Forget Goldsmith's media proposals

Since the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (MCH) (in itself a rather Soviet sounding name for a Ministry) took over broadcasting policy from what is now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE), it has had a policy culture that is quite distinctly interventionist. It’s proposals for “modern media legislation” (one should always be suspicious of anyone claiming that their policy preferences are “modern”, which essentially means next to nothing) are worth reviewing because they reflect the lobbying of vested interests in the uneconomic media industry to try to compete with the media the public actually prefer.

I recall around 28 years ago being in a meeting in the then Ministry of Commerce (MBIE’s predecessor) where a manager had set up a PC to run the RealAudio streaming application to play live radio from around the world. He said at the time that this was the future and it would change broadcasting forever. He was right of course, and while some media have survived and been able to find niches (notably consolidation of commercial radio), others have struggled, such as newspapers and free to air television (the latter in part surviving in part due to politicians not seeking to take dividends from Television New Zealand).

Thirty to forty years ago, media for information (news) and media for entertainment were somewhat distinct. Newspapers were the prime authority for news, followed by news oriented radio and then television news broadcasts. It started to change when the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand was split into TVNZ and RNZ, and TVNZ was given carte blanche to respond to competition, of which it had years to plan for, as TV3 got its licence to operate following a tortuous beauty contest. TV3 essentially revealed in public what it would be showing to viewers well in advance of launching, and TVNZ then made sure it could buy up loads of competing content to undermine it, and it succeeded. At the time TV news was dumbed down deliberately.  Local news was scrapped, and the focus was on the approach of local US TV news broadcasts, focusing on making the news “relevant” and “easy to digest”. A big emphasis was on stories that had dramatic video footage and were easy to understand (disasters, crime, celebrities, sports victories/losses and war footage). The idea being to present a “narrative” of “isn’t that awful” (mostly) or “fantastic”, and leaving complexities around events, particularly public policy and international relations aside. The dumbed down TVNZ news won, and today this remains.

Today people largely obtain news and entertainment online because most people can access the content they want in seconds on multiple devices. If news happens, it is reported through news websites and through social media. Moreover, entertainment largely comes from overseas, whether self-made content on social media, or large boxset productions from the rest of the Anglosphere.

Needless to say the great successes of the likes of Amazon Prime and Netflix have upset those who built careers upon the myth that culture has some nationalist basis for it – the local production industry. Most people no more care about watching programming that is local than they do about listening to local music. People like what they like, and that is not to say there isn’t local content that can be and is successful, but the judgment as to what is good and what is not, is entirely in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Note also that blogging, micro-blogging (X) and the like are all part of this. There are neither state nor indeed financial barriers to most people being able to write, record and publish whatever they like (within the bounds of criminal law). Whereas before people needed to set up a printed magazine or convince an editor to let them write for it, or go on an Access radio station (or buy a frequency from the 1990s onwards), now the barriers to publishing are very low indeed.

Protectionists, legacy medai and politicians with a bent for influencing the public don’t like it that much.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith has decided to release a discussion document with five proposals to "save local media". It reflects a very shallow approach to public policy in this space.

MCH’s five proposals are justified by the following statement:

New Zealand’s media and content production sectors are facing an uphill battle to remain viable in an increasingly globalised and continually evolving landscape.

Less local content is being commissioned and is no longer reaching local audiences on all platforms. Seeing and hearing our stories and voices has cultural and societal benefits

I’d suggest the uphill battle is simply due to the public not responding to what they produce.  The truth is there is a lot of local content, it just isn’t being commissioned by traditional broadcasters or the State subsidising outlets. I would wager that more NZers than ever before are writing, recording music or videos and publishing them than ever before. Sure much or indeed most of it is trivial and inconsequential, but what matters the most us that people ARE producing content, it just doesn’t meet the standards of public servants. However that last sentence is of course revealing of how empty these proposals are.

What are “our stories”?  We all have stories, I could if I wanted to, write everyday stories and the 90% or so of the population with computers, tablets or mobile phones could do so, and in fact many do. Tens, hundreds and in some cases thousands read or listen to them.  What are the “cultural and economic benefits” of ignoring this in favour of what is essentially a protectionist industry wanting other people’s money taken from them by force, to prop them up because the public isn’t willing to pay for their content voluntarily?

The state hasn’t stepped in to save newspapers, nor book or magazine publishers, so why should it step in to save video and film producers?

So what are the proposals?

Proposal 1 : Ensuring accessibility of local media platforms

This proposal says everything about how out of touch MCH is. It is to force manufacturers of smart TVs (not tablets or laptops or phones) to carry apps of traditional NZ broadcasters. Notwithstanding that many people don’t consume most of their content on smart TVs (MCH isn’t stupid enough to force all laptops to have apps pre-installed), the idea this would make any meaningful difference is ludicrous.  Of course Australia has such a rule, but it has two large state taxpayer funded broadcasters, and a state-mandated oligopoly of free to air broadcasters (only three are allowed), so it has long been highly protectionist of the commercial TV industry, enriching its owners. A survey in Australia suggests a third of owners of Smart TVs don’t know how to download apps. Well I’d suggest the same applies to laptops and even mobile phones. Why don’t the broadcasters find ways to help people do it? Why must the state mandate manufacturers do it for our small market? What about radios being pre-programmed into local stations, or smart speakers having apps for RNZ, Newstalk ZB etc?

MCH stretches a real long-bow to suggest that not doing this might “undermine democracy”.

Given that local platforms host the vast majority of local content, decreased engagement means that audiences are missing out on important societal and cultural benefits. In turn, decreased audience engagement affects TV broadcaster revenue and brand value, reducing their ability to make local content and remain financially viable. If there were fewer local broadcasters/platforms in New Zealand, this would create specific consequences for plurality and therefore accountability in terms of the vital role local news and current affairs coverage (from a variety of sources) plays in a well-functioning democracy.

This is false, as the vast majority of local content is hosted on foreign platforms like Youtube, Instagram and X, it’s just that the traditional broadcasters and public servants don’t recognise the content produced outside their contracts and visibility. This is a claim that without forcing Smart TVs to have TV apps, it makes them less financially viable and would undermine the “vital role local news and current affairs coverage” plays in a well-functioning democracy. Hold on. You already own RNZ and make all taxpayers fund it.  There is next to no local news (not national news) on TV today.  You’d have to be awfully naïve to think forcing LG to put the TVNZ app on its TVs will save the death of TVNZ’s news (noting TVNZ already decided to withdraw from X, for nakedly political reasons – it doesn’t like its owner and being challenged on it constantly for its statist centre-left bias). 

Proposal 2: Increasing investment into and discoverability of local content

This is proposing to force streaming platforms and TV broadcasters to waste their own money on what MCH’s falsely calls “investment” into the local content MCH approves of.  This is a naked attempt by the failing, already subsidised local screen production industry to force successful businesses to prop them up. It is equivalent to forcing book publishers to publish books that hardly anyone wants to buy, or in forcing theatres to host shows hardly anyone wants to attend. 

The definition of ‘local content’ is intended to capture content that reflects New Zealand stories, places, voices, and faces. Relevant factors could include if the subject of the content is New Zealand or New Zealanders, if New Zealanders hold key roles in production and if it is filmed in New Zealand.

Every time you post videos of your family or friends doing something, it is local content, but that doesn’t count to the MCH. It shows MCH is beholden to the local production industry,and is fundamentally protectionist. This proposal should be thrown in the bin on merit alone, but it fails even further.

New Zealand’s CER agreement with Australia including commitments on audio-visual services which around 25 years ago saw New Zealand TV programmes being deemed to be “Australian” for the purposes of Australian TV stations complying with the country’s local content quota. It is entirely plausible that if this proposal proceeds, that the platforms could all simply pass on Australian content on the basis that CER grants free trade in audio-visual services and give Australian content “National Treatment”.  Furthermore, NZ’s commitments under the WTO Agreement on Trade in Services also include granting national treatment to foreign audio-visual service content, so that other countries could demand that the requirement for New Zealand content actually covers them as well. In short, according to New Zealand’s international trade agreements, the proposal could be meaningless. 

Proposal 3 : Increase captioning and audio description

Mandating this wont do anything to support local content at all, and will actually load more costs on production, which shows how utterly incoherent these proposals are. Weirdly MCH is concerned about the legal consequences of New Zealand not complying with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It’s clearly a sop to some lobbying, but given it runs completely contradictory to the earlier proposals (although there is obviously some merit to this for some people with disabilities), it makes little sense being here.

Proposal 4 : Modernising professional media regulation

In short, the proposal is to expand the scope of the increasingly irrelevant Broadcasting Standards Authority (a better proposal would be to scrap it) to “ensuring positive system-level outcomes”, whatever that means. It would apply to all “Professional Media” whatever that is other than “organisations that commission, produce, or directly pay for media content and distribute it as their primary business”. 

This is clarified further as:

• including New Zealand broadcasters and streaming platforms, global streaming platforms, online text-based media, newspapers, and magazines.

• not including online platforms that primarily host user-generated content or provide access to others’ content, such as social media (like Facebook and TikTok) and search engines (like Google).

Online text based media? Yet not platforms that host user-generated content? Where's the line between those?

This is unnecessary and intrusive. There was once arguably a role for the BSA when free to air TV was dominant and children in particular could be exposed to content unsuitable for them at certain times. However, this is now an anachronism. Parental neglect and naivety todays means many children get exposed to content that would never be seen on Pay TV let alone free to air TV, and the MCH wants to retain and expand the BSA. At best this is silly and futile, at worst there is something sinister and frightening about the call for a wider media regulator. Of course, the MCH didn’t consider abolishing the BSA.  It should be abolished and be simply replaced it with a basic code of practice as a condition of using radio frequencies.  Every other content that passes over the internet should not be subject to more regulation than any other.  

Proposal 5: Streamline Crown content funders

Also could be called merge state subsidisers of preferred content. It is essentially to merge the Film Commission and NZ On Air. I’d abolish them both, as they aren’t needed, there being no more reason for taxpayers to fund TV programmes and films they aren’t willing to pay for, than for them to fund books, haute couture fashion, posters or New Zealand made porn.  MCH didn’t consider this, because it thinks the content that most New Zealanders aren’t willing to pay for, let alone watch in numbers that are attractive to advertisers, is “inherently” some sort of public good. 

What should be done instead?

Stop trying to save something that people don’t want. The Broadcasting Standards Authority should be wound down, and made into a private industry body like the Advertising Standards Authority. That means broadcasters can choose to belong to it, and restructure broadcasting licences to ensure some very basic standards of freedom of speech and protection against defamation and inciting violence.

NZ On Air should be wound down as well. It should be phased out, and if RNZ is to continue to be subsidised, it should be funded directly from the MCH. There is no need to continue to force taxpayers to fund specific content. The Film Commission similarly so. 

Privatise TVNZ. Start by offering shares to every citizen equally and let the public dispose of those shares if they wish.  Beyond a heritage function, for which it might be funded from taxes, it should be unshackled from the state. 

Shift media policy from MCH to MBIE.  Media is a business and deserves oversight by a Ministry that is business oriented, not one that is a taxpayer funded lobbyist for the industry of dress-up and make-believe.

There is a debate to be had as to whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for content they don't want to pay for or don't consume, that's where the focus should be. MCH assumes this is the majority or dominant view, and that is simply wrong. MCH has proven itself to be a poor custodian of the media sector and is beholden to the pleadings of those simply wanted their businesses to be propped up by subsidies either directly from taxpayers or from businesses that provide content people actually want to pay for.

Most of these proposals had their genesis under the Ardern/Hipkins Government as can be seen in the Briefing for the Incoming Minister (PDF). Make of that as you wish, but it demonstrates an ongoing philosophical belief in the role of a interventionist state in forcing others to pay for the production of content that MCH thinks is good for people.

You have until 23 March to submit on these proposals, go right ahead. 

Own a bookshop? Beware of TVNZ journalists

In 1993 Lindsay Perigo resigned from TVNZ as a journalist/presenter declaring its news as "braindead", and a lot has happened in that time. From its one time commanding role claiming "more people get their news from TV One news than from any other source" (copied from US network ABC at the time), it is facing a declining market, as a whole generation gets news, of sorts, from online sources, and those who don't want to be talked down to like 12 year old schoolkids look elsewhere.

But never fear, TVNZ is out there to ensure that you are aware of misinformation and it is even patrolling bookshops to check if they are stocking books and magazines that.... shock... print inaccurate information, or even write about conspiracy theories.  

At least twice in the past month (I don't want it daily) has TVNZ engaged what it calls investigate journalism into the horrors of there being, perfectly legally, books and magazines published and even more appallingly, sold by bookshops across Aotearoa.  

Books that challenge Māori nationalism

Some weeks ago TVNZ broadcast a piece purportedly reflecting an English literature tutor, Brittany Rose, who is "disgusted" by finding books in a bookshop that "raised red flags"(!) for her because... they contained opinions she didn't like.  Frankly I think Brittany Rose would happily have flown red flags in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, because she would have made a great Red Guard:

The books were filled with pages warning of the dangers of a so-called greedy, tribal elite.

And descriptions of Māori as violent savages who were saved by colonisation.

“It just struck me as incredibly insensitive, ill-informed and damaging. It's potentially harmful to propagate views that are anti-Maori. That's not at all what we should be having on shelves of our bookstores,” Rose said.

Colonisation devastated Māori, claiming land and lives.

University of Auckland Senior Māori studies lecturer, Dr Daniel Hikuroa, was equally disgusted.

“That's something I would hate for my daughter to stumble across at bookstores but on the other hand I would like for them to understand that it's hate material is what it is. It's hate material. It's designed to drive wedges between peoples,” he said.

I'm not going to go into the details of the books, not only because I haven't read them, but because it is somewhat besides the point. You see, Rose is not so concerned about refuting these books she wouldn't buy in a shop she doesn't own, she is worried about them being "insensitive, ill-informed and damaging", because the views are "harmful".  By extension, TVNZ is sharing this concern by giving a platform to someone who trots out the high-status "insensitive" and "damaging" claims about opinions she doesn't like. It's not enough to be offended nowadays, you have to claim differing views are "harmful".  Harmful to whom? People who can't handle a rigorous debate?  Surely if the books are THAT weak and woeful, it should be easy to dismiss them as poorly written drivel easily refuted.  

How does she know how well they will sell? How does she know that those buying them are going to agree with the books? How does she know the books don't contain facts in among assertions and false claims?  

It doesn't matter, Brittany Rose wants them removed, and by extension, TVNZ. 

The books were published by Tross Publishing, which must be immensely grateful for the free publicity, and although it refused to be interviewed on air (unsurprisingly given it is clearly designed to be a hit job, author John Robinson did send a statement to TVNZ:

I absolutely reject the untrue charges made against Tross Publishing. I believe in equality, decency and accuracy and oppose the divisions in to-day's New Zealand. I am appalled by the ridiculous claims of wrongdoing which implicate me. I am being damned without a hearing.

Given the wording of the TVNZ report it is hardly surprising Tross Publishing did not appear on camera, as it is clearly of a monolithic perspective:

The company has been publishing books that condemn things like treaty settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal for years.

But they are still being sold by big franchises, including Paper Plus and Whitcoulls.

BUT? So does TVNZ say that Paper Plus and Whitcoulls should NOT sell books condemning treaty settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal? What if a radical Māori publisher produced books saying treaty settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal are sell outs? So TVNZ has made it clear what opinion it has. Some books shouldn't be sold.

Then TVNZ puts out this line:

There are calls for stores selling the books to promote balance.

Does TVNZ seriously think bookshops should sell books with a wide variety of views on public issues? Did it even check? No, of course not. There is little difficulty in finding books that advance Māori sovereignty and nationalism, but that would damage the shock-sound bite nature of the story.

Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon is quoted as saying:

But what really disturbed me about this was the idea that freedom of speech is about being able to have any opinion and go unchallenged

This is Orwellian nonsense, it is actually Brittany Rose that wants to have opinions unchallenged, and TVNZ that is advancing an agenda of a monolithic view on Treaty of Waitangi matters. Freedom of speech is not about having opinions unchallenged, but it is about being able to write and publish opinions and not have the state, by proxy, campaign to stop your books being able to be sold.

The report concluded with a most sinister line:

1News has asked for clarification as to why the books can be purchased at both stores.

The right response (if the bookshops don't want to just say, piss off we can sell whatever we want and we aren't answerable to the state) would be "the books are legal, we embrace freedom of speech including challenging points of view held by academics, media, politicians and journalists, and encourage our customers to buy a variety of books".

Conspiracy magazines

So on 29 December TVNZ broadcast a story about how Auckland Airport newsagents were selling magazines that contained content about conspiracy theories around Covid19, and included misinformation about vaccines etc.  It queried, once again, why newsagents were selling magazines that contained such material, unfortunately this story is now only contained on the full length recording of the 6pm bulletin online. The whole story was based on the outrage that a newsagent would sell titles that publish nonsense.  

So what?

Now I carry no flag for Tross Publishing, some of its titles may be worth a read, others not so much ("A Plague of People" looks like Malthusian nonsense), but it's not the point at all. The state broadcaster should not be engaging in a witch hunt of either publications or bookshops that are acting legally, just because a fragile wanna Red Guard is offended by their content.  

Nor do I care much for little known magazines on a shelf, because before I buy something I tend to browse through to decide for myself if it is worth reading.  If not, I wont buy it. Amazing to TVNZ, I think almost everyone does the same thing. 

If TVNZ journalists want to criticise books or magazines, they should write book reviews, not sound-bite hit jobs demanding to know why a bookshop is selling a book. 

Maybe the books wont sell, maybe the bookshop wont restock them,  because the marketplace of ideas is what determines how most of the book and magazine media world works. Of course TVNZ journalists don't worry about that, although it is a State Owned Enterprise, it isn't going to be allowed to go under.  

From the age of five to ten my parents owned a bookshop, it was independent and could legally only open five days a week (before even Saturday retail was permitted), but it was a six-seven day a week job running a business.  They sold a wide variety of publications from encyclopaedic non-fiction through to trashy paperbacks, through to comics, soft erotica, cards, stationery and even coal. It's a lot of work, and I'd be appalled if any state journalist entered their premises to interrogate them on why they are selling some books or magazines.  

This is the point. If TVNZ actually wants to engage in journalism, instead of engaging in a Maoist style witch hunt to find businesses that have the audacity to sell publications that it thinks is wrong, it could choose to either engage in an honest, balanced debate between people with diametrically opposed views, whilst being an honest broker.

However it isn't an honest broker, it's partisan. It should have just ignored the magazines at the airport, because the likelihood is they wont be around for long. 

It should have told Brittany Rose that bookshops everywhere sell books that some people find upsetting and offensive, and that maybe if she is that fragile she should just not buy the books and tell others to not do so, or write a blog post.  

Of course the irony was this story was broadcast the same night about Hong Kong authorities raiding the offices of Stand News for publishing a seditious publication.  No, NZ is a long way from that, but it is the same philosophical principle that someone is publishing something that TVNZ disagrees with, and that it should be accountable to the state broadcaster for it.

Maybe former National Cabinet Minister Simon Power, soon to be CEO of TVNZ, might do something to change this culture of finger-wagging school prefect style petty-authoritarianism.  Or will he, like so many on the "centre-right" just take his money, run it competently, and be too much of a scared little mouse to take on a culture that has been 30 years in the making.