A predictable change in the media landscape

Some early reflections on the demise of Newshub and the road ahead

I recall during a Newshub interview, where the location could not have been more politically compromised, that I was placed into a camp chair, unlike other participants, for the discussion.  After the interview, the show panelists were delightfully quick to draw attention to my slovenly posture as a sign of being too relaxed and disinterested, slid down as I was in my chair.  That they had constructed this reality was lost on them, but it provided them a cheap shot at me.

So you can imagine my amusement as I have listened to commentary relating to Newshub’s demise that was akin to a hagiography – the retelling of a saint’s life. 

Like any organisation, there are many positive highlights and of course, problems and issues.  But we should start by acknowledging the 300 plus staff who found out their jobs were going.  Like everyone, they will have enjoyed their work, the comradery, and the income to support their families and pay the bills.  The news therefore will be devastating for them and quite understandably, people will be upset.  For many, their experience has had to play out on live TV, adding to the stress and drama.  I think we can all appreciate how hard this time is and we should act with generosity and understanding.

However, when we step back from the personal stories and look at the wider picture, we find an already developing narrative that seems quite divorced from reality.

DEMOCRACY REMAINS UNCHANGED

The oddest claim is that our democracy has been harmed with Newshub’s closure.  This is nonsense.  Various commentators claim the closure leads to a loss of diversity within our mainstream media.  There was no diversity, period.   

Wrapping the same woke stories and perspectives as other channels, but in a different ribbon, is not diversity.  Sadly for mainstream New Zealand media, they all basically sing off the same hymn sheet.

This is not mere opinion.  When statistics are collected on the reporting of issues such as cannabis, the likes of Newshub were not balanced or diverse.  They amplified one side of the debate by a wide margin, the same as the other networks.   Perhaps had they reported a diverse set of views and topics, the situation they currently find themselves in might be different.

Let me be clear though - media are important for a functioning and healthy democracy.  But it is a stretch to conflate the closure of this network with a democratic demise.  Our fourth estate is in a bad state already, for reasons much deeper than Newshub.  We simply don’t have a broad range of views being discussed or explored.  There is little debate on key issues and often a presumption that only the media’s view is correct.

So, while at one level I am disappointed we have one fewer media outlet it actually makes no material difference to the diversity of views being presented. 

BLAME?

Some have been quick to blame the demise on those who have criticised Newshub’s coverage.  The suggestion appears to be that the mere expression of an opinion, such as calling the channel ‘woke’, is enough to bring a TV channel down.  The deep irony of such suggestions is that a media outlet - whose raison d'être is to challenge, critique, and expose society - is somehow to be above criticism!

These early attempts to transfer blame are perhaps an indication of why things have failed.  That is, an inability to appreciate that there are other views beyond what a media channel believe are right.  It perhaps never crossed management’s mind that it is hard to access funding and support from sections of society who are ignored, mocked, and censored.  You can hardly contemptuously treat a section of society and then expect they will want to fund and support you.

THE FUTURE

In many ways, the future is already being mapped out.  People are seeking their news elsewhere.  Technology allows this, but also the associated growth of new media channels – some formal, many informal.  Ironically, many in mainstream media have been attacking them - I suspect partly as they don’t appreciate a diversity of opinion, but also because they present a financial challenge.

As one ex-broadcaster noted to me recently, we may well see the development of many smaller local news rooms.  A paradoxical return to the past.  This comes with its own challenges of course, as ascertaining what is true or not is difficult in this world of information overload.  But let’s also be clear, simply being a mainstream outlet has never been a sign of truth.

SO MUCH COMES DOWN TO MONEY

It is very clear that the current mainstream media model for news is not working.  TV3/Newshub have struggled financially from day one.  Unliked their direct competitor, TVNZ, they did not have guaranteed government funding.  The playing field was consequently always uneven. 

But government funding is problematic too, and I am not simply talking about the compromised Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF).  Successive governments spend inordinate amounts of money via mainstream media channels – think information ads from NZTA, Ministry of Health, ACC, and so on.  These however, are unreliable funding channels.

I might add, it is very odd to have those talking about the importance of the free press and democracy then go on to suggest the government of the day should fund it!

A final thought.  Be it Newshub or any other mainstream companies (including TVNZ, who I see have had a significant financial loss this quarter), they should consider developing a broader range of news and not disparage sections of society.  In doing so, they may find greater engagement, support, and funding.  This is in turn will bring about the actual diversity our media and democracy needs.