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. Continue reading “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone”

Temporary unilateral change to International Date Line: Tuesday Commentary published a day late

I have unilaterally decided to move the International Date Line to allow the Tuesday Commentary to appear a day later in order to cover the release of a paper on media policy by Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures.

I was the principal author of If not journalists, then who? which explores the current state of news media in New Zealand, the existential threats they face, and how an extinction event can be avoided. 

The paper will be released on May 1, so the Tuesday Commentary will be published on Wednesday this week. To avoid untold confusion, I have refrained from calling it the Wednesday Commentary. It seemed easier to move the International Date Line.

Only kidding about the date line. Do NOT alter your flights.

I have news for you, Sunshine: It’s not all bad

Last week I was lying in my sickbed recovering from a painful allergic reaction and, as you do, I let my mind wander. It began to ponder a question that has preoccupied me ever since: Why is there so little good news?

It seems the world is filled with the bad and the ugly and precious little of the good stuff. At least that is the impression I get from my daily diet of news.

I looked back over the lead stories of New Zealand’s five metropolitan dailies for the past month. Of the 130 stories I counted, 98 had a negative tone. Only 16 were positive and the remainder were neither one thing nor the other.

I have been tracking these newspapers’ lead stories since 2020 and there is an almost unrelenting sense of gloom, and sometimes doom, although I admit the Covid pandemic accounted for some of that negativity. It did a couple of years ago, but not now.

My introduction to the day’s news yesterday via the country’s news websites was a smorgasbord of gloom and copycat gloom at that – the same topics repeated across outlets. It didn’t improve into the afternoon when there was blanket coverage of the return of the three strikes law for repeat offenders.

Mind you, our overseas counterparts weren’t any better. The Sydney Morning Herald gave me “Eighteen minutes of terror” as it retraced the movements of the Bondi Junction mall killer. The New York Times pondered the “mountain of evidence” against Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal took me inside the “White House scramble” to avert a Middle East War. The Daily Mail said Tories were accusing Labour of “appearing to hate Britain” and the BBC and Deutsche Welle both told me Netanyahu vowed to reject sanctions against an army unit for human rights violations. Only The Guardian had a glimmer of good news over military aid for Ukraine (good news, that is, if you’re not Russian).

Why are journalists so drawn to bad news? Continue reading “I have news for you, Sunshine: It’s not all bad”

Silent majority must speak out to save vital journalism

In the wake of the announcements on Newshub’s closure and TVNZ’s cuts, I received an email from Pat, who lives in the Auckland suburb of Orakei. The email asked a simple question: “Is there anything a member of the public can do to register shock and horror at the loss of current affairs programmes and the talented people who make and present those programmes?”

I replied, suggesting Pat join the advocacy group Better Public Media. More importantly, I believe people like Pat must speak up in defence of what I now call democratically significant journalism.

‘Democratically significant journalism’ describes the sort of journalism that serves the interests of those living and interacting within a public sphere. It enables individual communities to know about themselves, and for communities to collectively share information to inform a broader consensus. In the past I would have said ‘public interest journalism’ but that phrase has been so maligned by people with agendas that benefit from destroying trust in journalists that I have stopped using it.

Pat’s dilemma is shared by all ordinary New Zealanders sensible enough to see the importance of journalism in a democratic society: How do they make it clear that they value it? Continue reading “Silent majority must speak out to save vital journalism”