Sky Sport presenter and former All Black Justin Marshall. Photo / Andrew Cornaga, Photosport
Sky names its broadcaster/host team to travel to France - with one big (and unhappy) omission; Stuff staff’s gong concerns and internal messages; RNZ’s ethical dilemma over Kiri Allan speech; Today FM staff call in lawyers
All Blacks great Justin Marshall - famous for his “Boomfa!” catch-cry - has missed selection for Sky TV’s on-the-ground Rugby World Cup commentary team in France.
The 81-test veteran is understood to be unhappy about the broadcaster’s decision. The Cup is a pinnacle career moment for any rugby media professional and unless he can find other means of getting there, the decision means Marshall also misses out on potential sponsorship and event work at the event.
The broadcaster has announced internally and to Media Insider that four commentators/hosts will travel to France for the tournament in September and October - Grant Nisbett, Mils Muliaina, Jeff Wilson and Kirstie Stanway.
“[Marshall] has not taken the decision at all well,” says one source close to Sky.
As well as his role as “second commentator” to a key caller - such as Nisbett - Marshall is a sought-after personality and speaker for the likes of dinners and lunches, especially during major events. This work likely forms an important component of his annual income.
At the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan - when Spark Sport had the TV rights - Marshall was an ambassador for both Land Rover and Heineken. He appeared in a Heineken TV ad, alongside fellow greats George Gregan and Martin Johnson, in the lead-up to the tournament.
Sky TV’s Chris Major confirmed the “superb” Sky team to cover the seven weeks of the Cup, “noting, of course, that we have many more people who will be working on it back home in NZ”.
“The four of them make up an excellent and highly versatile team, and they will be working very hard for us across the tournament,” says Major.
“I don’t have any comment to make on any individuals who are not in the team, other than to say that we have a number of superb commentators on our Sky team (along with world-class first-voice callers), but not everyone can go on these trips. It’s always a difficult decision, but we’re really pleased with the team who are going and are looking forward to their contribution.”
She said Sky did not mind its team doing extra work when they were away on trips, “as long as it doesn’t impact on what they’re doing for us. In most cases, it enhances their profile and is good for both of us.”
Major said Sky was delighted to have the Cup rights back. “We’re expecting fan interest to be huge, with data telling us that half of all Kiwis are interested in watching it.” The All Blacks play hosts France in the opening Cup game, with kickoff at 7am (NZT) on Saturday, September 9.
Marshall - who has yet to reply to Media Insider messages - has always been a colourful personality, on and off the field.
He was involved in a verbal spat with All Black Akira Ioane outside a Wellington bar following the All Blacks’ 32-22 loss to Ireland in July last year. Video footage showed All Blacks winger Caleb Clarke standing in the way of Marshall in a possible attempt to de-escalate the situation, while a number of other All Blacks were in the way of Ioane.
All Blacks coach Ian Foster said later that the pair had buried the hatchet and Major said at the time “we’re obviously aware that Justin and Akira exchanged words”. Marshall went on to commentate two All Blacks tests in South Africa.
In 2014, in his early days as a Sky commentator, Marshall told the Herald’s Wynne Gray that at first he felt awkward commenting on old rivals, teammates or his coaches. However, he said, he tried to speak to as many of them as possible to discuss trends, laws and styles.
“I am still an apprentice at Sky, still learning and I seek feedback from everywhere including the public, who were only too willing to give me advice when I was a player, and I work hard at it all the time.
“I formulate opinions and try to make it constructive whether it is criticism or not. It is not the Bible, it is an opinion. People who take it as fact and call me an idiot and much worse, they miss the point. I make comments and open up avenues for others to voice their thoughts on your views.”
Every morning at 9.30am, staff at Auckland’s Stuff office are summoned to a meeting with executives and other leaders to discuss the latest ideas and news in and around the business and industry. But the method by which staff are called to that meeting - a gong - has perplexed and infuriated some of them, to the extent the union and HR became involved.
The Herald’s John Weekes and Media Insider have been leaked more than two dozen internal messages that reveal some employees’ unhappiness over the gong, including concerns about cultural insensitivity.
The latest round of concerns kicked off this week, when one staff member wrote in an internal Slack message: “Howdy folks. Just checking to see if anyone else finds the daily morning gong a bit patronising and infantile? We all seem to be able to attend regular meetings without any prompting and feeling like we’re attending a school assembly.”
That message received at least 18 thumbs-up and other emojis, and other staff members wrote supportive Slack messages: “Agree I know that other staff have also raised cultural sensitivity issues around its use,” said one.
“It’s so cringe,” said another.
“This is such a weird hill for management to die on,” wrote another, referring to some senior managers’ apparent insistence on keeping the device.
Another staff member said the matter had been raised by the union’s diversity and gender pay equity sub-group and was being looked into by People and Culture director Annamarie Jamieson, a member of Stuff’s executive.
“Not only is it racist, it’s just f***ing annoying,” one source at the publisher told Weekes.
In a statement, Stuff said: “We want Stuff to be a place where all views are heard and discussed and we acknowledge feedback from some of our staff on this matter.
“The purpose of the daily stand-up is to bring all staff together to share information and ideas. The gong is used as a way to signal it’s time to come together.
“We looked into this carefully prior to it being introduced however we’re open to working with our staff on a new way to call people together.”
Jamieson wrote into the internal Slack channel on Wednesday, shortly after Herald inquiries: “We did carefully look into the appropriateness of the gong before we started using it and afterwards, and were reassured it was an appropriate way to bring people together.”
She asked staff for alternative suggestions as to how they could be called to the meeting.
One insider said on Thursday: “They ditched the gong this morning, must’ve been rattled by the blow-up yesterday. [Chief Content Officer] Jo Norris played Solar Power instead and said it was about bringing people together which is what Lorde wants to do.”
Is the use of a meeting gong culturally inappropriate?
“I would say the management should listen to the sensitivities of the staff that are concerned,” Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon told Weekes. “Would a dog whistle be appropriate?”
Dr Danping Wang, senior lecturer of Chinese at the University of Auckland, said the device’s deployment at Stuff might be more annoying than racist.
Gongs were typically used for major symbolic events or blessings, or to launch a new business, Wang said.
Foon said all companies should be mindful of “cultural IQ” and ensure staff who had concerns about culturally sensitive practices to be heard.
He added: “Different cultures have different ceremonial practices and some of the practices, like the gong ... are sensitive for uses that are mostly ceremonial. It’s inappropriate to whistle to try to get all your staff together.”
Newsroom farewells can be awkward affairs. Some of them can drag on if they’re not carefully managed - it’s often best to avoid chapter-and-verse speeches that outline a journalist’s glorious, should-have-won-a-Voyager-Award greatest hits. Most people are either itching to get to the pub, or back to their keyboard to meet the next deadline.
I recall one farewell where an outgoing, highly experienced journalist gave me a swipe on the direction of the newsroom while I served as managing editor. He probably made some fair points but it was a somewhat perplexing comment because he had earlier thanked me over email for the “amazing job” keeping the ship afloat in journalism’s “existential crisis”.
Thankfully, none of the farewells in my time have disintegrated into name-calling and defamation lawsuits like this one in the United States.
This week, the Herald’s Katie Harris broke the story of Cabinet Minister Kiri Allan apologising for comments she made during a farewell for her fiancée Māni Dunlop, who left RNZ last week, following a terrific career at the state broadcaster, most recently as Midday Report presenter.
More than 50 people were present, in person and virtually, as Allan - by all accounts - gave a provocative, pointed speech about the public broadcaster’s culture and its treatment of Māori reporters. She has subsequently apologised, given her role as a Cabinet Minister, and the perception she might be trying to influence RNZ on the management of staff or the company.
The events raise questions about why it took another media outlet and reporter – Harris – to break the story, when there were so many RNZ editorial leaders and staff present. It wasn’t until after Harris’ story broke that RNZ followed up with an article of its own, by political editor Jane Patterson. That story gave slightly more detail about what Allan said.
Radio New Zealand chief executive Paul Thompson is also the company’s editor-in-chief - a dual role that requires some very careful balance. (Every other major media outlet in New Zealand, including TVNZ, has these roles separated).
In a statement, Thompson said the RNZ event was “intended to be a private farewell attended by not only kaimahi [staff] but friends and whānau. People spoke on that basis”.
“It’s important to RNZ’s culture to listen to our kaimahi, which includes being more reflective of Te Ao Māori and upholding tikanga. Part of this was the free and frank exchange of information in a marae-style format. This is something RNZ has done in the past and will do again. It was a wero for us all, a time to acknowledge someone who has given a lot to RNZ and our audiences. As a responsible employer, RNZ must have confidence that free and frank conversations with kaimahi are not assumed to be in the public domain. This would stifle conversations essential for a positive working relationship.”
The comment, however, doesn’t address the fact that Allan is not a staff member and indeed holds a very powerful position - as Andrew Little noted this week, you’re a Cabinet Minister wherever you go. “That’s the way people see you and when I am in the supermarket people stop and talk to me - I am a minister when they are talking to me regardless,” Little said on Newstalk ZB. “We’ve all got to bear that in mind.”
I asked Thompson why RNZ had reported some of Allan’s comments in their follow-up article, but not all of them. Surely the company views them as private and off the record - or not.
“This is a classic reflection of the division of our editorial roles and important responsibility to our people. In reporting on it our journalists are performing their role. Likewise, as CE, I also have the responsibility for the culture of our organisation and people’s wellbeing,” said Thompson.
He revealed RNZ was now “consulting attendees about releasing a transcript of the event. Again, they attended it on the basis it was private and would follow accepted tikanga principles.”
The big question is, when do news principles and public-interest issues challenge or override other considerations?
“This is not my first experience of managing these competing tensions over my nine years as CEO nor before in previous roles,” says Thompson. “I reiterate, I have to balance RNZ’s journalistic responsibilities to our audience but also prioritise the wellbeing of our kaimahi. It’s not a situation that is unique to RNZ. Decisions are made by NZ media companies all the time that balance conflicting demands.”
Thompson says nothing the minister said “will have an influence on how RNZ conducts itself. We remain robustly independent. We’re fairly robust people too.”
That robustness will certainly be helped by the big injection of public money announced by Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson yesterday - an annual increase of $25.7 million including $12m for RNZ to maintain public media services, $12m for a new digital platform and $1.7m for AM transmission.
Meanwhile, the drums are beating about Jackson’s makeover of the TVNZ board, with BusinessDesk’s Pattrick Smellie reporting Tracey Martin and Bailey Mackey as contenders for roles, including chair. Both were on the TVNZ-RNZ merger advisory board and are held in high regard by the Government. Equally interesting is who will take Simon Power’s role as CEO following his shock resignation, with RNZ’s Thompson a leading contender.
A week on from the closure of Today FM, and the lawyers are circling. MediaWorks is set to face legal action from various staff over the way it has handled the closure of the year-old station.
One high-profile victim, 9am-12pm host Duncan Garner, has said that, in his opinion, the process was a “fraud” and Media Insider understands legal action is imminent on several fronts from a number of individuals, including hosts, producers and journalists.
Among the legal avenues being pursued will be the consultation period - or lack thereof - that MediaWorks gave staff, hurt and humiliation complaints, lost wages and the legality of fixed-term contracts and related payouts.
“It was a fraud,” Garner said in an NBR video this week.
“The consultation lasted two hours. How are you meant to get together, and cover the coherent plan in two hours to save a station the board didn’t want to be saved. The board had made its mind up. They even put in the media pack that a new radio station would start on the frequency shortly. How do you have that as a solution when we might have had the solution if we were asked properly and had the time. Two hours?
“You can’t send your Aussie bankers over here and run roughshod over New Zealand workers. If you are going to do that, then you’ll run into the New Zealand law, and they might well do.”
In a statement earlier this week, MediaWorks’ board said it was unfortunate the events and process had played out in the media before staff had been told. “Clearly emotions were running high on Thursday and some of the Today FM team broke the news on air ahead of the planned announcement and meetings with the team. This was disappointing and certainly not what was planned.”
Garner said workers might well have had ideas that could have saved the brand. “Could Today FM have been saved if we went on a four-day week or a nine-day fortnight or a 10 per cent salary cut? I don’t know, we weren’t given a chance.”
Garner said he had filmed a trade marketing video for advertisers just days before the station closure, and he and breakfast host Tova O’Brien had been involved in a recent photo shoot for a new PR campaign.
“It’s appalling. We lost our jobs in front of the country, live. How that’s fair, reasonable, dignified and done in good faith is beyond me.”
TVNZ’s Mava Moayyed was happy to take part in some Twitter banter this week.
* Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
'I can imagine people being outraged that TVNZ signed a deal with me.'