Govt must listen to its own advice
Media mergers may be back on the table after Minister reveals public broadcasting union being considered Faafoi touched on how changing TVNZ and RNZ is only one part of the “puzzle”
In a somewhat weird turn of events, Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi last week announced how New Zealand’s publiclyfunded media would be innovating ahead of its counterparts in the private sector.
Livestreamed from the New Zealand Broadcasting School in Christchurch, he described how a business case for the RNZ/TVNZ merger is due to be considered by Cabinet in six months. He talked about uncertainty in the media sector, and the need for the proposed organisation to have “greater scale and nimbleness . . . to deal with the challenges media face [from] changing platforms, changing audience habits”. Its responsibility to use taxpayer dollars effectively was also in there.
Touche. Bravo. Hear, hear. But what about the rest of the sector?
As Faafoi covered-off on Friday, things are difficult. Competition for advertising, dominated by internet giants Google and Facebook in the online space, and changing consumer habits has created plenty of instability in the sector. At times, the “doom and gloom” makes it difficult to see how things will track in the long-term, particularly when consumer metrics and dwindling profit figures take centre-stage.
However, it isn’t all bad. Media outlets are acutely aware of their limitations in connecting to consumers. They must work harder to connect to people, which means content and the way it is delivered is evolving.
The TVNZ/RNZ business case is testament to that. Essentially, it is the Government’s way of attempting to fortify its stake in the game.
Therefore, the next logical step is progress in the commercial media sector.
Notably, in his announcement, Faafoi touched on how changing TVNZ and RNZ is only one part of the “puzzle”.
“Our doors are being beaten down on a regular basis by a lot of people in the media market wanting a plan to show some stability and sustainability,” he said. “While this is not everything, it’s a big part of that puzzle.”
One only needs to look at the past year to see how commercial players want in on solutions.
In a strong op-ed in August, outgoing Newshub chief news officer Hal Crawford labelled New Zealand’s free-to-air television market anticompetitive because it enabled TVNZ to be a state broadcaster and earn significant advertising revenue. Crawford concluded a new model of publicly-funded media was required. Then there’s NZME’s numerous attempts to purchase Stuff. In November, news emerged that NZME — publisher of the Herald — had taken a refreshed pitch for acquiring Stuff to the Government. According to reports, the proposal effectively ringfenced Stuff’s editorial operations. The model was put forward in response to the Commerce Commission’s 2017 rejection of the then-proposed merger. At the time, the commission assessed that the loss of quality and plurality of voices from a merger would be detrimental to the public, and efficiencies gained from combining operations would not outweigh this.
The point is an important one. Convergence of media outlets and the impact of that on the breadth of perspectives informing content is an issue democracies around the world grapple with.
Additionally, unlike RNZ or any new potential public media entity, a charter ensuring representation of voices will not be required in a joint NZME/Stuff venture.
Ringfencing Stuff’s editorial resources is therefore a significant step in the right direction. It also shows NZME is serious about preserving the plurality of voices the commission assessed would be lost by combining it and Stuff’s operations.
As the Government considers what a new “fit-for-purpose” public media outlet looks like, it is imperative it does the same outside its tent.
NZME’s renewed pitch to purchase Stuff is based on current knowledge of its operations and audience, and what it needs to be sustainable and keep producing quality journalism.
Ignoring that, while enabling RNZ and TVNZ to move forward, would be a mistake. It would also contradict the Government’s own sentiments on the importance of media in a healthy democracy.