TVNZ-RNZ merger could yield monolithic monster
Proposal doesn’t fit sector’s priority for plurality of voices
LI doubt this merger would pass Commerce Commission scrutiny if it was a private enterprise.
ike us, our politicians have been taking time out to have a well-earned break, before what is likely to be a rollercoaster of an election year. Before they went away, the Prime Minister asked the Labour Cabinet to think about priorities for 2023. Both personally and professionally, I have found it is usually better to focus on doing less, doing it better and doing it faster.
Over summer I listened to the Brene Brown podcasts where she chats with James Clear, author of Atomic Habits. The discussion about priorities resonated. Like them, I think it is unwise for a person or organisation to have many priorities. That is just a “to-do” list.
The word priority requires a process of ranking. The process where you decide what is the most important thing to do or achieve. By definition it can only be a “priority” if it is more important than something else. Resources are always finite, everything you do has an opportunity cost, as I learned in fifth form economics. This is why you have priorities, so you achieve what matters the most with the limited resources you have.
Whether the Labour Cabinet priorities for 2023 are those that are best for New Zealand for the long term — or those that will help win an election — remain to be seen. With economic resilience, health, environmental and infrastructure issues clearly needing attention, one of the projects that may be shelved, for the short term at least, is the merger of RNZ and TVNZ.
I am clearly not an objective bystander. For the past six years I have been CEO of the Radio Broadcasters Association and for 25 years before that I have worked as an executive in commercial radio here and in the UK. I have also been a listener and fan of the BBC, ABC and RNZ at different times.
I have read every publicly available document related to this merger, including around 800 select committee submissions. I am yet to be convinced the merger is a great idea for anyone other than the consultants who have been paid up to $9000 a week to work on the project. Never mind the significant issue of editorial independence, which is critical in today’s media landscape, this merger is not a great idea in its current form. I believe there is a real danger that in rushing the legislation, they will create a monolithic, monopolistic monster, which is not what anyone wanted or intended.
Commercial versus public media aspirations will drive very different outcomes. This is not the creation of New Zealand’s own ABC or BBC. That would cost the Government hundreds of millions more but would be a better model. In 2023 they should be funding more New Zealand content on the platforms Kiwis are on, not increasing the funding going to government-owned platforms.
A healthy democracy requires strong public and commercial media, and a plurality of voices in both. RNZ and TVNZ news are two of the strongest news brands in New Zealand. I doubt this merger would pass Commerce Commission scrutiny if it was a private enterprise.
The Government said at the outset it wanted a sustainable, thriving media sector with a strong public sector within that. They have not addressed the commercial sector’s issues as part of this programme.
Almost $40 million and a huge amount of time has gone into this merger — with little done to address the wider sector’s regulatory framework issues despite our ongoing requests.
Labour has an uphill battle with some of the initiatives it wants to take on in 2023. It has shown a fair amount of bravery in trying to deal with some of the gnarly issues others haven’t. Whether you agree with them or not, things like KiwiSaver, that were pilloried at the time, benefit the country in the longer term.
I hope they have the courage to tackle the priorities that matter the most to New Zealand for the future. Some in the media described Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson’s interview with Q+A’s Jack Tame in December as a “trainwreck”.
My concern is that if the merger goes ahead in anything like its current form, we will look back in five years and it will be the merger itself we view as the trainwreck, not the interview.