Why doesn’t the National Party and its coalition partners simply admit that they want Radio New Zealand to die a natural – or perhaps unnatural – death?
First, the National government under John Key froze RNZ funding for eight years. Then the coalition led by Christopher Luxon wasted little time to impose a $4.9 million annual reduction. Now the latest Budget imposes a further $1.4 million a year baseline cut. The broadcaster was already operating at a net deficit of $886,000 on last year’s accounts.
That $6 million cumulative annual cut is in addition to the effects of inflation, which has breached the 1-3 per cent target in the past two quarters and is expected to hit 4 per cent in the current quarter. Treasury predictions of a future rate fall fail to allow for a demagogue in the White House and a dictator in the Kremlin.
It is clear that National and its bed mates do not like the state-owned broadcaster, and Christopher Luxon installed a minister to reflect that attitude. Paul Goldsmith has been anything but a champion for RNZ and, as result, it has had no-one to fight its corner in Cabinet
RNZ is seen as a bunch of Lefties whose sole aim in life is to bring unjustified grief to the good people on the other side of the political spectrum who really do know how to run the country.
Of course, that is nonsense.
I have met a lot of RNZ people in my time, and I can say that they are no different to those who populate other media organisations – they reflect the mix of political leanings and attitudes of society at large. More importantly, the journalists among them know their own political preferences must be sublimated in the principled pursuit of their craft.
I accept that the previous paragraph will be immediately rejected by those who share the coalition’s view of RNZ. I invite them to think again. The Leftie trope is an accusation that RNZ employees are unprincipled. By that measure, RNZers must be incapable of exercising fairness and balance in what they do. Nor would they be capable of meeting the standards of accuracy and fairness to which the (soon to be demolished) Broadcasting Standards Authority has held them accountable since its formation almost four decades ago.
The labelling of RNZ is, in fact, a splendid example of confirmation bias. If RNZ does its job of holding power to account (regardless of the political stripe) and reflecting New Zealand society to itself, it is a fair bet that some will disagree with what they hear.
Confirmation bias means these people will interpret RNZ content according to their own pre-existing beliefs. When the two do not match, there can be only one culprit. And it is invariably the creator of that content, not the recipient.
Politicians, of course, carry a double dose of the infection. They are the unconscious harbourers of confirmation bias, and they don’t like being placed under scrutiny. Party affiliations do not vaccinate politicians against this infection. All exhibit one or both of the symptoms when in power, or when caught on the wrong side of the line dividing good from bad, lazy, stupid or incompetent.
It is a journalist’s job to keep an eye on that line and report what is happening on either side of it. It is only appropriate that the greater scrutiny is applied to those who are exercising power over us at a given time. That is what society requires as part of its democratic contract and RNZ is no different from other media in meeting that obligation.
Politicians, however, don’t see it that way. They see themselves as being victimised by media that must be biased in order to be so mean or, at the very least, inconvenient. As a newspaper editor I endured their criticism as part of the job of holding them to account. In fact, I take great pride in the fact that I was personally called “the Opposition” by National and Labour prime ministers. It told me we were playing our part in the democratic contract. I have no doubt that RNZ’s chief executive and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson has won the same battle honours.
Radio New Zealand is not a fiendish Labour construct. In fact, it traces its history back to the 1931 Broadcasting Act that was passed by the United-Reform Coalition. The National Party was formed by the merger of those two parties in 1936.
The current organisation operates under the Radio New Zealand Act passed by the fourth National Government in 1995 which, crucially, set out the purposes that RNZ was bound to fulfil under the terms of its charter. They remain unchanged:
- To serve the public interest.
- Play an essential role in exercising freedom of thought and expression as a public service broadcaster.
- Foster a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding, reflecting and promoting ethnic, cultural, and artistic diversity and expression.
- Provide reliable, independent, and freely accessible news and information.
By statute, the charter is reviewed every five years, but those purposes have not changed in three decades.
Former RNZ head of news Richard Sutherland presented a hard-hitting and frank review of the public broadcaster last year. He found numerous faults with RNZ, but political bias was not one of them.
The Government would, no doubt, deny ideological revenge as motive for its Budget move and say the cuts are a result of the broadcaster not providing value for money because its audience has declined. There is probably some perverse neoliberal formula that puts a monetary value on each set of ears that lets the minister sleep easy at night. The coalition may also justify cuts on the basis that private sector media are also doing it tough.
Such justifications would ring hollow. Yes, RNZ must make changes to reverse audience decline (and has begun that process) but cutting its funding reduces its ability to do so. It is counterintuitive to suggest that it will get more listeners by offering less. And the decline in private sector media resources suggests the state should be filling gaps, not making them wider.
All three members of the government coalition have fired criticism in RNZ’s direction. ACT does not see the need for state-owned media, and National’s existing ideological ambivalence seems to have become more hardened under the disproportionate influence of David Seymour. For its part, NZ First sees the broadcaster in more personal terms – Winston Peters and Shane Jones both think RNZ treats them poorly. Should the coalition be returned to power at the November election, RNZ will face the winter of their collective discontent.
If there is any light in the gloom, it may be in the form of Brent Impey, RNZ’s newly announced chair to replace Dr Jim Mather who is retiring from the role. Impey was chief executive of MediaWorks at its height, chaired the New Zealand Rugby Union, and is a qualified lawyer. If anyone is well-equipped to fight RNZ’s corner it is him.
Yes, he will put the organisation’s feet to the fire to rapidly rebuild audience ratings. They were, after all, a primary focus in his time at MediaWorks. And he will be instrumental in choosing a new chief executive when Paul Thompson retires in December. He will also, however, be formidable in fighting RNZ’s corner.
Impey is both a skilled negotiator and a strong advocate. It was no accident that, in voicing his priorities when he becomes chair, he put editorial independence at the top of his list. David Seymour and Winston Peters should not expect Impey to take slugs at RNZ on the chin.
In appointing him, the coalition partners may have thought they were simply installing someone who would bring private sector thinking to a state-owned enterprise. They may well find that he is a stronger champion of the public service broadcaster than they imagine. I certainly hope so.
I can’t recall seeing a flagstaff on RNZ’s headquarters in Wellington but, if one exists, the Beehive should keep watch to see if it starts flying the Gadsden flag. Not familiar with it? Oh, I’m sure you are. It is the flag designed by Christopher Gadsden during the American Revolution. It depicts a very dangerous looking rattlesnake and the words “Don’t tread on me”.