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

Must we start the day with a fit of the giggles?

I thought the introduction of new faces to the breakfast television line-ups might change the tone of the programmes on TVNZ and Three. And, briefly, it did.

When Daniel Faitaua returned to Breakfast on TVNZ1 and Lloyd Burr appeared on the rival AM Show, both men had a certain seriousness about them. They were journalists doing news.

It did not last long. Before their first weeks were out, they had become part of their respective jolly, jokey teams.

I am reminded of mixed flats, with the inhabitants sitting around with their morning coffee (sponsor’s name redacted), making light of the world before they have to venture out into it for the day. It is banter-ridden, full of laughter at each other’s witticisms and antics, punctuated by moments of seriousness when the news demands it.

Everyone is expected to play along with the light-hearted interactions. That includes the news readers – Nicky Styris on AM and Chris Chang on Breakfast – which I think is a mistake. Whatever they do with the rest of the three-hour shows, they should keep the news straight. That means their newsreaders displaying a degree of separation and certain amount of gravitas. Gravitas cannot be switched on at the top of the hour then switched off for 20 minutes or so before the next bulletin. It doesn’t work like that.

It takes something like events at Waitangi to tone down the levity, as we saw in yesterday’s offerings.

Continue reading “Must we start the day with a fit of the giggles?” →

Can CNN’s Mark Thompson cure my obsessive compulsive disorder?

I am a rippler. Don’t worry: Your confusion is understandable.

I am neither a person who removes seeds from hemp with a ripple, nor do I suffer from a particular disease that is possibly of venereal origin. I have invented a new meaning for the word.

A rippler, according to the Knightly Views Dictionary, is a person who ripples up and down through the news feeds on Sky while waiting for the morning paper to be delivered. Rippling may be defined as moving from news channel to news channel trying to find something other than opinionated talking heads.

There was a time when the channel selector stayed on CNN, seldom giving the BBC, Sky News or Al Jazeera a look in, so to speak. Fox News never made the list because it made me fall off the right side of my chair and, in addition, age has made screaming skulls harder and harder to endure.

CNN seemed to fill my international news needs very well. Its coverage was wide, and sometimes deep. It concentrated on reportage, and its commentators often gave their contextualised views from the field. It was, of course, the world’s first 24-hour news channel.

Yet in recent times it lost its distinctiveness. Too often, when I tuned in, it was screening yet another opinion from an eminently qualified academic or former whatever. Too often, when I began rippling, it was screening the same topic as everyone else. Well, not quite everyone. I found Al Jazeera’s news values different to the western nexus ­– CNN, Sky News and the BBC – whose news values and international news judgements were disarmingly similar. Its scope, however, was not as wide-reaching.

I had reconciled myself to life as a rippler. Then I saw a story in the Wall Street Journal that led me to hope – perhaps irrationally, and certainly prematurely – that help for my obsessive compulsive disorder may be on its way. Continue reading “Can CNN’s Mark Thompson cure my obsessive compulsive disorder?” →

Pall of disinformation over year of committed NZ journalism

I would like to concentrate on the positive achievements of New Zealand journalism in the past year, but I fear any optimism has been smothered by the single most effective disinformation campaign this country has seen in years. I refer to the slandering of the entire news industry.

I can point to countless examples of good, and sometimes courageous, journalism that were produced in 2023 but their light will be smothered by the pall created by those claiming New Zealand journalism is a profession not only open to bribery but which has been found guilty as charged.

The ‘smoking gun’ is said to be the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund.

That fund is no different to those that a number of countries have created to assist ailing news media. In the United Kingdom, the BBC administers the Local Democracy Reporting Service that pays for journalists in regional news organisations. It has been doing so since 2021. Since 2018 Canada has had five separate funds designed to support the news industry in that country and the Australian federal government also supports the Public Interest Journalism Initiative and a number of other support mechanisms.

However, on reflection, there is one difference: The New Zealand Public Interest Journalism Fund had a reference to recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I suspect that is the real genesis of the disinformation campaign that was started by faceless individuals, amplified by people who should know better, and finally given the ultimate ‘validation’ by a deputy prime minister intent on exacting utu for perceived (and largely imaginary) slights by the media. Continue reading “Pall of disinformation over year of committed NZ journalism” →

EU framework for AI laws: First steps to taming a beast

The European Union has agreed to pass the world’s first laws governing the use of artificial intelligence. It is one step on a long and winding road.

It is unsurprising that this initiative came out of the EU. It has been the only governing body to consistently put its people ahead of the wishes of the companies that control the search and social media platforms that intrude into virtually every nation on the planet.

The historic agreement came after 36 hours of solid negotiation among the EU member states and it sets out the parameters on which the laws will be based.

The move is hugely significant, but it should not be seen as a full solution to curbing negative impacts while allowing the positive aspects of AI to flourish.

It aims to ensure that AI systems used inside the EU are safe and respect fundamental rights. In other words, it is based on a harm principle. That means it will target high impact AI systems that pose potential risks and strictly limit the use of potential AI tools for state surveillance. Continue reading “EU framework for AI laws: First steps to taming a beast” →