If I were planning to set up a shonky, shady business to rip off consumers (and I assure you that would be entirely out of character) I would wait until Fair Go ceases broadcasting.
The programme that has been protecting the rights of consumers for 47 years faces the axe under the cuts announced last week by Television New Zealand although its staff – characteristically and courageously – will not admit defeat until they are deep into the Valley of Death.
It is unlikely that it will stay as part of the TVNZ inventory. There may be a faint hope that the format could be sold to another media entity but TV3 is out of the question given the imminent demise of its entire news and current affairs offering. Stuff and the New Zealand Herald could pick it up for streaming on their websites as could Sky but each possibility must be seen as unlikely in the current financial climate. It carries the added burden of being inherently local and therefore not attractive to a streaming service looking to maximise its value on the international market.
So, barring miracles such as a financial rescue package from the coalition government, Fair Go is destined to disappear.
I will mourn its passing not so much because it came so close to racking up the magic half-century but because New Zealand will lose a unique form of consumer power.
In a biblical sense, the programme has been David’s slingshot, able to call large companies to account when it has hit Goliath between the eyes on behalf of victims with right on their side.
New Zealand has a range of official measures to protect the buyers of goods and services: The Consumer Guarantees Act is very good piece of legislation that spells out the obligations on sellers; the Disputes Tribunal is a worthwhile alternative to expensive court proceedings in disputes worth less than $30,000; and Consumer NZ is a strong advocate for fair dealing.
In spite of those protections there will always be situations where consumers have been treated badly but perpetrators ignore complaints, dismiss them, or simply do a runner and look for the next unsuspecting targets. The culprits rely on the fact that formal complaints procedures may be arduous, time-consuming, protracted – or unknown. Official redress ends up in the too-hard basket.
A different scenario: You buy something for $30 and (to use the Consumer Guarantees test) it is not fit for purpose, is shoddy quality with several defects, and is neither durable nor safe. You would not bother paying a $45 fee to the Disputes Tribunal to get your money back, but you may want to warn other unsuspecting shoppers.
These are the situations in which a programme like Fair Go rides to the rescue.
Fair Go has offered that one protection that the providers of shonky goods and services fear because it affects their ability to continue bilking the unwary. It is publicity.
Publicity can redress the imbalance between an individual consumer and a large company that sees that individual as a mild irritant that can be ignored. Publicity can also give an indelible visual identity to a sole trader who routinely changes names to hide a past littered with dissatisfied out-of-pocket customers.
Fair Go has been providing that form of protection since it was created by Dr Brian Edwards and producer Peter Morritt in 1977. Edwards had by that stage already established a formidable reputation on current affairs programmes Compass, then Gallery. He would prove as effective on the consumer programme as he had been when he almost single-handedly ended the Post Office strike in September 1970s through skilful on-air mediation.
Over the course of its years on air, Fair Go has had a veritable honours board of broadcast journalists within its ranks. Besides Edwards, around 50 reporters and presenters have had their names among the show’s credits. So many of them have distinguished themselves in broadcasting that it would be remiss to single out a few. Apart, perhaps, for its iconic anchor Kevin Milne who worked on the show from 1984 to 2010.
For a long time, there has been strong element of audience entertainment in Fair Go. It has that in common with so many aspects of news media in the digital age. For some (me included) that has been a distraction, but there is no getting away from the fact that the programme has been an effective defender of consumer rights.
With its likely demise, what will fill that space?
TVNZ may add consumer segments to the 6 pm news or Seven Sharp but such additions would have neither the destination viewing nor impact of a dedicated programme. Nor would the remaining mainstream news outlets have that impact if they increased consumer coverage. Stuff’s axing of its Circuit team takes away its video heavy lifters, and NZME has more impact with its words and sounds than it does with moving images. The same can be said of Radio New Zealand. As for Newshub: It meets its likely end not long after Fair Go.
Tribunal or court complaint processes are designed to provide redress for individuals. For some, these avenues are seen as costly and daunting. A few do not trust such institutions.
Consumer NZ’s advocacy functions are across a broader spectrum, designed to, in its own words, “create a fairer marketplace for everyone”. Its approach tends to be campaigns to bring about greater consumer protections in parts of the marketplace. It does not function as a service through which individual complainants can seek redress.
In short, there is nothing to fully replace the power of a consumer champion with a household name and a punch you can see. The real loser in that situation will be the consumer.
And the losses are mounting.
We will all be the loser with the demise of Sunday, and midday and late night news bulletins on TV1. TVNZ will lose some of its most competent journalists and editors. The loss of long-form current affairs is tragic.
There could be some small redress if TVNZ moved Q&A into the Sunday slot. Jack Tame has be ability to hold a primetime audience and, although studio interviews do not have the story-telling power of fieldwork, it would mean deeper interrogation of current events still has a presence on Sunday night.
To end on a brighter note
People may not disappear down conspiratorial rabbit holes after all. Well, not many people anyway.
A study by academics at Massey University, Canterbury University, La Trobe University in Australia, and the University of Marburg in Germany found that people clearly do sometimes decide to reject conspiracy theories they previously believed.
Their study surveyed 498 Australians and New Zealanders.
“Our findings bring into question the popular notion of the “rabbit hole” — that people rapidly develop beliefs in a succession of conspiracy theories, much as Alice tumbles down into Wonderland in Lewis Carroll’s famous story,” the researchers said in an article published by Harvard’s Nieman Foundation.
“While it’s possible this does happen for a small number of people, our results suggest it isn’t a typical experience. For most, the journey into conspiracy theory belief might involve a more gradual slope — a bit like a real rabbit burrow, from which one can also emerge.”
Well, that’s a relief.