Tag: media reform

Media reform paper: The good, the not-so-good, and the ugly

I must start by shooing the elephants back to the waiting room: There is nothing in last week’s Media Reform discussion paper that will help to sustain New Zealand journalism, nor battle the scourge of transnational social media and search platforms.

I am not dismissing the pachyderms. Far from it, the survival – let alone its sustainability – of principled journalism in this country will confront politicians (and the communities they represent) much sooner than they realise. The looming crisis must be addressed. So, too, must the impact of the Facebooks and Googles of this world.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (a flawed attempt to extract some money from the platforms for news media) gets only a passing mention in the discussion paper and is clearly not intended to be part of its feedback loop. In any case, it is on hold and faces the wrath of the empowered tech oligarchs of the Trump Administration if resurrected.

So, for the moment, I will direct my attention to the content of the discussion paper released by Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith last Wednesday. It was an invitation for the public to have their say on a range of proposals affecting the wider media sector. You can access the discussion paper here .

Some of the proposals impact on news media, even if none of them actually addresses the core problems facing that portion of the sector. Each of the proposals in the paper is described as “high level” and the Coalition Government has yet to decide whether to implement any of them.

The discussion paper is devoted primarily to audio-video production and distribution. In many respects, it is a sensible response to increasingly anachronistic structures and regulation that were a product of the age of broadcasting.

There are five proposals in the paper. Continue reading “Media reform paper: The good, the not-so-good, and the ugly” →

News media’s hellish year, as seen by a cock-eyed optimist

Hidden in every nightmarish landscape there has to be a glimmer of hope. And, unless we look for it, we are sentenced to a form of purgatory. So, while I am struggling to retain my optimism in the face of claims that I am naïve beyond my (advanced) years, I refuse to see New Zealand media’s past year only in terms of what has been lost.

I was heartened to see that New Zealand Geographic has reached the 10,000 subscribers it needed to continue publishing. I was encouraged by Duncan Greive’s note that The Spinoff added 3,000 recurring members in less than two weeks in response to a plea for financial support. He said in an email: “The goal remains the goal, but between the new members and some one-off donations, we’re feeling much better about where we’re at going into summer, and cautiously optimistic that with a lot of work we can achieve that big goal some time in the new year.”

Then my old colleague Tim Murphy also came to my rescue with an email that included a link to Newsroom’s report to readers for 2024 (you can read it here). In the report was a section titled “Journalism with impact”. It listed the news site’s prominent investigations and analyses, demonstrating that accountability journalism is alive in this country. It was work of which Murphy and his co-editor Mark Jennings could be justly proud.

Had other outlets chosen to follow Newsroom’s end-of-year example I am sure they, too, could have pointed to where their journalism had worked as it should – speaking truth to power.

Our journalists can take real pride from some of what they have done. They demonstrate they have the knowledge, talent and intellect to deliver on their solemn obligations. That’s the good news.

However, the news is never all good. In the past, I have referred to such fine examples as ‘oases of good journalism’, recognising that they exist in an otherwise arid desert. There is still much wrong with the way the editorial content of our news media is being produced and that, together with a raft of systemic failures, has placed the industry in jeopardy. And in 2024, the sand encroached even further. Continue reading “News media’s hellish year, as seen by a cock-eyed optimist” →

Winston’s Royal Commission: Threat or opportunity?

We do not need Winston Peters’ Royal Commission into Media Bias and Manipulation, but it is high time we took a coordinated approach to the shape of our media landscape.

The New Zealand First manifesto coyly refers to a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Media Independence, but that is no more than a watered down title for the initiative the party announced with a petition back in June. And its Kaipara ki Mahurangi candidate, Jenny Marcroft, made the focus clear during the Better Public Media election debate last week when she referred to it as “a Royal Commission on Media Bias”.

This looks like vindictiveness. Such an enquiry would be no more than a witch-hunt, an opportunity for New Zealand First to address perceived slights and settle scores against journalists and their employers.

To be fair, though, at least NZ First (along with the Greens) has a detailed section on media policy in its manifesto. Some of its proposals, such as joint funding of media internships, have real merit. Sadly, its lead policy on media bias has none.

Let’s assume for a moment that NZ First does become the kingmaker in a new government. Giving in to Winston Peters’ wishes on the royal commission would be an easy concession, particularly if it traded away some of NZ First’s more wayward proposals.

Such an enquiry would be a disaster. Its true purpose, implicit in the petition title and Marcroft’s description, would be to level charge after charge against mainstream media organisations. In the process, the already depleted levels of trust in them would be further eroded, and their democratic purpose and role in social cohesion called into question. As the saying goes: No good will come of this.

Had it proposed a wider enquiry into the future of media, it may have been onto a winner. And, if Mr Peters does get his formal enquiry, it will be vital to move heaven and earth to broaden its remit to dilute (and hopefully eliminate) its misguided origins. Continue reading “Winston’s Royal Commission: Threat or opportunity?” →

Media regulation: Time to shut up and get on with it.

A decade ago this month, the Law Commission produced a fit-for-purpose blueprint for  regulation of New Zealand news media by a single body. The News Media Standards Authority did not happen and today we are no closer to changing oversight that is well past its use-by date.

The commission’s recommendations were set out in a report titled The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, responsibilities, and regulation in the digital age, produced by a team led by eminent media law expert Professor John Burrows.

The foreword to the report stated it was about how the law should respond to a challenge that had been articulated by then Chief Government Scientist, Sir Peter Gluckman. In an address on the impact of technology on adolescents, Sir Peter had expressed the view that the internet and digital technology have brought about the most profound change in how humans communicate since our species first acquired speech.

One might have thought that his perspective, and the report’s call for fundamental changes to media regulation, would have been an urgent wake-up call. Continue reading “Media regulation: Time to shut up and get on with it.” →