Declining Audiences

Two Contrasting Views of Why Audiences are Migrating from Mainstream TV

The 'content' of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.”  Marshall McLuhan – Understanding Media

Introduction

Two recent pieces came across my screen. Both of them deal with the content of media and the impact that it is having on audiences for mainstream media outlets. The first article, by Bruce Cotterill, looks at the financial woes of TVNZ, declining revenues and declining audiences.

The second piece, an op-ed by Stacey Wood, the Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority laments the way that the exercise of freedom of expression is causing some audiences to shun TV or radio because they feel there’s too much misinformation and inappropriate content.

Bruce Cotterill and TVNZ’s Woes

Mr. Cotterill commences his piece with an overview of an interview with TVNZ chief executive Jody O’Donnell who suggested that TVNZ was “at the ideas stage. We are asking all our staff for ideas about how we can increase revenue or decrease costs.” 

Mr. Cotterill speculates whether, having lost $85 million, Rupert Murdoch would be at the ideas stage. Perhaps the approach of Ms O’Donnell is indicative of the monolithic, sclerotic, hidebound organisation that TVNZ has become.

Mr Cotterill then goes on to point to the problem that TVNZ has with content and it is here that the most salient points of his article are made. He is of the view that the anchor point for free-to-air TV lies in the necessity to dominate news, sport and current affairs.

He says:

“Those three services are the hub around which a TV channel builds an audience and an advertising base.”

He notes that TVNZ lost the sport wars some decades ago and the

“current affairs platform, once the domain of in-depth analysis by the likes of Ian Fraser, Brian Edwards and Paul Holmes, no longer exists, despite the need for high-quality local and international current affairs content being greater than ever. The News Hour is no longer worthy of the time it takes to watch it.”

The other programming that is on offer is mundane, dull, repetitive and predictable comprising building and real estate programmes, “celebrities” (I use the term advisedly) seeking to enhance their social media or professional profiles, awful and invasive police and immigration hall programmes. There is very little to even distract the watchdog of the mind in what is on offer on any of the three MSM channels.

It is probably for that reason that audiences have migrated to other sources of screen-based entertainment and looking at what is on offer on Netflix, Prime, Disney+, Neon and other streaming offerings there is little wonder that audiences have migrated.

And similarly with news and current affairs. Mr Cotterill point to the problem of trust in media. No matter how MSM tries to spin it, this is the elephant in the room. Mr Cotterill observes:

“Many in the mainstream media, and TVNZ in particular, lost the trust of many of us with the way our response to Covid-19 was communicated and stage-managed. That came at a time when we needed Government accountability more than ever.

TVNZ needs to earn that trust back. We have a massive problem with misinformation in the world today. Many of us are desperately seeking trusted sources of news and current affairs.”

Right now it is not succeeding. One needs only look at the way that the Broadcasting Standards Authority dismissed over 300 complaints of bias about the way that Maiki Sherman presented the results of a political poll to understand that trust will continue to be an issue if blindingly obvious examples of bias are not called out.

One would have expected a better response from a regulator (of which more later) but rather it chose to shore up TVNZ over an obviously valid series of complaints.

Mr Cotterill bemoans the fact that there are few sources online that are reliable.

“If we jump online (do we actually “jump” online) and start following the US presidential election, the protests and riots in the UK, or the immigration crisis in Europe, we quickly discover that there are contrasting views of almost every event. If only we knew what was true and what was not.”

What in fact we have in these sources of news is a diversity of views – something we in New Zealand find uncomfortable, probably because we have to think about what is being put before us. A diversity of views means that we have to weigh and balance the information that is coming in – consider how it is presented – the language and images that accompany it – and make an assessment of what the story is about, its context and what it all means.

But if TVNZ wants to recover the high ground in news and current affairs it needs to change. There are substantial and long term ones that are needed as Mr. Cotterill suggests. Here are a few simple steps.:

1.   Move Q and A from its “dead-in-the-water” Sunday morning slot to prime time – possibly to replace the fluffy but inconsequential Seven Sharp. Perhaps alternate the programmes. Lets get a little deep background in our current affairs diet.

2.   Please do something about the boring and mundane way in which the evening news is presented. Graphics and a flash set may be all very well but they are no replacement for an engaging account of what is happening.

3.   Dispense with this awful practice of having journalists interviewing journalists to obtain the news. Katie Bradford is a good news journalist and is quite capable of telling her story with on the ground interviews rather than giving a potted version of what she did to the news anchor.

4.   Most importantly it needs to get rid of bias. An audience doesn’t need top be told what figures mean. They can see that for themselves. The patronising approach that requires “explainers” for everything, usually with a bit of spin from the presenter (Maiki Sherman’s strident delivery and Benedict Collin’s smirk are a couple of examples) are quite unnecessary. As Jack Webb used to say in the detective drama “Dragnet” – “just give us the facts”

Mr Cotterill’s closing remarks  about what TVNZ needs to do are apposite. The organisation is hidebound and seriously resistant to change. I have long suggested that MSM needs to look at its business model. Mr. Cotterill’s suggestion may help TVNZ in charting its path

“[TVNZ] needs to rediscover a passion for news and current affairs that enables New Zealanders to be more informed of the events in both our own environment and those nations from which we are so distant. The eyeballs will follow and so too will the revenue. But words like trust, timeliness, and relevance need to be at the forefront of whatever strategy it plans.”

Stacey Wood and the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Stacey Wood, the Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (the very same organisation that said that Maiki Sherman’s presentation of poll results did not breach broadcasting standards even although she employed

“strong and provocative” language which clearly formed part of Sherman’s political analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply.

Her comments were typical of the type of analysis viewers expect from political editors and reporters, and we consider they would have been readily distinguishable as such to the average viewer.”

The flood of complaints would suggest otherwise. Passages of concern included

‘A nightmare poll for the coalition Government which has been in power for just five months’;

‘This poll will absolutely rock the entire Parliament…this is largely unprecedented – to have a new coalition Government just five months into power, essentially polled out of power, is almost unheard of’;

‘If the coalition can’t turn its numbers around, it will be death by a thousand cuts to its confidence.’

Now the BSA has released a research paper which shows New Zealand has yet to find the right balance between freedom of expression and potential harm. The research, commissioned by the BSA and conducted by AK Research & Consulting, surveyed Aotearoa’s Māori, Pacific Peoples, Asian and Muslim communities. The results show the hurt caused to these groups by harmful views voiced in the name of free speech.

The report adopts the relativistic approach to freedom of expression with which we in New Zealand are sadly very familiar.

Ms Wood argues that the right to share information freely is a fundamental part of a democratic society. But this right is not unlimited. Speech that incites hatred or violence, or promotes disinformation or negative stereotypes, for example, can cause unacceptable harm to those it targets.

She goes on to say

“Content seen as offensive or harmful is driving widespread avoidance of public broadcasts among the groups surveyed. More than half of these New Zealanders say they shun TV or radio because they feel there’s too much misinformation and inappropriate content.”

Mr Cotterill advances other reasons for audience migration.

Ms Wood observes:

“Society’s challenge– and one the BSA faces as a media regulator– is to strike an appropriate balance between the right to speak freely and protecting people from harm.

Over three-quarters of those surveyed feel exposure to offensive, discriminatory or controversial views is a problem in this country.

Examples included inciting conflict, reinforcing stereotypes, misinformation, unbalanced reporting, and jokes or attacks about people’s differences.

Most feel freedom of expression must be tempered by the need to respect the views of others.

Social media is the most cited platform for seeing offensive material – and considered the most harmful – followed by free-to-air TV and online news sites.

While acknowledging (largely unregulated) online social platforms as the number one problem area, research participants were also concern ed that seeing or hearing offensive content on mainstream media can help to legitimise it. The “relative anonymity” afforded by talk-back radio and social media is seen as encouraging the voicing of more extreme (and less informed) views.”

Let us examine some of those assertions. Ms Wood refers to social media and online social platforms. They are beyond the jurisdiction of the BSA and the little bracketed words “largely unregulated” are probably a plaintive cry for the lost opportunity that might have been afforded by the Safer Online Services and Web Platforms proposals of the Department of Internal Affairs. The BSA, readers may recall, was named as a possible regulatory

The jurisdiction of the BSA extends to Broadcast media. Interestingly enough, because the Platform and Reality Check Radio do not fulfil the definition of broadcasters they are not subject to BSA jurisdiction.

So the capacious net that Ms Wood seeks to cast only covers a small amount of the content producing fish.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority – A brief overview.

Let us look at the BSA.

The BSA is an independent Crown entity established under the Broadcasting Act 1989  (the Act) whose members are appointed by the Governor General.

One of its main functions relates to complaints and includes publicising procedures in relation to complaints. Its jurisdiction covers radio and television broadcasting and extends to online programmes as long as these were originally broadcast on television.

The BSA not only receives and determines complaints against broadcasters where the complainant is dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response to their complaint, but can receive and determine privacy complaints if the complainant choses to complain directly to it.

Section 4(1) of the Broadcasting Act sheets home the responsibility of the broadcaster for certain broadcasting standards.

“ Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes and their presentation, standards that are consistent with—

(a) the observance of good taste and decency; and

(b) the maintenance of law and order; and

(c) the privacy of the individual; and

(d) the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest; and

(e) any approved code of broadcasting practice applying to the programmes.”

The BSA regulates compliance with the standards. It has an important role in overseeing and developing the standards, as it is required to encourage the development and observance by broadcasters of codes of broadcasting practice.

Broadcasting Standards may be found in the Broadcasting Standards Codebook which was last updated in 2022. The standards cover areas such as social responsibilities, balanced and accurate reporting in news, current affairs and factual content and rights to privacy and fair treatment.

It is a matter of frustration for the BSA that they are constrained by the past. The Code derives from the Broadcasting Act 1989, which has remained mostly unchanged for 33 years. But society has not stood still, with major changes in the environment in which the Code operates. 

The arrival of the Internet and the Digital Paradigm has led to dramatic shifts in modes of communication, and to the sheer amount and variety of information and content accessible. One of the concerns of the BSA is the role that changes in communications media play in the spread of misinformation and disinformation, harmful material, polarisation, impact on ‘traditional’ elements of the media sector, like broadcasting, and on democracy itself.

But because of the limitations imposed by the legislation there is not a lot that the BSA can do about this and it is clear both from the BSA and the article by Ms Woods that the BSA is frustrated by the limitations imposed by the law and bridle against them.

Mission Creep in the Information Space

In a similar way the Chief Censor at the time, David Shanks, published a paper from the Chief Censor’s Office in 2021 entitled The Edge of the Infodemic: Challenging Misinformation in Aotearoa. Now this paper had nothing to do with the statutory role of the Classifications Office and the paper considered that government agencies and officials are best placed to take action, and the report’s findings support stronger action against the spread of misinformation. In many respects this was what the Safer Online Services Project sought to address – something that the Chief Censor had advocated for from 2019. Mr Shanks left the Classification Office in 2022.

But in many respects the concerns that he expressed are repeated in the research referred to by Ms. Wood. She comments:

“The findings raise serious broader issues to be tackled in much-needed reform of content regulation– including the need for a regime that effectively addresses social media. BSA decisions on TV and radio broadcasts help give guidance on what is acceptable, but our outdated, 35-year-old legislation does little to address harms occurring online or at a systemic level. Individual pieces of content may not reach the high threshold of breaching broadcasting standards, but the cumulative effect of negative or harmful content should not be ignored.

With other research pointing to a steady fall in the public’s trust in media generally, our research also offers useful insight s into what’ s impeding trust and engagement with media among our diverse communities.”

So despite the Government shelving the Safer Online Services proposals, the bureaucrats still cry out for more power in this area.

This may be seen as an attempt by the BSA to stary into the censorship arena and the article by Ms Wood would seem to emphasise that despite its patronising and condescending view especially of minorities.

It is suggested by Jillaine Heather of the Free Speech Union that

“The case Wood presents for greater censorship powers is built off the highly dubious piece of research conducted among Māori, Pacific Peoples, Asian, and Muslim participants.

Appearing to lack any serious objective methodology, the survey relies on the experiences of just over 450 self-selecting participants. The survey is a snapshot in time without reference to the past attitudes and behaviours of those same participants….

Are things improving or getting worse? The stats they’ve gathered offer us no clue. No control group seems to be provided either. Best to let the BSA do all the interpreting, no matter how creative their assumptions may get.”

The report and Ms Wood’s article are fairly typical examples of a paternalistic state that knows what is best for its members – what Ms Heather describes as a

“‘saviour-complex’ kind of mentality that motivates these guardian types to wrap us up in cotton wool and euphemistic nonsense. They appear to be the avant-garde, redefining “harm” so subjectively as to now include perceived slights and jokes told in bad taste (or good taste – who’s to say?).”

The suggestion is that harm is what the BSA says it is when speech is not properly regulated and this is based on a subjective approach based on offence in the eye of the offended rather than any objective standard.

Ms Woods is entitled to her point of view and she is entitled to express it. What is a problem is that the point of view seeks an extension of the power of the organisation of which she is CEO and which involves an interference with some fundamental rights guaranteed by that rather inconvenient New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The problem with differing opinions and controversial statements is that they need not be discriminatory but the report equates hearing 'controversial' and 'offensive' opinions with discriminatory ones. That is ideological.

There can be no doubt that the concerns about content that are turning people away from MSM in the eyes of the BSA have little to do with the matters suggested by Mr Cotterill but which demand State interference with the freedom of expression managed and monitored by the BSA.

Luckily digital systems and platforms have been able to avoid excessive regulatory interference, at least in this country. But across the Tasman in Australia social media platforms are going to be responsible for monitoring for misinformation and disinformation, along with Mr Albanese’s desire to ban children and young people having any access to social media. But those are issues to be discussed in another article.