Author: Gavin Ellis

Gavin Ellis is a media consultant, commentator and researcher. He holds a doctorate in political studies. A former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald, he is the author of Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights (London, Palgrave) and Complacent Nation (Wellington, BWB Texts). His consultancy clients include media organisations and government ministries. His Tuesday Commentary on media matters appears weekly on his site www.whiteknightnews.com

More to a name than meets the eye

The local media equivalent of China Watchers will be keeping a close eye on who takes the job of chief executive at Stuff.

The position becomes vacant with the move by Laura Maxwell to take over News Corp’s Queensland operations.

The role of CEO in a one of our main media companies is significant in its own right but the next appointment could well have additional impact.

It may point to the future direction in which owner Sinead Boucher wishes to see the company go.

If the appointment is internal, the signal it sends will likely be ‘steady as she goes’. However, the identity of an external appointment could give clues to a strategic shift.

Stuff’s ultimate owner is Kenepuru Holdings, whose sole shareholder is Boucher. As a private company, Stuff does not have the same disclosure requirements as a listed company like NZME. Hence, we only know about Stuff’s plans if Boucher chooses to make a public comment.

However, if the new CEO is an external appointment, that person’s background may be a strong indicator of where Boucher wishes to take the company. Depending on that background, it may also indicate where the owner’s thinking may be going in terms of capital structure and business sectors. Continue reading “More to a name than meets the eye” →

Herald’s obligation to readers: Why are we waiting?

The New Zealand Herald and its publisher are failing to follow a golden rule: Engage with readers when they question your actions.

The Herald is currently confronted by two controversies. The first is its decision to use artificial intelligence to write editorials. The second is its decision to publish a highly divisive advertising wrap-around paid for by the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

In neither case has the newspaper or its owner NZME offered an explanation that justifies its decisions. Indeed, it has given little insight into what its decision-making processes were on either matter.

Following RNZ’s revelations over the Herald’s use of iterative AI to write editorials, the Herald’s reaction was to simply say it did not apply sufficient “journalistic rigour” and that it would be calling a meeting all editorial staff to discuss AI policy. This commentary last week posed a series of questions relating to the processes that went into the publication of those editorials. If they were answered at the staff meeting, neither I nor the Herald’s other readers are any the wiser. Continue reading “Herald’s obligation to readers: Why are we waiting?” →

AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was the Herald thinking?

Integrity is the most valued element of a news organisation’s reputation. Without it, it cannot expect its audience to lend credence to what it publishes or broadcasts. So, the New Zealand Herald has dealt itself an awful blow.

Its admission that it used generative AI to scrape content and then create an editorial about the All Blacks came only after it was caught out by Radio New Zealand. RNZ’s subsequent revelation that it may have found another three robot editorials in the Herald was met with sullen silence.

All the country’s largest newspaper will say its that it should have employed more “journalistic rigour”.

That is not good enough. It does not explain why the paper made the bizarre choice to employ Gen AI to create what should be its own opinion. It does not explain why there was no disclosure of its use (although to do so on an editorial should raise more red flags than a North Korean Workers Party anniversary). It does not tell us how widespread the practice is within publications owned by NZME (the Herald editorial was reprinted in its regional titles). It does not explain why even the most basic sub-editing was not applied to an obviously deficient piece of writing when editorials have previously been checked and rechecked to prevent the most minor of errors. And it does not reveal what went wrong in the editorial chain of command to allow all or any of the foregoing to occur…or not. Continue reading “AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was the Herald thinking?” →