The Chase NZ is coming - why TVNZ is focusing on Aussie-based contestants; Another broadcaster in mix for NZ Rugby rights; NZME board battle update; Departing NZ Herald political editor Claire Trevett on media, MPs, trust levels and the Jessica-Tova 1pm backlash; plus, who’s taking her job.
If ever there was an illustration of the financial challenges facing the media sector, it came in the form of TVNZ’s announcement this week of a special New Zealand edition of The Chase.
A Kiwi version of the series is a no-brainer, and good news for fans of the show. It should generate much advertiser and audience interest, especially given the ratings success of The Chase.
Two out of three New Zealanders watched the show at some stage last year – its phenomenal success gives TVNZ a huge lead-in audience to the still commercially critical 6pm TV news battle.
Chaser Shaun Wallace has drawn crowds on his several visits to New Zealand – I’ve been fortunate enough to interview both him, in person, and another of the Chasers, Mark Labbett, recently over Zoom.
But there are some upfront concessions in TVNZ’s release this week that indicate this is more of a toe-dipping exercise.
Firstly, there will be just four shows, meaning only 16 New Zealanders will make the final cut.
And TVNZ has stipulated that anyone fortunate enough to be selected as a contestant will have to pay for their own flights to Sydney, where the four shows will be filmed, and their accommodation.
It will certainly give contestants extra incentive to select the bigger, riskier cash prizes on offer during the show.
But there’s more.
On further examination, the application form for contestants has a strange question: It asks where a contestant is from originally in New Zealand, and how long they’ve lived in Australia.
TVNZ confirmed it is mainly focused on finding Kiwis now domiciled in Australia.
“We have the opportunity to film the series in ITV Australia’s studios,” said a TVNZ spokeswoman.
“It’s a tight turnaround and so from a cost and a logistics perspective, we’re predominantly looking for Aussie-based Kiwis.
“While the option to fit in with ITV Australia is for a four-episode run, if these primetime specials do well, we may look to take The Chase NZ further in the future.”
She said the casting call was focused on New Zealanders based in Australia for logistical reasons, “however, we will consider New Zealand-based contestants, too, if they’re able to make their own way to the production in Sydney – we’re hoping anyone quiz fit, keen and [who] could make their way over to Sydney for the filming [will] apply.”
Applications for the show close next month; production and screening dates have not been announced.
UK-based Chaser Anne Hegerty will be among a line-up of otherwise Australian-based Chasers. Surely, for the four New Zealand shows, Kiwis will get the chance to face Hegerty and not some random Australian.
TVNZ will have a New Zealand host for the four shows, but at this stage it’s not saying who.
“We’re in discussions with a Kiwi personality about hosting the series,” said the spokeswoman. “We’ll be announcing the name a little closer to production kicking off.”
Next Tuesday, NZ Herald political editor Claire Trevett leaves Parliament for the final time as a press gallery journalist after 18 years, having elected to take voluntary redundancy amid the recent restructuring of the NZME news operation.
On Wednesday night, she was honoured at a farewell function in the hallway of the parliamentary press gallery. Politicians from all sides of the house paid tribute, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Labour leader Chris Hipkins and NZ First deputy leader Shane Jones.
The speeches were witty and heartfelt. Luxon recalled being mystified by one of Trevett’s first questions to him as a National MP candidate, about whether he sniffed vegetables at the markets. The subsequent article – and why she asked that admittedly bizarre question – can be found here.
Jones, then a Labour MP, gave a mighty impression of former Prime Minister Helen Clark, who summoned him to her 9th-floor Beehive office after some off-the-cuff remarks in a Trevett story.
In the audience were NZ First leader Winston Peters, Act leader David Seymour and Greens co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson.
On Thursday afternoon, Finance Minister Nicola Willis sought leave to move a motion in the House to acknowledge Trevett’s service in the press gallery.
“I move that this House note with regret the retirement of Ms Claire Trevett, noting her 18 years of service in the press gallery, including most recently as the NZ Herald’s political editor, noting that Ms Trevett is known across this house for her integrity, her tough but fair approach, her acerbic and irreverent wit, and her unerring ability to see the politicians as human beings even through the fog of day-to-day politics.
“She has observed our foibles and our failings with appropriate irreverence and acknowledging that Ms Trevett will be missed by members present and past from across this house, we wish her well.”
Willis’ motion was met with widespread applause from all corners of the debating chamber and left Trevett in tears.
The Herald announced internally this week that Trevett’s deputy, Thomas Coughlan, would replace her as political editor, with Adam Pearse stepping up as Coughlan’s deputy.
Media Insider considered it time, in light of Trevett’s impending departure, to turn the tables and quiz her on a range of topics in relation to political journalism – some heavy, some a little lighter.
Media Insider: Right, Claire, let’s get started. How are you finding your final days at Parliament? In that well-worn yet effective question, how are you feeling?
Claire Trevett: Oh, it’s been a bit of a turbulent time on the old emotional front I have to admit – been a few tears because I’m leaving a lot of big families all at once – the Herald after 23 years, the press gallery after 18 and also wider Parliament where I’ve managed to gather a fair few good friends. So it’s quite discombobulating.
MI: I bet. You’ll have noticed some big changes in more than two decades. How would you summarise the state of political journalism?
CT: Yeah, I was reflecting on that the other day. When I started, we pretty much had one deadline and only worried about stories that would have space to run in the paper. That meant only bigger stories got covered. These days there is a lot – a lot! – more of the quick turnaround stuff. The advent of livestreaming has also changed the game a lot. There’s a lot more instant filing. That is good in terms of getting information in front of eyeballs. But not so good in that in the olden days, a story would have all the elements added to it before it was published. So political journalism has changed a lot accordingly.
MI: I was in two minds about the livestreaming of the press conferences. Great in terms of hearing important public information first-hand, but a worry if they started becoming party political broadcasts. Then there was the whole “sausage factory” phenomenon and the impact that had on reporters. Did you cop as much abuse in those days as, say, Jessica or Tova?
CT: Yes, the party political broadcast thing is sometimes an issue. To be honest, I also used to worry about the risk of defamation – for example, when you’re livestreaming someone who is getting stuck into someone else and making accusations or allegations. (I’m thinking of the Jami-Lee Ross standup here).
As for the sausage factory thing, I’ve also been reflecting on that. Because it was over Covid-19 that the media really came to be seen as something of “the enemy” to some. In my view, it had a big impact on trust and confidence in the media, that era, partly because we were livestreaming screeds of government information day after day.
And yes, it did have a big impact on the journalists. There has been a lot of recognition that politicians are public figures of late, and get subjected to abuse in the streets and so on. But a fair few media are also public figures.
It’s just that politicians are public figures who talk about themselves, and the media are public figures whose job it is to report on other public figures – not themselves.
Their name or face is attached to the story because that’s part of being accountable for that story, and that should be the way. But they are still public figures and we all get the vile and abusive feedback, the scrutiny, and yelling and abuse at public gatherings. It’s 100 times worse for the television reporters, whose faces are known fairly widely. They all have horror stories about it, and I’ve seen them get yelled at and abused outside party conferences and so on. Ditto for camera people. It’s a lot easier with the anonymity of print, especially if your photo byline is years old.
The whole Tova-Jessica thing wasn’t a joke. Some in the public seemed to see it as reflecting a cosy relationship with Jacinda Ardern. It wasn’t that way at all – it was her way of trying to control the press conference.
I don’t want to speak for them here – I’m pretty sure they just want it to disappear into the rearview mirror – but it was pretty horrible. It wasn’t something they or we asked for, or liked, and I think it made them targets – people seemed to think it made it okay to openly abuse them.
MI: Has it [the shifting emphasis of reporters’ duties] meant less time for deeper analysis/investigative work?
CT: Less time for investigative work for the main press gallery team, yes. But we do have our dedicated crew of the likes of Audrey Young and Derek Cheng, and Thomas Coughlan is good at digging into details. I mean, the Herald paywall has actually helped bolster that because it gives it good placement and makes that stuff worth doing – and has also meant we do have the dedicated crew. It’s more the impact on coverage of daily news. It basically means that we rely on press releases a lot more for the first takes of developing stories rather than interviews which can turn up interesting angles or information.
I have to admit I’ve always been fascinated by what you might call “the game” of it. The actual politics, the people involved and working out what drives them and why they are taking a particular stance. The foibles and ambitions of politicians have always fascinated me. They’re an intriguing pack of characters.
MI: Who’s been the best/most media-savvy MP to deal with in your time ... and the worst?
CT: Let’s see. Of the Prime Ministers, John Key was probably the most media-savvy. He knew the importance of building a relationship with the key press gallery people and he had a good instinct for what the media wanted – from playing up by doing goofy stuff or making a funny quip for the colour/lighter pieces, to his ability to speak with gravitas on the economy.
Being able to speak naturally and confidently about the economy is perhaps the most important skill for a Prime Minister – it’s a massive advantage because when push comes to shove, it is all about the economy. And if the PM sounds like they know what they’re talking about, it does a lot to make them look competent and confident.
Of the more recent lot, Shane Jones has always been good in the media – he knows how and when to apologise (he’s had a fair bit of practice) and how to get media interested in a story. His humour helps. Simeon Brown and Chris Bishop are also good at working with the media and hustling to get stories going.
The worst ones – hmmmm – I might take a pass on that.
MI: Oh come on!
CT: Just look at Audrey’s “brickbat” in her weekly newsletter – she calls them out for you.
MI: Talking of Audrey, you two have had quite the partnership. When Barry Soper was political editor of Newstalk ZB I called you the A B C of political journalism – what a team. What’s one of your favourite “inside” stories of your own team, or of running the political gallery?
CT: Yes, Audrey and I have worked together for the whole 18 years I’ve been here. She pretty much forged me and beat me into shape in the earlier years and has been a massive support for me since. I still get her counsel on complicated issues, and Auds will always be my boss in my head. She’s very much a force of nature; she also has a good sense of humour and still sees the funny side of politics and enjoys watching younger journalists who bring a bit of hunger or chippiness into the game.
Anyone who’s worked in the Herald’s gallery office knows of the measures she goes to to protect anything that might be a scoop: the press gallery offices are all based down a long hallway so your rivals are always walking past. Audrey’s practice is to ring people, put her hand over her mouth and whisper into the phone lest anyone overhear her. She will also wave frantically at any other reporter who she thinks is talking loudly enough on the phone to be overheard from outside. If it’s a BIG scoop, the office door gets shut. So whenever any gallery office door is shut, the other media outlets start to panic about what scoop they have. Sometimes we shut the office doors just to cry wolf – and then time how long it is before another journalist texts one of us to ask if we have a scoop.
MI: What’s been your own favourite story?
CT: I can’t really pick one. I always enjoyed doing the deep-dive backgrounders, and the fun ones – like the colour profiles or days on the campaign – because I have a love of the absurd and there’s so much of that in politics. I also have great memories of some overseas trips, like to Iraq – trips to places you wouldn’t necessarily take yourself to.It’s not all serious and most politicians have some humour in them.
I can tell you the ones that most affected me most.
The hardest on the heart was the mosque attacks. I remember looking over at one of my colleagues during Jacinda Ardern’s press conference in the Beehive Theatrette and he had tears running down his cheeks.
Journalists are used to distancing themselves from a story they’re covering. And I managed to do that during the working day over that initial week, but I’d go home at night and watch the coverage on the BBC or CNN and it seemed so surreal and raw that I’d bawl my eyes out.
The hardest on the stamina and sanity was Covid-19. It really sucked the joy of the job out of me, to be honest, and I never fully regained it. It was just unrelenting and the division and anger that built up really worried me. You could see it happening, I guess the culmination was in those protests outside Parliament.
It still worries me now, because that division and anger have a very long tail and hit trust and confidence in both politicians and the media.
MI: How do you feel about the public’s trust levels in MPs and the media – can they be rebuilt? How?
CT: It’s the most worrying I’ve known it to be and, again, has been since Covid. It doesn’t help that some of the political players choose to try to stoke the fires for their own political gains, regardless of whether it’s justified. That’s been an increasing problem and will worsen as the election looms because it plays well for them on social media.
On issues that are sensitive, we also need to make cool, calm and considered decisions on what to cover and whether to cover something, and be aware of the risk of ending up being pressured into it because of a firestorm on social media or from political quarters.
People tend to see anything they don’t agree with as a trust and confidence issue and politically there is a fair bit of division. One sign of that is in the higher proportion of the vote that the smaller parties have compared with in the past: those parties used to struggle to hit 5% and now they’re all pretty much closer to 10%.
The two “centre” parties have less of the vote between them.
But the main responsibility is, of course, on ourselves in the media. I don’t think there is a quick fix, to be honest: I think it’s a matter of acknowledging it and sticking assiduously to what have always been core tenets of journalism: balance and a straight bat when it comes to reporting on facts, and being eyes open on all sides of an issue.
Equally important, when there is a stuff-up on that front being able to genuinely hold ourselves to account for it and trying to rectify it.
MI: And finally, what lies ahead for you? What’s the first thing you’ll do on Wednesday morning next week when you realise you don’t need to head into Parliament?
CT: Irons in the fire, Shayne, irons in the fire
A fourth broadcaster is in the mix as NZ Rugby continues to hammer out a new TV rugby rights deal from next year.
The odds of Sky TV renewing its existing rights appear to have shortened, with sources saying the parties are hopeful a new deal will be announced by the middle of the year.
This is despite Sky TV offering significantly less – reportedly $85 million a year, instead of the existing $111m a year deal – and the presence of three other potential broadcasters competing for at least a slice of the action.
Media Insider understands that alongside the London-based streaming service DAZN and TVNZ, another potential broadcaster, Warner Bros Discovery – which owns Three – is also in the mix.
The deal could still fall several ways, but it looks increasingly likely Sky is the frontrunner to secure the top-level rights – including All Blacks and Super Rugby – while a free-to-air broadcaster such as TVNZ and Three could benefit from some of those matches being earmarked for simultaneous or slightly delayed screening.
TVNZ and Three might also be keen to secure live coverage rights of lower-tier games such as selected NPC (National Provincial Championship) matches.
Sky is understood to be happy to leave the NPC out of the equation – those matches are costly to produce with smaller audiences and commercial returns. But that wouldn’t stop TVNZ or Three from introducing a lower-cost model (such as having fewer cameras) and benefiting from having live sport.
NZR would not comment.
A Sky spokeswoman said: “You won’t be surprised to hear we have no comment to make on the NZ Rugby negotiations.”
The company is said to be in “constructive dialogue” with NZR.
It has also confirmed it’s open to not having exclusivity over all the Sanzaar (South African, New Zealand and Australian Rugby) rights, “as we need a deal that makes sense financially and is sustainable for Sky and for our customers (in terms of what they are willing to pay)”.
A TVNZ spokeswoman said: “We’re in direct discussions with New Zealand Rugby. Our viewers love rugby, so we are open to any and all options. No further comment at this stage.”
A Warner Bros Discovery spokeswoman said: “We have a strong sport offering across sailing and motorsport, and are always looking to expand this with sports that New Zealanders love. However, we do not comment on speculation or topics deemed commercially sensitive.”
Meanwhile, across the Ditch, Rugby Australia has managed to secure more funding in a new five-year rugby broadcast rights deal.
Nine Entertainment has formally signed a new deal valued at $A43m a year in cash and free advertising, the Nine-owned Sydney Morning Herald reported this week. That is an increase of about $13m a year on the existing deal.
Nine’s streaming service Stan would screen all Wallabies and Super Rugby games liveas part of the new arrangement. At the moment, one Super Rugby game is shown on free-to-air television each week in Australia – this is no longer guaranteed under the new deal from 2026.
The newspaper reported that this “will no doubt spark debate in the game about the merits of exposing the game to wider audiences”.
There is another intriguing angle, with the SMH reporting that new incentives have been built into the new deal, based on the success of Australian teams.
“RA could also pocket significant extra cash if the Wallabies and men’s teams in Super Rugby Pacific win more games...
“The Australian Financial Review reported RA could bank more than $30 million extra over five years if the success targets are met, which can presumably turn bigger interest levels and higher ratings into more subscription and advertising revenues.”
Is that a potential new model for Sky and NZR as well?
We are still 53 days from NZME’s annual shareholders meeting – D-Day for the company and its future shape and direction – but the developments and headlines have continued to move quickly this week.
A vocal shareholder, Roger Colman, has withdrawn his support for Auckland businessman Jim Grenon’s planned board refresh, citing concerns about a lack of media experience in Grenon’s team. But Grenon, who holds 9.97% of the company, has hit back strongly at Colman and his comments.
A former top news media executive, Rick Neville, has voiced his own concerns about the move and its potential impact on editorial independence, sentiments that have been previously raised by NZME chair Barbara Chapman and the journalists’ union E tū.
The Australian Financial Review this week delved into the attempted board makeover, with the headline, ‘Inside the attempted coup gripping New Zealand’s media’. And The Australian reported last night that the NZME board was enlisting the services of UBS Bank to give it advice.
An NZME shareholder and Grenon backer last night encouraged those with strong opinions to buy into the company and vote.
Caniwi Capital chair Troy Bowker, whose company and nominee accounts hold just over 3.5% of NZME, said in an email to the Herald: “The issue with these non-playing characters with opinions is that none of them appear to be shareholders who can vote.”
They were all entitled to their opinions, he said, but if they really cared about NZME, they would be buying shares.
“The upcoming AGM is an opportunity for shareholders to vote to appoint the board. It happens for every listed company in the world once a year. I encourage the current board and other non-playing characters with strong opinions to become shareholders and vote so they can put ‘their money where their mouth is’ as they say.
“[NZME chief executive] Michael Boggs has approximately three million shares earned via a generous incentive plan, so he, of course, is also entitled to vote, but the other board members have virtually none.”
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.Financia
Improvements for each outlet but the media industry still has a job to rebuild trust.