Tag: editorial independence

A grunt is worth a thousand words

Like a picture, a grunt can be worth a thousand words. The Minister for Media and Communications needed to do no more than make an annoyed sound to convince the chairman of Television New Zealand that the government was, well, annoyed.

Paul Goldsmith would surely have known that he needed to do no more than grunt when TVNZ board chair Andrew Barclay inexplicably raised a contentious One News item in a call he initiated with the minister. A low, short guttural sound said it all.

When interviewed about the call, Goldsmith pressed ‘play’ and stated: “He brought up the story in question, I did not make any comment, as it would be inappropriate for us to discuss editorial matters.”

It would not only be inappropriate, but it would also be unlawful. Section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act states that no shareholding minister (in this case Goldsmith) may give a direction in respect of the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of any current affairs programme or content.

A grunt is not a direction. But it speaks volumes.

By now you’ll know what prompted it. A story, stating gang members now slightly outnumbered police, ran before a piece that might be seen as proof that the government’s ‘tough on crime’ policy was working. The later story said there were fewer victims of violent crime and serious repeat youth offending had fallen.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell did not like that – ‘annoyed’ is probably not strong enough – and took to Facebook to say so. A contrite TVNZ news executive rang Mitchell after seeing the post and a second, more positive story followed.

The post was not a direction. But it spoke volumes. Continue reading “A grunt is worth a thousand words” →

Forensic detail on NZME but where are the guarantees?

Excoriating is the word that may best describe expat Canadian James Grenon’s 11-page critique of NZME. His forensic examination of the board he hopes to replace and the company’s performance is a sobering read.

You may not have seen the letter. At the time of writing, it was still sitting behind the New Zealand Herald’s Premium paywall. It is, however, available through the New Zealand Stock Exchange. You can access it here.

Mr Grenon is highly critical in a number of areas that he breaks down into sections in the letter. The headings include:

  • “The combined performance of the two core businesses has been mediocre, to sliding, for the past eight years, despite a temporary period of COVID gains”.
  • “There has been a consistent pattern of over promising and under delivering since COVID”.
  • “Public disclosure is weak, with a slant that I interpret as supporting the status quo”.

Mr Grenon’s letter includes an analysis of NZME’s share price in relation to the perceived value of its OneRoof real estate marketing arm, and the company’s dividend policy. He claims “the disclosure on these two critical elements is, in my opinion, lacking or even misleading”. He also criticises levels of management-level remuneration and high levels of staff turnover which he says “does not suggest a happy working environment”.

NZME’s board has yet to respond to the letter stating – in a note to the New Zealand Stock Exchange accompanying the release of Mr Grenon’s letter – that it will do so in its notice to shareholders before the annual general meeting on April 29.

Were that the sum total of his challenge to the present board, it might be characterised as simply a move to improve the group’s financial performance and its return to shareholders. Much of what he says will, in fact, resonate with ordinary shareholders worried about the group’s financial performance and direction. It may well attract even more votes at the April AGM than he currently commands.

However, there is an enormous caveat hanging over any support for Mr Grenon’s initiative. Continue reading “Forensic detail on NZME but where are the guarantees?” →