How do we save the media? And most importantly, how do we save journalism? Photo / 123rf
It’s been a tough start to 2024 for the international media. The common theme is staff layoffs, as the advertising recession bites and online competition continues to undermine the traditional media business model.
Some of the world’s biggest brands are affected. Condé Nast, home to household names such as Vogue, Vanity Fair and GQ, dropped 400 people. The LA Times laid off 115 people and Sports Illustrated 100. Then there’s NBC News, Business Insider and Forbes. The list goes on.
So how do we save the media? And most importantly, how do we save journalism? New Zealand is facing the same pressures. Advertising revenue is down. In my view quality is down too. We’ve all had conversations or, at least, heard conversations: what is going on with the media?
Over the summer break you tend to have more time for reading. As I’ve searched for knowledgeable and informative reading material, I’ve been lamenting the loss of what I believe is good journalism.
Loss of journalism means several things. A loss of access to important information about the world we live in. The loss of in-depth and accurate assessments of governments and their behaviours. A loss of balance.
I don’t think all of today’s news reporting fits the description of journalism. We are sometimes told what happened, but not why it happened or how we could have prevented it from happening. To me, it often feels like we are more likely to be told a TV reporter’s opinion of how or why an event has occurred than the factual reason.
I believe that, as the quality of journalism has been diluted, we’ve seen the general public armed with camera phones posting on social media fill the void. I think the great majority of these “on-the-spot correspondents” don’t have the skills or the appetite to present a balanced view of a story. And there is no editor reviewing their work.
As a result, we tend to get a wide range of extreme views on social media. But we get very little balance unless we deliberately go out and look for it. Little background is published, and very few solutions are offered. Just an opinion from one side or the other. The left or the right. The haves or the have-nots.
On social media platforms, the loss of balance is often accompanied by attacks on individuals as a means to attacking their viewpoint. Playing the person rather than the issue reflects the lack of research that accompanies much of what we are fed on social media, meaning the writer stoops to the easiest opinion. When uninformed, attack the individual.
In New Zealand, we are seeing this in the Treaty debate. On one side there’s criticism of David Seymour. On the other it’s Tuku Morgan’s fault. Neither is correct. But there is very little in the way of well researched, reasoned and balanced commentary that seeks to understand both sides of the story.
If you’re politically neutral and a fan of the Times or BBC I think you’re probably starting to struggle to find a media outlet that supports your view. In my opinion, many historically stable sources of news and current affairs, including our own TV news hour on both main channels, have moved away from their traditional central position and pursued a left-leaning agenda.
As a result, I believe New Zealand’s relatively new centre-right Government has had little in the way of a media honeymoon, especially when compared with their predecessors. And so - at least in the opinion of this viewer - the 6pm news dishes up some lightweight political news, usually anti-Government, some celebrity interviews, an animal story and some localised puffery about weather.
In my view the closest media we have to a neutral position in New Zealand is the Herald. I think its radio partner, Newstalk ZB has moved to the right. To my eyes and ears it means we have ZB’s Mike Hosking on one side and TVNZ’s John Campbell on the other. Both are fine broadcasters. But when we know where they stand politically, some will view their comments with a different lens.
The lack of balanced, common-sense reporting in my view has, over the last 10 years, resulted in many people feeling aggrieved that their viewpoint hasn’t been covered. And so, in a media landscape that now includes Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and even TikTok, we search for confirmation of our own opinions, often getting the views of the world as presented by that opinionated observer with an iPhone, instead of a journalist.
Whether it’s a militarily weakened president standing up to a bullying neighbour, yet another tragic war in the Middle East, a race debate in the UK, a comedic presidential election in the US or our own domestic political challenges, the great majority of those of us who are interested in news and current affairs still want information that is well researched, appropriately articulated and balanced.
Then and only then are we in a position to make our own informed decisions.
Sadly, even in this country, I reckon we are seeing television coverage of increasing numbers of protests and protesters. We’re upset about vaccination mandates, or the Treaty, or the Middle East. Television news gives us pictures of people and placards and chanting, and a reporter telling us it is happening.
But I don’t think we often see journalists asking the rank-and-file protesters why they are there. What are they protesting against? What is the history of the dispute they are taking on and why is it meaningful to them? Why do they think that protest will help? What do they want to see as a result of their action?
Somehow we have to save journalism. In a divided and untrusting world, proper journalism can create better lives for many of our citizens. But there are challenges to overcome.
Firstly we need to grow journalists. From the early 2000s, as the newspaper industry weakened, one of its most important functions - that as a training ground for journalists - also started to decline. A communications degree does not a journalist make.
Many writers who provided our news and current affairs through the second half of the 20th century learned their trade in the newspaper industry under a grumpy old editor who was steeped in good old-fashioned journalism.
Secondly we need investigation, not reporting. It’s often said that one of the media’s most important roles is to hold those in power to account. Governments, councils and the bureaucracy must deliver factual responses to press inquiries, and further be questioned heavily if those responses are inadequate.
I believe our universities and judiciaries have adopted agendas far from their core as a result of declining public accountability.
Parliamentarians, judges, professors and others who influence public debate must be heard and equally, held accountable to the people they serve. For most of the last 100 years, the media has provided the mechanism to manage such accountability.
Thirdly, in a divided world, our only real chance at ending the division is if we all understand the truth about the issues we face. A well-researched, reasoned and balanced media has a role to play in bringing people together through the non-partisan delivery of news and current affairs to the society it serves.
Social media has made that challenge greater than it otherwise may have been. But quality and integrity must win out in the end.
More than ever, people and the communities they live in need to be able to believe in the information they receive, the commentary they see and the stories they read. They need that to feel positive about their society and confident about their outlook.
To do so they must receive news and current affairs that is researched, reasoned, articulately presented and balanced. The world’s media, currently bruised and battered, have a massive job to do if we are to reunite the majority of the world.
Bruce Cotterill is a professional director and adviser to business leaders. He is the author of the book, The Best Leaders Don’t Shout, and host of the Herald’s podcast, Leaders Getting Coffee. www.brucecotterill.com
The event is described as a series of aggressive sales pitches.