The basics of journalism need cash
The recent fuss over Broadcasting Minister Clare Curran and her meeting with RNZ’s head of content Carol Hirschfeld should make us all pause for thought.
And not so much about Curran or Hirschfeld. Few people would understand why they should not meet for breakfast at the Astoria Cafe. That the staff of a Government-funded but independent radio station are obliged to conduct themselves in a certain way is lost on many.
Most would understand why Hirschfeld had to be sacked after she misled her bosses. It is lamentable she has not come forward with a public explanation. As journalists we expect people to comment even when the going gets tough. Journalists should extend the same courtesy to the public.
The real question is how this Government should spend the extra $38 million it has earmarked for broadcasting. It intends to apportion the funds between RNZ and NZ On Air for ‘‘quality’’ local programming and public interest and investigative journalism.
RNZ is expected to become a multi-platform operation that includes a free-to-air noncommercial television service. RNZ+, as it is being called, will expand content for children, Pasifika and other ethnic groups and people with disabilities.
‘‘Labour also recognises that as a nation we also need to be able to tell our stories, including those of our diverse communities,’’ the policy vision goes. Maybe it is not too late to reconsider.
I have no problem with more money for RNZ. Its news services have been transformed and more cash means better gear, more journalists and more coverage.
But why does RNZ need a television channel to fulfil its functions? Television is old thinking. RNZ has a website and websites, given enough funding, can do most things pretty well.
The extra Government money should be going to radio programmes and more visual content for the RNZ website. We shouldn’t forget that RNZ is competing for listeners, readers and viewers with Stuff and NZ Herald websites without having to turn a buck like the latter two.
If the Government is determined on TV, it already owns a couple of channels that could be turned into a free-to-air vehicles providing targeted content, documentaries, intelligent drama, news and current affairs. RNZ has enough to do without being saddled with a medium in which it has no experience.
But in all this, something is being forgotten. The whole idea behind Labour’s broadcasting strategy is to improve coverage of New Zealand stories.
We all agree such coverage is vital for a functioning democracy and in holding people to account.
Where that coverage is slipping, often into non-existence, is at the bedrock level of journalism. This is the non-glamorous reporting of councils, boards, police activities, committees, schools, hospitals, meetings, hearings and local sport.
This reporting, the best forum for which is still often the local rag, is the seedbed of bigger things in journalism. People forget how reliant television and radio are on the basic reporting done by what used to be called the print media.
Investigative journalism is great but without having reliable monitors on the great braided institutions of an open and free society, that journalism relies too much on contacts and selfinterested tips.
If Labour wants to help journalism service the country’s diverse communities and to tell New Zealand stories, it needs to ensure the fundamentals are in good order. The fundamentals have suffered most from the broken model of advertisingfunded journalism. If Labour’s goal is a more engaged and better informed community, it might be better funding skilled journalists working for credible news organs to deliver the fundamentals rather than the frills.
I’m the first to recognise that this sounds worthy and a bit dull. But it doesn’t need to be that way. Your local rag doesn’t need to be made from poor quality cloth.
With journalism, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding can’t always be measured by clicks. I’m not sure how taxpayer money should be injected into the fundamentals or how we ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money. Maybe the Government needs to own a string of independent newspaper/website operations that must be run according to a watertight charter.
There can be no argument that public money needs to go into the journalism that cannot be sustained by a commercial component. The money should go to plugging the gaps, of which there are many.
The biggest gap is not in news services for minorities. The most glaring gap is the reporting of institutions and events that bind us all into a community, no matter how large or small or diverse.
Your local rag doesn’t need to be made from poor quality cloth.