New Zealand media, which have shared goals of reporting news, current affairs, and information across the broad spectrum of interests in which the people of this country collectively have a stake.  Trained news media professionals, working within recognised standards and ethics, are the only group capable of carrying out the functions and responsibilities that have been carved out for them by a heritage stretching back 300 years. They must be capable of holding the powerful to account, articulating many different voices in the community, providing meeting grounds for debate, and reflecting New Zealanders to themselves in ways that contribute to social cohesion. They have a duty to freedom of expression, independence from influence, fairness and balance, and the pursuit of truth.”

The New Zealand public need to be persuaded of (a) the value of that proposition and (b) the ability of our news media to meet its challenges.

The media themselves have the primary role to play in that process but they will not be able to do so if they are weakened to the point of insignificance or disappear altogether. And there, whether they like it or not, politicians have an indispensable role to play. Just as I asked the question ‘if not journalists, then who?’, I pose a similar question to our elected representatives. If politicians cannot provide the right regulatory and legal environment to sustain our journalism, then who will do it?

We are beyond the point where that talisman of neo-liberalism – the market – can provide the environment in which a public good like journalism can flourish. Indeed, the unregulated market that allowed social media and search engines to plunder the nation’s advertising revenue has been a wrecking machine. Successive governments have failed to deal with the impact of the digital age. And that has been across multiple fronts. That must change, and quickly.

My heart would sing if all political parties came together with a bi-partisan (or whatever its six-party equivalent might be) approach that transcended both politics and a single electoral cycle.

I am too old and perhaps too cynical to expect that sort of cardiac choir. So, I will not hold my breath. However, I can expect the present government to at least see the wisdom of a broad-spectrum coordinated approach to policy-making and reform.

There is hope on that particular horizon following the abrupt removal last week of Melissa Lee from the Media and Communication portfolio and her replacement by Paul Goldsmith.

Goldsmith already has responsibility for related areas that come under the Ministry for Culture & Heritage and, crucially, he is also Minister of Justice. He is ideally placed to play that vital coordinating role in legislative reform. And he knows and understands the issues.

For its part, the public should reflect on a possible day in the future.

You wake and find there is no New Zealand Herald, Post, Press, Otago Daily Times or, indeed, any other newspaper or their associated websites and apps. You turn on the radio and find Morning Report and Mike Hosking Breakfast replaced by music because their feedstock –­ the work of journalists –­ is no longer there. All you can find on the web is ill-informed opinion, misinformation, and dangerous disinformation. Reeling through the day, you turn to television and find The Chase extended to double episodes on One and yet another series of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills has filled Three’s 6pm slot.

But you’ve heard a rumour that the city council is planning a massive rates hike. Where can you look? You turn to the council website and look for confirmation or, preferably, denial. What do you find? Details on how to pay what you owe.

In short, we all have a stake in the future of our country’s news media. I can only hope that If not journalists, then who? provides something of a wake-up call.