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

Why and how journalism can have a strong future

The contest between giving audiences what they like and what they need has been waged for as long as we’ve had mass-circulation newspapers. Research published last week suggests it’s time to put our money on the latter.

The latest global Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute at Oxford University not only surveyed where people get their news and how much they trust it but also what they expect it to provide.

Too much of our current news output is driven by emotional triggers – prompts that induce people to read, listen or watch almost in spite of themselves. Death, crime, and misfortune add little to our ability to function in society, but they are surefire ways to get our attention.

Or they were in the past.

It is clear from the Reuters report that in an information saturated digital environment, too much competition for attention means button-pushing will not drawn people to news outlets any longer. Internationally, only about a fifth of the online community identify news outlets as their sources of news. More are turning to short videos for ‘news’ and much of that isn’t being produced by news outlets but by online commentators and a new breed called ‘creators’. And, apart from that, interest in news generally is still on a downward trend.

However, the Digital News Report 2024 also points to what may be the salvation for news media if they have the sense to embrace it and to find new ways to reach their audiences.

The institute used a model of audience research, originally employed by the BBC, that measures needs rather than likes. It surveyed users on eight indicators under four headings of knowledge, understanding, feeling, and doing:

  • Update
  • Education
  • Perspective
  • Assistance
  • Engagement
  • Inspiration
  • Connection
  • Diversion

Unsurprisingly, the greatest need from news media was to update (72 per cent) but, significantly, it was closely followed by the need for news to educate (67 per cent) and to give perspective (62 per cent). Around 60 per cent also wanted news media to help them and keep them engaged with issues, two factors that were closely related. Around half needed the news for inspiration or connection. Less than half need the news for diversion.

The update role will continue to be core business for news media but cannot be relied upon to bring audiences to homepages. Much of this updating is spread through social media. It is in the more demanding functions that news media may secure their future.

But how well do they meet needs now? Continue reading “Why and how journalism can have a strong future” →

Stuff Circuit’s chilling and timely voice from the grave

In the end, the timing was impeccable. The day Chinese premier Li Qiang arrived on a state visit, Stuff dropped a bombshell announcing its documentary on the superpower’s New Zealand interference operations that have been going on for decades.

The documentary The Long Game (and daily revelations from it printed in Stuff newspapers) paint a picture of agents of influence, spying on the local Chinese community, and allegations of sabotage and intimidation. After the programme’s release, the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (co-chaired by National and Labour) called for a select committee inquiry into foreign interference.

This was powerful journalism from the Stuff Circuit team. Yet The Long Game was a documentary from the dead, and one that almost failed to claw its way out of the grave.

The Stuff Circuit team had already been disbanded when it screened. The team had included investigative journalist Paula Penfold, senior producer Louisa Cleave, editor Toby Longbottom and cameraman Phil Johnson but only Penfold remained employed by Stuff. The rest of the team had been gone for months.

The Long Game was its last project, but legal and editorial caution almost prevented the documentary (and the series of print articles that had been prepared at the same time by Penfold and Cleave) from seeing the light of day. Continue reading “Stuff Circuit’s chilling and timely voice from the grave” →

Andrea Vance makes me mad as hell, and it’s a good thing too

I have been a member of the Andrea Vance Fan Club since she became “mad as hell” about Parliamentary Services tracking her movements around Parliament and logging her telephone calls.

The surveillance of the Stuff political journalist’s movements and communications in 2013 were revealed during an enquiry into the leaking of a report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. The leak of the Kitteridge Report had been a Vance scoop and the aftermath played out like the old Mad Magazine comic strip Spy v Spy.

I am sending in my application for platinum membership after last Sunday’s recounting of the stonewalling, obfuscation, and obstruction she has encountered in following up her latest scoop. The week before, writing in the Sunday Star Times, she had broken the story of allegations that Te Pati Māori had misused personal information gathered for the last census.

The Manurewa Marae facilitated the collection of data from tangata whenua by providing a collection centre. Vance broke the story that Stats NZ was investigating claims the party used information on the census forms collected at the marae to help its local candidate’s election campaign. The party and its president John Tamihere have vociferously denied the claims of misuse.

Vance’s column in last Sunday’s edition was devoted to recounting her “Sisyphean endeavours” to find out what agencies of government were investigating the matter, and on what aspects each was focussed.

Her reference to the Greek myth of Sisyphus no doubt related to the punishment the gods imposed on him – eternally pushing a boulder up a hill only to have it roll down again. The to-and-fro she experienced with government departments must have felt exactly like that. Continue reading “Andrea Vance makes me mad as hell, and it’s a good thing too” →

Digital Bargaining Bill should be consigned to the flames

The Fair Digital New Bargaining Bill should be placed on a figurative Viking funeral ship, pushed out into the water, and set on fire.

It was reported back to the House last week by a select committee that was unable to agree on amendments which, in the main, were bolted on to take account of generative AI. The impact of artificial intelligence had been entirely absent from the original bill.

The inability of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee to agree on amendments probably owes more to the genesis of the proposed legislation – it was introduced by the Labour-led coalition government shortly before the last election – than to the substance of the changes. ACT, for example, is opposed to the bill as a whole, arguing “the risks may outweigh the benefits”. Labour hints that present Government members on the committee failed to give it the necessary support.

The way in which the bill was reported back to the House means it may have been fatally wounded, but it is not dead yet. It was reported back without amendment and with the admission the committee could not agree. However. a version with the amendments that had been considered was appended and the committee said that, if Parliament, decided to proceed, it should consider them.

There are several reasons why the House should simply let the poor thing die in peace. Continue reading “Digital Bargaining Bill should be consigned to the flames” →