They doth protest too much

The reaction of many in legacy media and politics to efforts by Jim Grenon and others to change the board of NZME is rather telling, hypocritical even.

Hi everyone. After a wonderful month away overseas in Europe, Rachel and I are back in New Zealand and enjoying the warmth. With the jet lag sorted and weeks of ignored chores under control, I can finally turn back to my regular Substack.

The magnificent library at Trinity College, Dublin - one of the many highlights from our recent trip.

As readers will know, there is a move afoot to replace the board of NZME by various shareholders, led by a Jim Grenon.

While I support the change, my thoughts below reflect on the howls of protest and the rather hypocritical positions being taken.

NZME is one of New Zealand’s largest public media companies, with the likes of the NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB being part of it’s portfolio. In the last year, it made a reported $16 million loss in what is clearly a challenging time for legacy media. Among these challenges is a near-catastrophic decline of trust in media - a challenge not unique to NZME. As the analytical work of Geoff Neal from theFacts.nz has paradoxically shown, New Zealanders are among the highest in the world to want news; are actually willing to pay for news; and yet are completely switching off from legacy media.

When news of the potential clear-out of the NZME Board emerged, the first reactions of progressives was ad hominem, that is, to attack Mr Grenon and imply something was awry including that he was originally from Canada. In fact, reports made much of him being from Canada and yet he has been happily resident and invested here in New Zealand for many years. The clear of critics was to suggest this was some sort of foreign takeover, which it clearly is not.

On top of this, commentary has continued to imply there is something underhanded in play. There is nothing of the sort. Everything that is happening is legal, appropriate, and above board. It’s how shareholdings work in a company.

From this beginning, the hypocrisies start. The move to change the board of NZME is being done quite openly as one would expect of a public company. Yet, when it comes to a rival media’s entities - under the Stuff umbrella - we still have little information around it’s financial structure. Much is made of it’s owner’s one dollar purchase of the company back in 2020, yet we all know that you cannot run a company on one dollar. Despite this, legacy media have focused barely any attention on who truly finances Stuff while obsessing over the public shareholdings of people in NZME. As I write, reports are coming out that the Stuff owner has recently changed the shareholding structure – going from being the owner of the one and only share, to now the single holder of one million shares. Let’s be clear, this is not illegal either but such a change might behoove journalists and others to be asking the same level of questions about financial dealings as they are of NZME and it’s shareholders.

We then have various commentators and politicians (both current and former) expressing deep concern that there could be editorial changes at NZME. That those protesting the move are predominantly from one side of the political spectrum, and keen to keep the status quo, is rather telling.

Former Labour Minister and now union leader, Michael Woods, expressed deep concern around editorial independence, worrying that any change of the NZME board was “with the intent of promulgating a particular political perspective.” Woods also went on to say “Mr Grenon clearly wants to use his financial clout to steer the editorial direction of one of New Zealand’s largest and most important media networks”.

Now these would be noble sentiments except this former Labour member of parliament was an senior actor in a government that both instructed and funded legacy media in New Zealand to report in specific ways. We need only consider the Public Interest Journalism fund; a fund that came with very specific conditions, notably around reporting the Treaty of Waitangi.

I would maintain this Labour government initiative - along with legacy media’s greed and complicity (or perhaps financial desperation), are among the key reasons for the decline in trust in media.

As for political instruction to media, the Covid years provide ample evidence as do the parallel experiences overseas. We can think of recent statements by Meta (Facebook) owner, Mark Zuckerberg, confirming the Biden administration instructed them to censor various opinions and views (ironically, many of which turned out to be correct).

Speaking of this, and a slight tangent, but I have noted the very recent comments of Sir Richard Dearlove – the former head of Britian’s MI6. He has come out publicly stating there was considerable evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was “laboratory enhanced”. He argues that the scientific establishment worked to prevent discussion, preferencing protection of their significant funding from China.

What is related, is how both political and media establishments went along with this. Investigative journalism, ‘speaking the truth to power’, and all the usual slogans seemed to be put aside to ensure a coordinated, singular narrative entailed.

And don’t think this was just around Covid-related matters. Think of how New Zealand media outlets have deemed issues from climate change to the Treaty, transgenderism to ‘reproductive rights’ are to be monologically handled. There is to be only one view; alternatives are to be ignored and censored.

As always, you can make up your own mind around such suggestions, but these illustrates how single narratives are reinforced by government and media, often working in lockstep. It makes a mockery of statements from a union aligned journalist here in New Zealand when they said “[journalists] follow a code of ethics which includes a commitment to reporting and interpreting the news with ‘scrupulous honesty’ and without fear or favour”.

What all those opposing the potential NZME board change are truly motivated by – and worried about – is maintaining a bias they already enjoy. Put another way, many are happy for editorial bias to continue so long as it is their bias.

To be clear, I don’t want the pendulum to swing wildly. I disdain right-wing bias in the news as much as left-wing bias. I am also not naïve to think we can have a neutral media. But with so much of New Zealand’s legacy media leaning strongly to the left, any editorial change that provides an alternative will be welcome.

A final comment. Opponents of a potential change of board membership centre their arguments around ‘editorial independence’ and yet it is also clear that a key driver is financial performance. Large shareholders such as Spheria Asset Management are publicly criticising NZME’s performance. While the current Board Chair and others are defensive, the facts speak for themselves. As a spokesperson for Spheria noted:

"Operating NPAT [net profit after tax] has declined from over $23 million in calendar year 2022 to just $12 million in calendar year 2024 - a near 50 percent drop. If this trend continues, the company faces a genuine risk of becoming unviable in the near future, which would have serious consequences for both shareholders and employees. This trajectory is simply unsustainable.”

We all know legacy media are struggling – be it financially or around trust. Even the smallest of moves towards the centre and away from blatantly left-wing reporting will see more subscribers and money.

I actually wrote about this in a Substack almost a year ago:

“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 in turn will bring about the actual diversity our media and democracy needs.”

You can read the full and original article here, somewhat prescient I might suggest:

A predictable change in the media landscape

As the title of this Substack suggests - those arguing against the changes at NZME are very much of ‘the [lady] doth protest too much’ variety.

OTHER MEDIA AND COMMENTARY

As you may know, I do a range of podcasts, online radio, and interviews. I host a regular show, Solid Ground, every Tuesday at 8am on many social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. I also co-host another live show with Bob McCoskrie on these same social media channels every Thursday from 5pm where we delve into the politics of the day - appropriately called, Political Playback.

I’ve also been busy with a number of podcasts, including a recent Australian survey shockingly showed a disturbingly high level of sexual harassment of girls and teachers including by young people, even by children in kindergarten! I sit down with Melinda Tankard Reist of Collective Shout to discuss the results, why our societies find ourselves in this situation, and what can be done about.

There are many others too, and you easily find there here.

I’m also hosting on Reality Check Radio (RCR) so head over there to check out a range of interviews and topics.

Great to be back here in New Zealand, and as always, thank you for all the messages, comments, and feedback.

Simon

I’ll sign off with this photo I took at Mucktross Abbey in County Kerry, Ireland. Was just beautiful and while now in ruin, a space still of great peace and beauty.