KEY POINTS:
What is the state of the news media in New Zealand?
Dr Judy McGregor
First, can I congratulate the organisers of this two-day hui which I understand is the first of its kind for twenty years in a bid to reclaim journalism as communication of consequence. Fifteen years ago in 1992 in the foreword to Whose News? Margie Comrie and I wrote:
The news media are dangerously under-debated in New Zealand society. There is a worrying absence of critical scrutiny about such issues as ownership and control, the role of the news media, what values they employ and the relationship between politics and the news media.
We went on to say that the silence was aided and abetted by a rather thin-skinned news media.
It is fitting, too, that the union, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) is behind the summit. It is organised labour and collective power that has a continuing role in defending freedom of expression and protecting the rights of journalists as workers.
Union vigilance has never been more important. Witness APNs outsourcing of subbing and layout for its daily newspapers, community publications and magazines. Simon Collins, the New Zealand Heralds Journalists Collective delegate, who gave voice to this issue with an on-stage protest at the Qantas awards, describes sub-editors as the second line of defence for the Journalist Code of Ethics.
Amnesty Internationals slogan recently for Freedom Week was Make Some Noise. It is time journalists made some noise, not just because they are self-interested parties, but because reporters, sub editors, photographers, camera operators and presenters must more confidently and consistently defend journalism as the dialogue of democracy, as American academic Paul Taylor called it. No one else will.
Whats happening?
There are shifting tectonic plates under the New Zealand news media. There is seismic activity across the demography, the technology and the economy of the media with journalism at the epicentre. Every time there is a tremor within news media ownership or technological development, the aftershocks buffet journalism.
Not all of the seismic activity is causing us to worry about the future of news, of course. Some of the newer media, whether it be different forms of old media, such as Chinese television channels, or newer me media where sources can be publishers and where citizens can be journalists, are forms of information distribution that may not cause faultlines.
I dont want to drudge through a depressing roll call of layoffs, such as TVNZs recent cull, buyouts like private equity investor Ironbridges purchase of CanWest, or cost cutting through subbery outsourcing. These will come up during the weekend and be debated.
We are all aware, too, of the slippage in audience ratings and circulations of the old media and the cost-cutting pressures this puts on news processes at a time when the new media is faster and doesnt have the same cost-structures, even if some of it isnt yet profitable or even sensible.
For those of you who have not seen it, Bill Rosenbergs paper on News Media Ownership in New Zealand provides a descriptive and analytical overview that is useful about the changing mediascape.
In my time today I want to:
comment on the trifecta of technology, demography and the economy of the New Zealand media
talk about whether New Zealand journalism promotes a genuine competition of ideas and opinion
and pose the question, what is it we want from New Zealand journalism, before suggesting my own idiosyncratic answers.
Youll get your chance later!
I have shamelessly pinched some ideas from friends and family. If you recognise one thats yours, consider this as source acknowledgement.
Given the current brouhaha about conflict of interest, I want to disclose that I am married to a spin doctor.
Lets take technology first
The continuing oscillation of the new media and the old media has journalists worried about the unpredictability of new technology, the pace of change and the requirement for dual delivery and hybrid forms.
Journalists are anxious about their response plans and the new levels of digital literacy required by some old dogs, whose first loves are those of words, ideas interviews and civilised conversations rather than formats, platforms and gadgets.
A legitimate concern for journalists is that every women and her dog can say whatever they like without fear of repercussion and often with even less risk of adding to meaningful debate, in new media formats. Accessibility is the plus, quality of content is the challenge.
Anxiety over new media versus old has also spawned a ghastly new language such as remediation and disintermediated news.
The least satisfactory aspect of the debate about new media versus old media is the certainty of doomsayers that the new will kill off the old. For example, the editor of the Conservative party website, Tim Montgomerie, writing in The Spectator last month that the next British election will be won and lost on the internet, predicts most print newspapers will have closed by 2025.
This prognosis not only offends against mainstream journalism as we know it, but also against consumer reality.
Most people use both, if not daily, then regularly whether they be internet news services that largely replicate conventional print and broadcast models or whether they be the raw news model like Newsroom and Scoop.
For example, in examining what National leader John Key really did say to the New Zealand Herald about his support for the compromise proposal on a transtasman therapeutics agency, I read the New Zealand Herald story in both hard copy and on the website. Then I read with interest the National Party's press statement off a website, then with heightened anticipation I read New Zealand Political Editor Audrey Youngs blog entitled, Im bloody angry with Key, to which the majority of respondent bloggers said they didn't give a toss.
Journalism professor, Roy Greenslade, resorted to conjugal metaphors when he was here recently stating that his enduring relationships with daily broadsheets was a comfortable marriage while his growing reliance on the web was an extra-marital affair.
The current state of media flux signals a future of multi platforms for the distribution of news and information requiring digital age skills. It poses new ethical challenges, such as political journalists with their own blogs criticising sources, a development that needs much more discussion in the New Zealand context.
The transition also challenges traditional thinking about who gathers the news and how. Reuters had 2300 journalists and 1000 stringers worldwide when the Indian Ocean tsunami hit but none of them were on the beaches to witness the disaster. Reuters Chief Executive, Tom Glocer, told the Online Publishers Association, that amateurs filled the void. For the first 24 hours the best and only photos and video came from tourists armed with 1.3 megapixel portable telephones, digital cameras and camcorders and if you didn't have those pictures you weren't on the story.
There is one thing the new/old media confusion doesn't radically change and that is the central purpose of journalism- cutting to the bone, identifying reliable and informed sources, and producing quality news, information and commentary.
We cant blame amateurs or technology for dull, sloppy, complacent journalism-we can only blame ourselves.
Moving to the second leg of the trifecta, demography.
Disinterested youth are one of the usual suspects in the blame game about falling ratings and circulation slides.
In my day as an editor Murdoch's board harped on about including school results in sports sections. Youth demographic pressures are even stronger now, connected to increasing commercial pressures and advertising.
I have never believed that young people are uninterested in news. But I do think that they, and others, are dissatisfied with what is chosen as news, which is quite another matter. An American study by Northwestern Universitys Media Management Center said that what people wanted as first and second choices were 1. stories about ordinary people 2. stories about how I fit into my community. Crime stories came in at 8th place, and sport at 9th.
Imagine if we asked media savvy young people to design a daily newspaper bottom up. Would they reserve two pages every day for yesterdays stock exchange listings which are available on the web and a further two pages for horse racing? (There were 13 tabloid pages of race form in the NZ Heralds sport/racing insert) Would they defy commercial logic and print ten letters only while telling fifty other subscribers their points have been noted?
Youth are only part of the demography problem for the New Zealand mainstream media. In the 2006 Census nearly a third of all New Zealander's identified as being of Maori, Pacific Island and Asian descent. Whether you use the Journalism Training Organisations 2006 survey or James Holling's interrogation of the 2006 NZ Census data, the results are embarrassing. Either 81 per cent or 83 per cent of journalists are European/Pakeha depending on which data is used. The proportion of Maori, Pacific Island and Asian in newsrooms is pitifully low and this has been a structural, systemic problem for decades.
Fairfax deserves kudos for the composition of its first journalism intern scheme with five Maori, one Chinese and one Pacific Islander chosen in the first intake of 17 from 230 applicants. A job for the incoming Journalism Training Organisation chief executive should be an audit of the 11 journalism schools in New Zealand by diversity of selection. Waiariki and the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) may be the only schools to pass.
The composition of journalism has resulted in the Maori news is bad news syndrome noted by researchers such as Emeritus Professor Ranginui Walker, Derek Fox, the late Michael King, Gary Wilson, and others in the past 30 years.
Is Asian news now following the same pattern? North and Souths magazine cover story Asian Angst written by former Act MP Deborah Coddington, whipped the blankets off the Press Council who found reportorial failure in relation to accuracy and discrimination.
Asian angst also revealed a repugnant editorial rationale. ACPs group manager said the magazine had always been provocative and the Press Council decision was igniting interest in the title. In a spirited column on media ethics at the crossroads, Press columnist Simon Cunliffe stated:
How revealing. No matter how wrong, contemptible or just plan ignorant your article might have been, if it was raising the profile of the magazine, then it was justified? Come again?
The representation of ethnicity and diversity in the mainstream media defies business case arguments and represents a faultline in New Zealand journalism, one of its own making.
The third leg, the economy of the news media.
The third leg of the trifecta, the economy of the news media in New Zealand is perhaps the most complex and warrants serious debate this weekend. It has been characterised in New Zealand by very few restrictions on cross media ownership, increasing overseas concentration of ownership, plus the fallout from de-regulation. All of these have led to increased homogenisation of content including shared copy, and commodification of news as a product.
Conglomerate gobble-up has been accompanied in New Zealand by the development of a parallel universe with new rival niche market players, some of them state-funded like M?ori Television Service, the 21 iwi stations, and the Pacific network. New commercially based ethnic broadcasters largely serving Auckland, and community stations elsewhere, plus a uniquely cluttered radio spectrum means there is probably more media overall for every New Zealander than almost anywhere else in the developed world.
The question that bedevils us because there are no easy answers is simple: is great journalism compatible with good business in the context of the current media market place? Its a question the United States media watch group, the Aspen Institute, asked recently. It came to the cautious conclusion that substantive reporting and corporate performance can co-exist but only if the news media was prepared to downgrade their greed projections and puncture complacency- the industrys ingrained toxins.
At random and because it is accessible, Ive picked commentary in the New Zealand press to examine whether commercialism is defeating the competition of ideas and the contest of opinion. Ive used a completely unscientific methodology- trawling- and if something didnt excite me in the first three pars I gave up.
I eliminated business sections from my trawl on the basis that no financial journalist to my knowledge warned mum and dad investors about Bridgecorp even though they subsequently smugly tell us they all knew about Rod Petricevic.
The Business Herald yesterday asked where the buck stopped?
Here are my observations on current column activity and commentary in the New Zealand press:
I wonder just how often Colin James has been right with his political prediction or analysis in the past 20 years?
Can we imagine how badly Auckland might be run without Brian Rudman?
Surely there is a C+ essay for a history student identifying the recurring revisionism of Michael Bassett?
How many columns do grumpy hacks like Richard Long and Karl du Fresne have to write to keep them in vintage port?
Would life be poorer without the collective irritations of Rosemary McLeod, Martin Van Beynen, and the hyperbolic Michael Laws?
Isnt it comforting to be able to kick start or affirm your own thinking by reading Tapu Misa and Finlay MacDonald?
When I think of holier than thou, why does the name Garth George come to mind?
Has anyone calculated how many personal pronouns Chris Trotter uses in a year?
My verdict on the current state of commentary is one of cautious optimism. There is a wide spread of column opinion to the left and the right of the political spectrum some of it elegantly written, some of it silly, some of it vain, some of it sensible. While commentary may not be earth shattering in consequence, columns reveal what agendas have been set for public debate and challenge, reinforce or reify how readers should think about those issues. It was Aristotle that told us soft ground shakes more than hard rock in an earthquake.
The press commentary is predominantly written by men. Im nervous about shared columns in regional media, of course, because that limits the number of new voices that can push in to participate, and reduces the opportunity for local talent and for local subject matter. But on the whole, New Zealand press columnists are neither timid nor tepid and nor are they anonymous.
One last word on columns. If I have to read another self promotion of his bird book by Steve Braunias, Ill take the bell off the cat.
So what do we want from journalism?
When Truth was sold recently, the old master of tabloid journalism, Alan Hitchens, looked at the first edition under new ownership. He was asked if Truth would survive. He said it would if it was what the punters wanted.
So what do we as punters want?
Heres my list and you will all have your own.
1. I want to be proud of journalism because it does the job.
More power to the American television newscaster for MSNBC who repeatedly set alight and shredded news stories about Paris Hilton and refused to read them out.
Where is she for Millie Elder, the medias deification of David Bain, and seven-legged lambs?
2. I want journalism that is cheeky, brave and a surprise. Because we are assaulted by a blizzard of information in every time-deficited day, there is no return on formulaic predictability which results in tune out and turn-off. Does anyone have time for an hour of television news, a structure dictated by commercialism and dominated by padding?
3. I want journalism that occasionally tackles big ideas even if editors come a cropper. In Samuel Becketts words, Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
4. I want journalism that is capable of humour. Is the filming of somnolent politicians to be our only satirical highlight? Are there others who lament the apparent passing of the searingly good New Zealand cartoonist?
5. I want political journalism that gets beyond group-think, the mini-scandal, the cellphone, the politically-motivated OIA drop, and Investigate magazine.
6. I want journalism that exposes humbug wherever it lurks in political and public life, and in corporate speech, even down to how many vitamin C enriched blackcurrants there really are in a Ribena bottle. Journalism blames the imbalance of resources between the spin industry and the news media for the current state of affairs. But does the media industry adequately invest in senior journalists so they don't go over to the dark side to pay the mortgage? Are newsroom cultures such that senior journalists feel valued?
7. I want journalism to be able to criticise itself. I was once dumped by a Listener editor who said no one in New Zealand was interested in media analysis. He lasted only a little time himself. We can be thankful for Radio New Zealands commitment to Media Watch, for Radio Lives newer commitment and to all those who print regular media analysis. We can continue to be disappointed about televisions enduring indifference to a dedicated media watch programme.
8. I want more debate about journalism ethics, including the invidious creep of self censorship. I'm hoping that the Press Councils recent review is a sign that the Council wants to become a more credible regulator. Now we have 11 journalism schools is there is room for an accessible annual state-of-the-media review with public and practitioner appeal as well as academic rigour?
9. I want regional news rather than homogenised DomPress product. It was not many years ago that a former editor of The Press, Binnie Lock, refused to sell his political coverage to stable mates on the basis that it would be like giving up a bit of ourselves. I want local news from community newspapers dedicated to more than DVD reviews.
10. I want internet journalism and blogs that are not witless, desk bound, full of self indulgent me, me, me. I want the new media to be able to promote and defend themselves on the basis of utility and relevance rather than just being the fastest draw in town. Ironically, perhaps the best blogger in New Zealand, Russell Brown of Public Address, uses old-fashioned journalistic techniques such as research to underpin a point of view.
11. I want good news and bad news about Maori and from Maori journalists. I want good news and bad news about the Pacific, too, news that is gathered both here and there and is more than coconuts, cyclones and coups. Television New Zealands commitment through Barbara Dreaver should be matched by TV3. Fairfax has the redoubtable veteran, Michael Field, while Radio New Zealand International is in a league of its own. The Waikato Times this year began a weekly Pacific column, well done.
12. I want strong public interest service broadcasting even if the price of that is waking up each morning to Sean berating the world for not answering the question.
I'm sure you will have your top twelve, too.
Agenda for Change
In conclusion I would like to thank you for the opportunity to share some ideas with you this morning. It was an honour to have been asked. I very much hope the next two days involve everyone asking the hard questions. Personally, I would like this summit to have an outcome. I would like to see a concluding statement or a communiqué with new ideas, shared conclusions and perhaps strategies for action that will create public interest in helping journalism matter.
Various sectors of the journalism community this week committed to an annual political scholarship for an emerging journalist in tribute to veteran wordsmith Ian Templetons 50 years in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. It has been a good week for reclaiming journalism.
It would be a lost opportunity if this weekends spirited and robust debate was a private conversation and a talkfest, however stimulating, without traction. Journalism will only matter if those that do it and love it protect its integrity. With apologies to Amnesty, I urge you to Make Some Noise.
