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.

The sad fact is that the clause about the Treaty in NZ on Air’s guidelines for PIJF applications was unnecessary. I would go so far as to say that the decision to include it was, at best, misguided and, at worst, a tragic error that may have blighted assistance for public interest journalism for years to come.

I am drawn to that conclusion by the fact – yes, fact – that most New Zealand media organisations either directly or by implication already observed what the guidelines sought.

Two of the largest recipients of funding were NZME and Stuff. I am going to spell out what their respective codes of practice said under the heading ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ before the PIJI was even proposed.

NZME (New Zealand Herald)

We celebrate the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. We will strive to ensure that the Māori voice, world view, and language, where appropriate, are an essential part of our coverage and that our workforce reflects the face of modern Aotearoa. We embrace tino matatau (excellence), manaakitanga (duty of care) and pono (integrity) in everything we do. We promote understanding of Māori culture and tikanga, and do not reinforce negative stereotypes of any race through our content.

Stuff (Waikato Times, Post, Press)

We recognise the principles of partnership, participation and protection should help guide our actions.

• Partnership: Māori and the Crown have a partnership under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. Our journalism should reflect this authority by including mana whenua, Māori organisations and people in our stories.
• Participation: We should ensure Māori voices are present in our content, and increase the diversity of perspectives we represent.
• Protection: Our dedicated Pou Tiaki section for Māori-focused or translated stories reminds us to include Māori voices in our stories and write Māori-focused stories in all rounds and regions, for all platforms.

It grieves me to say so, but I believe the disinformation campaign against news media was, first and foremost, a blatant example of racism.

Many of the claims of bribery referenced the treaty clause and thereby placed the media alongside the government in promoting a form of ‘co-governance’ that threatened society as the critics wished to know it.

I am very critical of the Labour government’s handling of co-governance. It was a classic example of knowing what you mean but failing to actually explain that to anyone. However, some of the reactions were blatant examples of racial bigotry.

That was the genesis of the media bribery claim. It then took on a life of its own and fed on the declining levels of trust in media as well as other institutions.

One can only guess at why Winston Peters chose to begin his half-term as Deputy Prime Minister by perpetuating the myth. It certainly will not have the effect of cowing the Press Gallery or any other journalists. They are far more likely to put him on notice that his every move will be carefully scrutinised.

Nonetheless, the myth remains as a sad end to a year in which journalists more than proved their worth.

Cyclone Gabrielle proved the underlying, and perhaps unadmitted, faith that New Zealanders have in media in times of crisis. Radio journalists were a lifeline for those cut off by slips and floodwaters, and the New Zealand Herald exposed the ‘sensitivities’ of Mayor Wayne Brown over his reluctance to be the city’s public face in what proved to be crucial engagement across media during the flooding in Auckland.

News media showed public spirited tenacity in their determination for justice to be seen to be done. James Wallace failed to keep his identity secret after being convicted and imprisoned for assaulting three men and perverting the course of justice. The long-running ‘Mama Hooch’ sexual assault trial in Christchurch saw media outlets traverse harrowing detail with an enduring concern and respect for the victims. The same respect was shown during the Christchurch Mosque coronial hearings. And, throughout the year, the New Zealand Herald fought a super-injunction brought by an American man desperate to hide his identity in court proceedings.

Let’s leave aside the overt partisanship of some commentators and an unfortunately increasing tendency for some members of the public to see alternatives to their own political views as either aberration or malfeasance: Our political journalists do not exhibit the institutional biases of the Australian or British media. They fairly chronicled the slings and arrows of outrageous political fortune – the resignation and online vilification of Jacinda Ardern, parliamentary resignations, a topsy turvy election, and the investigation of a ballot box miscount. They did so without the prejudice that some see in every paragraph or soundbite. Journalists did hold power to account on a wide variety of issues in health, education, law-and-order, and other sectors.

Yes, journalists still need to differentiate between fact and opinion (they would say analysis) more clearly. Frankly I would like to see them follow a facts-first-analysis-after approach but that may be a step too f-f-a-a for some. They still leave infuriating gaps in stories, are too ready to accept bewildering obfuscation in the name of privacy or gender politics, and need to ration their adjectives.

Their bosses need periodic reality checks on what news is actually important – if they can take their eyes off constantly updating analytics that pay more attention to human frailty than human need. Let me give you an example.

Every year I log the number of crime and serious injury stories that lead our metropolitan daily newspapers. I’m pleased to say the numbers have come down from last year, but I still question decisions that a murder or a road fatality is the most important thing that happened in the newspaper’s news cycle. Here is this year’s tally (as of yesterday), with 2022 in brackets: New Zealand Herald 88 (102), Waikato Times 65 (80), The Post 19 (19), The Press 34 (46) and the Otago Daily Times 30 (24). Personally, I think The Post got it about right.

And every year I look forward to the Media Ownership Report from AUT’s Journalism, Media & Democracy research centre. The 2023 report was released last week, and it is once again an invaluable research tool. The accumulation of annual JM&D ownership reports is providing the feedstock for longitudinal studies of the ways our media are changing.

In the report’s introduction, Professor Wayne Hope notes the asymmetrical relationship between social media corporations and news media organisations. He also notes it is a repeat observation from the past two years: “As Alphabet/Google and Meta/Facebook corner advertising revenue, they purloin and repurpose new publisher content. At the same time, media outlets rely increasingly on platforms to disseminate news content to users. News publisher attempts to obtain compensation from social media corporations in different countries have sought a legislatively backed news bargaining code and/or voluntary negotiated settlements.”

His conclusion paints a difficult year ahead.

“Mediated public spheres, in principle, facilitate freedoms of expression, publication, representation and argumentation against state intrusion and commercial encroachment. Such freedoms should advance bicultural and multicultural recognition against the backdrop of a contested national past. During 2023, in Aotearoa New Zealand, broadcasters, print and online publications confronted to varying extents the economic power of platforms, streaming companies and financial media owners. The recently elected National-ACT-New Zealand First Government will not promote remedial measures. Broadcasting Media and Communications Minister Melissa Lee is unlikely to support the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill or compensatory levies on social media platforms. New public journalism initiatives and the very principle of a new public media entity would be anathematic to all coalition partners. Meanwhile, far-right disinformation from the dark web circulates outward into websites, podcasts and the blogosphere as Māori media holds firm.”

The report has become slightly outdated through no fault of its own. New Zealand’s version of the legislative solution, Labour’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, had been expected to die on the floor of the House. However, late last week the new Media and Communications Minister Melissa Lee indicated that the Bill would be sent to a select committee. From there, we will have to wait and see.

There are difficult times ahead. Of that there can be no doubt. However, it ill-behoves me to end on a negative note.

I began my final commentary of 2022 with a quote from Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. Yes, the one about the best of times and worst of times. I’ll end this commentary with a quotation from a different Dickens work, ‘The New Year’ which was originally published in Bell’s Life in London in 1836.

“There must have been some few occurrences in the past year to which we can look back, with a smile of cheerful recollection, if not with a feeling of heartfelt thankfulness. And we are bound by every rule of justice and equity to give the New Year credit for being a good one, until he proves himself unworthy of the confidence we repose in him.”

This is the final Tuesday Commentary for 2023. It will return in the New Year.