It would seem too obvious for commentary that a payment, or subsidy, of any sort by government to the media, would undermine the ability of media to 'talk truth to power". This was surely the abject failing of the PIJF, and in part the reason for the diminishing public trust in the media.
Another superb examination of "mainstream" (aka "legacy") and other media, David. You have done some serious research and delivered a wise verdict! I have long questioned Goldsmith (and his predecessor's) support for MSM to keep feeding off taxpayers. To reject a parliamentary committee's advice must be close to unique for a minister?
Thanks Peter - I like the characterization of MSM as "has been media" (HBM).
I was concerned to read that the NZME reshuffle is going to mean less news because there is some sort of ranking system based on what the audience likes. So we will be getting more stories based on "likes" rather than what may be in the public interest.
I know the NY Times touts itself as the newspaper of record and to an extent that may be true. But if "likes" driven journalism is going to prevail we are without a newspaper of record and effectively an emasculated (can one use that gender specific word?) Fourth Estate.
I am minded to write something on this (and probably will) but not today. Other things to write.
I understand that Luxon may favour the Fair Digital solution and it is unusual for a recommendation to be rejected (although it does happen) but I think the Minister's "advisers" may be wedded to the Bill for some reasonor another.
HBM is another good characterisation of MSM! I too hope some sort of "newspaper of record"... after all that's how the whole business began. Except that some "pamphlets" were also used to attack and disparage prominent figures too.
Established forms of record were the English "National Archives" and the Gazette. But seldom read by many! But I do believe they were created at a time when the Public Servants who wrote the records were genuinely politically independent and (largely) incorruptible.
I do accept your concerns and hope you may revisit the problem in the future.
Thanks for the comment. Davids have a history of taking on Goliaths.
On that subject there was an excellent series about an individualistic lawyer who took on "Goliaths". The program was on Prime and is outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_(TV_series)
In the first series my good friend and former Judge Alex Kozinski had a cameo role. I enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 and must have a look for seasons 3 and 4.
Shock horror! 😱😱😱 Surely you are not suggesting that the sainted MSM has been misinforming the public???
If they’ve been busy doings so on this matter then surely that calls into question the factual quality of the rest of their coverage?
But seriously - I think it is about time we all start calling the lot you write about the HBM (Has Been Media). No amount of short lived socialistic subsidisation will save them in the long run when they think that it would be a game changer if one or other became “the most trusted” media outlet in a world where significantly less than 50% of the populace actually trust the MSM, ahem HBM. If only one of those CEOs set their team the goal of getting more than 50% of the population to “trust” them - now that WOULD be a game changer for the betterment of all!
Australia's been talking about compelling platforms to provide access to news, so that they can be subject to Australia's version of the Act (which could otherwise be avoided by not facilitating access to news).
I hope that Inland Revenue has been thinking about this, because it amounts to tax policy being run outside of a budget process and without any consideration of the generic tax policy process.
If successful, it would be pretty bad for tax system coherence. Have a deficit but want to fund something anyway? Introduce legislation compelling some industry to 'bargain' with whoever is providing whatever you want to fund.
It would seem too obvious for commentary that a payment, or subsidy, of any sort by government to the media, would undermine the ability of media to 'talk truth to power". This was surely the abject failing of the PIJF, and in part the reason for the diminishing public trust in the media.
Another superb examination of "mainstream" (aka "legacy") and other media, David. You have done some serious research and delivered a wise verdict! I have long questioned Goldsmith (and his predecessor's) support for MSM to keep feeding off taxpayers. To reject a parliamentary committee's advice must be close to unique for a minister?
Thanks Peter - I like the characterization of MSM as "has been media" (HBM).
I was concerned to read that the NZME reshuffle is going to mean less news because there is some sort of ranking system based on what the audience likes. So we will be getting more stories based on "likes" rather than what may be in the public interest.
I know the NY Times touts itself as the newspaper of record and to an extent that may be true. But if "likes" driven journalism is going to prevail we are without a newspaper of record and effectively an emasculated (can one use that gender specific word?) Fourth Estate.
I am minded to write something on this (and probably will) but not today. Other things to write.
I understand that Luxon may favour the Fair Digital solution and it is unusual for a recommendation to be rejected (although it does happen) but I think the Minister's "advisers" may be wedded to the Bill for some reasonor another.
Thanks David
HBM is another good characterisation of MSM! I too hope some sort of "newspaper of record"... after all that's how the whole business began. Except that some "pamphlets" were also used to attack and disparage prominent figures too.
Established forms of record were the English "National Archives" and the Gazette. But seldom read by many! But I do believe they were created at a time when the Public Servants who wrote the records were genuinely politically independent and (largely) incorruptible.
I do accept your concerns and hope you may revisit the problem in the future.
Go you, taking on the Goliath, David!
Canary in the coal mine is another appropriate metaphor.
Keep chirping on alternative perches (sorry, couldn't help it - platforms).
Hi Pamela
Thanks for the comment. Davids have a history of taking on Goliaths.
On that subject there was an excellent series about an individualistic lawyer who took on "Goliaths". The program was on Prime and is outlined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_(TV_series)
In the first series my good friend and former Judge Alex Kozinski had a cameo role. I enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 and must have a look for seasons 3 and 4.
So much to do, so much to see, so little time
Read the synopsis, will pass, as you say, time can be better spent.
Shock horror! 😱😱😱 Surely you are not suggesting that the sainted MSM has been misinforming the public???
If they’ve been busy doings so on this matter then surely that calls into question the factual quality of the rest of their coverage?
But seriously - I think it is about time we all start calling the lot you write about the HBM (Has Been Media). No amount of short lived socialistic subsidisation will save them in the long run when they think that it would be a game changer if one or other became “the most trusted” media outlet in a world where significantly less than 50% of the populace actually trust the MSM, ahem HBM. If only one of those CEOs set their team the goal of getting more than 50% of the population to “trust” them - now that WOULD be a game changer for the betterment of all!
Australia's been talking about compelling platforms to provide access to news, so that they can be subject to Australia's version of the Act (which could otherwise be avoided by not facilitating access to news).
I hope that Inland Revenue has been thinking about this, because it amounts to tax policy being run outside of a budget process and without any consideration of the generic tax policy process.
If successful, it would be pretty bad for tax system coherence. Have a deficit but want to fund something anyway? Introduce legislation compelling some industry to 'bargain' with whoever is providing whatever you want to fund.