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

The sands keep moving on news deserts

Here is an op-ed I wrote on News deserts for today’s Sunday Star Times. At the end of the article is also a link to an interview on the same subject that I did with Mediawatch’s Colin Peacock.

The op-ed:

If you are reading this, consider yourself blessed. You still have a news outlet providing you with news of what is happening in your community and what may affect your daily life.

Others are not so lucky. They live in areas where there is little or no local news produced through professionalised public interest journalism and distributed on a regular basis through recognised outlets.

These areas are called news deserts.

There is no reliable data on the full extent of news deserts in New Zealand but, be in no doubt, they are here.

The closure of more than 40 mastheads over the past seven years, and downsizing of newsrooms as the financial state of the news industry demands ongoing belt-tightening, has created holes in the fabric of newsgathering and news dissemination.

Like the natural ecosystem, it is the fine ends of the media environment that have been the first to go. Community newspapers have been particularly vulnerable, and it is here that hyperlocal news is reported.

The news outlet in which you are reading this commentary will keep you apprised of what is happening in your wider community. But it has neither the space nor the resources to tell you about proposed changes to parking restrictions in your local shopping centre.

It cannot let your local doctor reflect on the impact of the latest edict from the Ministry of Health. Nor can it show people you know pumped up with pride at the primary school prizegiving. This is daily bread for community news outlets.

We are starting to see what is already manifest in other countries where news deserts have reached alarming proportions.

I was the lead author of a paper on news deserts that was published today by Koi Tū Centre for Informed Futures. It examines the extent of news deserts in other countries, their impact, what is being done to stop their encroachment on the news environment, and ways New Zealand can do likewise.

Frankly, the numbers are appalling. More than 200 counties in the United States have no local newsgathering while a further 1500 only have access to a single limited source. Over the past 16 years, 347 Canadian communities lost their local newspaper.

Spain has experienced major rural depopulation, and more than three quarters of its local authority areas now could be considered news deserts. In the United Kingdom, 38 local authority districts have no dedicated local news outlet and a further 10 are described as ‘drylands’ because they are poorly served.

Closer to home, Australia has found the Red Centre blowing sand under newsroom doors. More than 200 regional newsrooms have closed in the past decade, and 27 local body areas have no local news outlet.

Among them is Broken Hill, which has a population of about 17,500. An Australian Federal Government survey suggests that neither radio nor digital services fill the gap once local newspapers close. It found that approximately a quarter of respondents did not receive, or were unable to access, news that was important to their own community.

More disturbing are the consequences that come from being deprived of local news.

Countries with identified news deserts have found evidence of ‘democratic disconnect’ and lower voter participation, a sense of community isolation, increased corruption when officials are no longer under scrutiny by journalists, and declining transparency by local authorities. There are increased incidences of misinformation (factual errors) and disinformation (deliberate untruths).

There is no magic formula that will reflower the deserts or prevent them developing in the first place. In other countries, a broad range of measures by central and local government, by community groups, and by media organisations are being used to fight the problem.

They range from direct financial support and tax rebates, through new incentives and technical innovation, to a rise in not-for-profit news organisations. All are based on wide recognition of the fact that journalism – and the outlets that disseminate it – contribute to democracy and social cohesion.

Principled public interest journalism is a public good that not only deserves support, but whose future must be protected for society’s sake. And the public good lies not only in reporting the pronouncements from the Beehive. It also lies in informing our smallest communities about themselves.

News Deserts: Local Journalism at Risk can be downloaded on the Koi Tū Centre for Informed Futures website: informedfutures.org/news-deserts 

Link to Sunday’s Mediawatch on RNZ National

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/573660/mediawatch-news-desert-warning

News deserts: A problem coming to a place near you

Remember the fable about frogs in a pot slowly being brought to the boil? News deserts are a little like that: You don’t realise you are in one until the sand starts to choke. 

Today Koi Tū Centre for Informed Futures has published my report on the growth of news deserts around the world, and the implications for New Zealand.

Millions of people around the world – 55 million in the United States alone – have limited or no access to local news. The ‘local rag’ that told them what was happening in their community has gone.

In Australia, 27 local authority areas have no local news outlets. In the past decade more than 200 regional newsrooms have closed.

In New Zealand, over the past seven years the two largest publishers (Stuff and NZME) have announced the closure of more than 40 newspaper titles. There are fewer journalists employed in New Zealand than by the New York Times (1400 versus 1700).

Too often, what replaces the long-established local newspaper is either inadequate or non-existent.

News deserts spell danger for social cohesion and democracy. They are already apparent in areas where the scrutiny of local journalists has been weakened or entirely removed. These are some of those effects:

  • Decreased public knowledge and participation in local democracy
  • Decreased social cohesion
  • Increased misinformation and disinformation
  • Increased official corruption
  • Higher costs of public finance
  • Less effective commercial advertising.

Many governments at national, state and local levels have acknowledged the need for intervention and have implemented measures to prevent or ameliorate the impact of news deserts.

No measures are currently in place that will prevent the growth of news deserts in New Zealand. Schemes such as the government-funded Local Democracy Reporting programme operate out of existing newsrooms which could themselves be threatened by cuts or even closure.

The report recommends a range of measures – by central and local government, the media industry, and the community – to prevent the sands smothering local journalism. You can access the report, written with the able assistance of several colleagues, on the Koi Tū website

Picture credit: iStock Piyaset

 

 

 

Tom Phillips: Your right to know is bottom on a sliding scale

A positive element of the Tom Phillips saga – perhaps the only positive apart from the safe recovery of his children – has been in highlighting the fragile nature of the public’s right to know.

It is an outstanding example of attempts to control the narrative in a story that has generated worldwide interest and raised a plethora of questions about Phillips and about official handling of the case.

The interests of the three Phillips children are paramount, and no-one in this country wishes to see them face any further trauma. They endured almost four years of deprivation, and one witnessed the violent death of her father after he attempted to take the life of a police officer.

But where does the wellbeing of those children end, and the self-interest of all the other parties associated with this case begin? There are serious questions about the Oranga Tamariki handling of the domestic arrangements for the children during the custody dispute, and certainly after Phillips’ first abduction of his offspring. There are questions about the police operations throughout the case. And there are many questions about the character and actions of a man who would deprive his daughters and son of a normal childhood while normalising criminal behaviour.

Oranga Tamariki has invoked the children’s right to privacy. Police have fallen back on the old trope of ‘ongoing investigations’. And sitting over it all is an interim court order that – temporary or not – has almost the effect of a super injunction where even the purpose and justifications for suppression of facts are shrouded in secrecy. Continue reading “Tom Phillips: Your right to know is bottom on a sliding scale” →

How crunchy are the Herald NOW numbers?

Let me say at the outset: I like NZME’s video breakfast show Herald Now.

It has the hallmarks of a serious news programme designed to inform me at the start of the day, and the relaxed manner of its host Ryan Bridge belies his skill in asking questions that put interviewees on the spot.

It has the ability to attract newsmakers from the Prime Minister and former judges to sports stars and social workers in Gaza. Its rotating list of panellists spans a useful social spectrum.

Ryan Bridge plays a key role in the show’s success but, even when he is not there, the format retains its appeal. Last week, seasoned television journalist Garth Bray (now with NZME’s BusinessDesk) was a quality stand-in who maintained the same pace and inquisitive style.

So, I was not surprised when NZME crowed that the show has attracted 2.4 million views in July. Well, that was the number from one survey source but it could include double-ups  where the same people watched on different platforms. By another measure, the programme has a million ‘unique viewers’ a month.

Herald Now screens on the Herald’s digital platforms and on YouTube. I watch it through the latter on the tv set in our lounge. And that is what roused my curiosity over the audience statistic proudly announced by NZME. When I logged onto the programme on YouTube one day last week it told me there were 407 other viewers. On another day, the number was about 1400. That suggests that the vast majority view it on the Herald’s platforms.

Fair enough, but what does either Herald Now audience survey number actually tell us? Continue reading “How crunchy are the Herald NOW numbers?” →