New Zealand cannot sit back and see the collapse of our Fourth Estate, the director of Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures, Sir Peter Gluckman, says in the foreword of a paper published today.
The paper, “If not journalists, then who?” paints a picture of an industry facing existential threats and held back by institutional underpinnings that are beyond the point where they are merely outdated. It suggests sweeping changes to deal with the wide impacts of digital transformation and alarmingly low levels of trust in news.
The paper’s principal author is Koi Tū honorary research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis, who has written two books on the state of journalism: Trust Ownership and the Future of Newsand Complacent Nation. He is a former newspaper editor and media studies lecturer. The paper was developed following consultation with media leaders.
“We hope this paper helps open and expand the conversation from a narrow focus on the viability of particular players,” Sir Peter said, “to the needs of a small liberaldemocracy which must face many challenges in which citizens must have access to trustworthy information so they can form views and contribute appropriately to societaldecision making.
“Koi Tu’s core argument, along with that of many scholars of democracy, is that democracy relies on honest information being available to all citizens. It needs to be provided by trustworthy sources and any interests associated with it must be transparently declared. The media itself has contributed much to the decline in trust. This does not mean that there is not a critical role for opinion and advocacy – indeed democracy needs that too. It is essential that ideas are debated. But when reliable information is conflated with entertainment and extreme opinion, then citizens suffer and manipulated polarised outcomes are more likely.”
Dr Ellis said both news media and government are held to account in the paper for the state in which journalism in New Zealand now finds itself. The mixing of fact and opinion in news stories is identified as a cause of the public’s low level of trust, and online analytics were found to have aberrated news judgement previously driven by journalistic values. For their part, successive governments have failed to keep pace with changing needs across a very broad spectrum that has been brought about by digital transformation.
Changes suggested in the paper include voluntary merger of the two news regulators (the statutory Broadcasting Standards Authority and the industry-supported Media Council) into an independent body along lines recommended a decade ago by the Law Commission. The new body would sit within a completely reorganised – and renamed – Broadcasting Commission, which would also be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Classifications Office, NZ On Air and Te Māngai Pāho. The reconstituted commission would become the administrative umbrella for the following autonomous units:
- Media accountability (standards and complaints procedures)
- Funding allocation (direct and contestable, including creative production)
- Promotion and funding of Māori culture and language.
- Content classification (ratings and classification of film, books, video gaming)
- Review of media-related legislation and regulation, and monitoring of common law development
- Research and advocacy (related civic, cultural, creative issues).
The paper also favours dropping the Digital News Fair Bargaining Bill (under which media organisations would negotiate with transnational platforms) and, instead, amending the Digital Services Tax Bill, now before the House, under which the proposed levy on digital platforms would be increased to provide a ring-fenced fund to compensate media for direct and indirect use of their content. It also suggests changes to tax structures to help sustain marginally profitable and non-profit media outlets committed to public interest journalism.
Seventeen separate Acts of Parliament affecting media are identified in the paper as outdated – “and the list is nor exhaustive”. The paper recommends a comprehensive and closely coordinated review. The Broadcasting Act is currently under review, but the paper suggests it should not be re-evaluated in isolation from other necessary legislative reforms.
The paper advises individual media organisations to review their editorial practices in light of current trust surveys and rising news avoidance. It says these reviews should include news values, story selection and presentation. They should also improve their journalistic transparency and relevance to audiences.
Collectively, media should adopt a common code of ethics and practice and develop campaigns to explain the role and significance of democratic/social professional journalism to the public.
A statement of journalistic principles is included in the paper:
“Support for democracy sits within the DNA of New Zealand media, which have shared goals of reporting news, current affairs, and information across the broad spectrum of interests in which the people of this country collectively have a stake. Trained news media professionals, working within recognised standards and ethics, are the only group capable of carrying out the functions and responsibilities that have been carved out for them by a heritage stretching back 300 years. They must be capable of holding the powerful to account, articulating many different voices in the community, providing meeting grounds for debate, and reflecting New Zealanders to themselves in ways that contribute to social cohesion. They have a duty to freedom of expression, independence from influence, fairness and balance, and the pursuit of truth.”
The biggest issue with media is the lack of factual reporting which has been replaced by opinion pieces written by people with a obvious bias one way or the other.
NZME is so obviously right wing it is laughable. Stuff seems a bit confused and swings either way.
They should stick to the facts eg why is the headline about Luxon saying he will donate his rise to charity when all They really need to do is report on the rise for MPs.
“Give them *bread and circuses.”
* or beer.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
This article is about a concept in political satire. For other uses, see Bread and Circuses (disambiguation).
“Bread and circuses” (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal (Satires, Satire X), a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD, and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts.
In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace,[1] by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses).
Juvenal originally used it to decry the “selfishness” of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase implies a population’s erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.[5]
Now, with that ancient phrase in mind… look around?
As a photographer, one of the best filters I use is the one where the broader picture comes with a higher overview. One of the two greatest abilities to nurture in one’s life is to never be afraid to look at all dimensions of a form whether it be a narrative, an image, a God botherer or a gasbag politician. Is what you see all that there is to be seen? The other one is to never, ever lose your sense of humour because when humour goes, so does reason.
If only!
Thank goodness there are people of the calibre of Sir. Peter Gluckman and Dr. Gavin Ellis keeping watch on what is happening. We are bombarded with idiot opinion from the likes of Hosking continually and forget that there should be still people who know what proper news is and why it needs to be readily available. Unfortunately, the msm has become diluted with shock/horror/blood/sport/celebrity/women’s magazine tidbits at the expense of serious journalism. Many people haven’t a clue that their main source of news, social media, is appallingly inadequate.
Advertisers have been able to demand their version of the news and that’s now all we hear.
The standard of TV journalism has crashed. Very few seek to maintain standards and they are continually attacked by cheap hacks yelling their opinions at us to the exclusion of all others. Why was Mutch MacKay allowed to dominate the scene at TVNZ? Now it’s Maiki Sherman. They are inconsistent and weak. One minute they appear to be making a good point and the next minute we realize they fall far short of what we should expect of Journalists who take themselves seriously. TVNZ became a party political broadcast. Who can blame people for not watching? It was horribly obvious we were being sold short.
Newsreaders became ‘stars’ and demanded money to match. Ridiculous.
I’m a bit pessimistic now about us ever getting back to the standard of news and opinion we used to enjoy. The people with the money pay the piper and they don’t want us to hear the truth. It suits them best if the public is uninformed/misinformed and too busy or lazy to delve deeper for the truth.
Joy. Good point about the women’s mag type entertainment in what used to be the print media. Another crucial issue is freedom of speech, which I gather Ardern is still actively opposed to, after advocating global censorship at the UNO. We’ve had two too many silencing scenarios recently, at the Parliamentary precinct demonstration, and the shocking violent shutting up of women in Albert Park.
“If not journalists, then who?” is not the question. “By their deeds you know them.” Nobody is against journalists doing their job. It’s the fact that, when it comes to the great conflicts of our time, they don’t do their job. From the South China Sea to Ukraine to The Middle East, our media defers to foreign news agency reports that reflect the interests of the war-mongering USA.
And our media’s coverage of the years-long and on-going crucifixion of Julian Assange, a man whose journalism epitomises everything Ellis and Gluckman claim to espouse, is simply appalling.
And before we get persuaded by Sir Peter Gluckman’s wise words, let him describe what “Informed Future” Palestinians can look forward to once his Zionist friends have finished “mowing the lawn”.
Malcolm Evan – Julian Assange shows what journalist is…shame most media are not.
We have a rubbish, oligarchic government. They certainly don’t want a professional media – nor do the debased Labour party, who imagine themselves a moral authority in spite of continually selling out their key constituency while they chase fashionable policy butterflies. Butterflies have little longevity.
What would Orwell or London or Kipling make of NZ media? Mincemeat, that’s what.
We can’t sit back and allow the fourth estate to die ?
Too late it killed itself while we sat and watched it happen.
There is no place for the current type of journalism in New Zealand which displays blatant bias both left and right reflecting the opinion of the journalist or their employer.