Media Mutterings - Part 2

The Call for Regulation

Introduction

Shayne Currie’s four part overview of the Media in 2024 and looking forward to 2025 – copies of which can be found here (1), here (2), here (3) and here (4) – did not deal solely with Mainstream Media (MSM) – although I should note that a saw MSM described in one location as Legacy Media which I thought was apt, but for now I will stick with MSM – but also with advertising agencies and PR people. In addition some of the well-known but smaller players in the news media spectrum contributed.

It was interesting to note a common theme from Duncan Grieve of the Spinoff and David Cormack of PR firm Draper Cormack involved a form of media regulation and State involvement. Mr. Grieve was isolated a couple of issues and Mr. Cormack – a self-confessed Lefty – advocated a collectivist solution.

I shall discuss each of these proposals.

Duncan Grieve – The Sleeping Dogs of Media Regulation

I open with a direct quote from Mr. Grieve. The emphasis in italics is mine.

“We wrote an open letter in November (covered by the Media Insider) which laid out some existential challenges we faced as an organisation. It was deeply uncomfortable – you’re not really supposed to do that, in media or in business. But we’ve been heartened by the response. What we’re asking to do is at once huge (doubling our audience revenue) and should be achievable (asking 4% of our readership to financially support us). It’s early in what will be a long run, but we’re past a third of the way to our goal. If we can continue to make work which makes the case to our readers, we’re hopeful we’ll be able to get there some time next year.

A campaign a rival did well was that of NZ Geographic. They set off on a related voyage, aiming for 10,000 subscribers. I was thrilled for James, Catherine and their team. It’s an outstanding publication, one of a small handful of truly great print magazines still in operation. I’m really happy that they made it.”

“New Zealand media is on a knife edge. What we saw in 2024 was the most devastating loss of journalism the country has ever known, alongside a similarly brutalised local screen production sector. Yet without intervention, it will also become normal – a game of who can cut the most artfully.

Institutional media can look like social media or user generated content from some angles – entertainment and views, supported by advertising. But there are crucial differences in the professional standards enforced by bodies like the Media Council or BSA. They also vary wildly in the amount of local culture they contain. Essentially, they operate under different sets of legal and ethical rules. Imagine if TVNZ+ had unfiltered content from YouTube on it – there would be an outcry, it would be shut down within days. Yet advertisers treat them the same way, and government’s hands-off attitude implies they have the same role in our society and democracy.

Unless there is a major regulatory change to apply more similar legal standards – to simply level the playing field – between local media and big tech platforms, we will see more decay. What would be a game changer for all of us, then, is for this government to follow Australia and empower the Commerce Commission to scrutinise large digital platforms, and then make laws to keep them in check. I’ve argued we need a minister for big tech. I really believe that.”

Late in 2024 Mr. Grieve described the crisis facing the Spinoff. In effect it was uneconomical to proceed in its current form and required a rethink.

Rather than take the soft and uncertain road of the FDNBB, Grieve opened a campaign, seeking support from the readership by way of subscriptions. In some respects this is a digital back to the future when kinetic copies of newspapers arrived in a letter box following payment of a subscription.

Nothing new here. In fact it is reasonably well recognised that subscription based models are the way of the future for MSM. Mr. Grieve was encouraged by the initial response.

But then he moved to a more macro view of media and especially digital media, lamenting the fact that broadcast media is regulated by the Broadcasting Standards Authority and “other” media by the NZ Media Council.

He complained about different legal and ethical rules that apply to broadcast and “other media” and the regulation free environment of platforms such as You Tube.

The situation is a little more nuanced than Mr Grieve would have us believe.

The Broadcasting Act 1989 established the Broadcasting Standards Authority. This is a reactive organisation in that complaints about broadcast content may be made and will be investigated. The standards applicable are set out in broadcasting codes which are reviewed from time to time.

The NZ Media Council is the successor to the Press Council.

The Press Council was a voluntary organisation. That is the first important thing to remember. It was set up in 1972 when the then Labour Government was considering establishing a State based organisation to regulate the Press. In the interests of Press Freedom and the ability to manage their own affairs the Press Council was established. Part of the Press Council set up was the establishment of standards as well. Like the BSA the Press Council moved into action in response to complaints.

In about 2016 it was recognised that convergence was overtaking established media models. Blogs, online newspapers, newspaper sites incorporating video (previously viewed as a broadcast function) broadcasting sites incorporating text (previously viewed as a “press function) were proliferating but many of the “new” technologies did not fall within the scope of the Press Council or the BSA.

To meet the new environment the Online Media Standards Authority (OMSA)was established. This was like a Press Council for non-broadcast media. But OMSA did not last long and was folded into the Press Council which was renamed the New Zealand Media Council, which had a broader jurisdiction than the Press Council.

But the NZMC – like the Press Council – is voluntary.

And then there is the unregulated space. It is correct, for example, that You Tube is not subject to the BSA or the NZMC. Neither are internet based “radio” outlets such as The Platform or Reality Check Radio.

But there is another way in which there may be control of the most unacceptable content regardless of the jurisdiction of the BSA or the NZMC. Content may be classified as objectionable under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act. This means that the possession or distribution of objectionable content is an offence.

Thus if TVNZ+ broadcast objectionable content it would commit an offence. Likewise if You Tube made it available. We have seen how this works. The Censor moved swiftly to declare the live stream of the Christchurch massacre in 2019 objectionable.

So despite what Mr Grieve says, there are common standards applicable to all. Like many journalists he has a tendency to oversimply the matter, thereby avoiding often uncomfortable detail.

But Mr Grieve’s complaint goes further than an absence of a universal standard and suggests that advertisers do not discriminate between the contribution that the platforms make and states that lack of Government action suggests that Platforms and media have the same status – at least as far as the Government is concerned.

The solution, he suggests, lies with the Government – and in this respect he echoes the call by other MSM outlets although suggests a different approach. MSM seeks the wealth redistribution solution of the FDNBB.

Mr Grieve seeks something more.

Unless there is a major regulatory change to apply more similar legal standards – to simply level the playing field – between local media and big tech platforms, we will see more decay. What would be a game changer for all of us, then, is for this government to follow Australia and empower the Commerce Commission to scrutinise large digital platforms, and then make laws to keep them in check.

In essence what he is suggesting is the type of model proposed by the Safer Online Services and Web Platforms proposal, together with the intrusive Australian model about which I have written on earlier occasions.

Mr Grieve seeks a heavy handed regulatory model – make laws to keep the Platforms in check, he says.

The deep message Mr Grieve has is that the Platforms are the enemy and the legal standards applicable via the BSA and the NZMC should be extended to be applicable to the Platforms.

The problem here is “be careful what you wish for.” The relatively light-handed regulatory models applicable to MSM and broadcast media are important and maintain the balance between the public interest and the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Unless Mr Grieve seeks a more intrusive level of regulatory activity and State interference in the way that media do business he might be advised to “leave well enough alone” or “sleeping dogs lie”.

David Cormack – Collectivisation is the Answer

The question posed to Mr Cormack was this:

“How do you think 2025 will play out for New Zealand media – what would be a game-changer for your company?”

And his answer was (and once again the emphasis is mine)

“Something has to change or it’s going to break in a bad way. And whether that’s from state intervention, the people in the major media companies recognising that they are not competing with each other, but with the Metas and the Googles of the world, or advertisers returning to NZ-owned media instead of investing all the money with offshore companies, something has to change. There isn’t one reason why our media sector is so damaged, and there isn’t just one solution. It’s going to require a lot of changes across a bunch of issues. But collaboration and collectivisation are going to be central to it.

And look, as a lefty I have a pretty simplistic view that collectivising is nearly always good.”

Mr. Cormack immediately nails his colours to the mast. He is a Lefty and has a Left Wing bias as far as solutions are concerned.

The problem, as he sees it, is in MSM determining where the crisis points are – that MSM outlets in New Zealand and not competing with one another but with the Digital Platforms. In addition advertisers are letting money go offshore to foreign conglomerates rather than investing in New Zealand. Although this identifies an issue with advertising no one seems to have asked the advertising and PR people what they are doing with their advertising dollars and where they are putting it.

Given that Mr. Cormack is a PR person the question must be asked – does he follow his idealism and place his clients advertising dollars onshore and locally or does he recognize that the best bang for the advertising buck is via the digital platforms.

Although Mr. Cormack sees State intervention as a possible solution (and in the article it is the first option) he generalizes possible solutions by suggesting collaboration and collectivization. I wonder if by collaboration he means co-operation between various media entities, because he then suggests that collectivization is going to be central to the solution. And then he goes on to say that as a Lefty he sees collectivizing as nearly always good.

So let’s have a look at the issue of collectivisation.

Collectivisation has its roots in various socialist and communist ideologies that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One of the most notable examples of collectivisation is the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, who implemented this policy in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The primary goal was to consolidate individual landholdings and labour into collective farms, thereby increasing agricultural productivity and ensuring a more equitable distribution of food.

However, the reality of collectivisation in the Soviet Union was far from ideal. The forced consolidation of farms led to widespread resistance among peasants, resulting in a significant decline in agricultural output. Moreover, the lack of personal ownership and incentive to work hard led to inefficiencies and a lack of innovation.

One of the most significant drawbacks of collectivisation is its suppression of individual initiative. In a collectivised system, personal ambition and entrepreneurship are often stifled by the overarching control of the state. Without the prospect of personal gain or recognition, individuals are less likely to take risks or invest in new ideas, leading to a stagnation of innovation and creativity.

When individuals are not rewarded for their hard work and ingenuity, they become disincentivized to push boundaries and achieve excellence. This lack of motivation can lead to a culture of complacency and mediocrity, where individuals merely go through the motions without striving to improve or excel.

Collectivisation often leads to economic inefficiency due to the absence of market-driven incentives. In a free-market economy, competition drives efficiency and innovation as businesses strive to outdo one another. However, in a collectivised system, the lack of competition and profit motive results in a lack of accountability and productivity.

Resources are often allocated based on political considerations rather than economic efficiency, leading to waste and mismanagement. Without the pressure to perform and deliver results, state-run enterprises can become bloated and inefficient, ultimately hindering economic growth.

Collectivisation is frequently associated with an erosion of personal freedom and autonomy. When the state assumes control over private property and resources, individuals lose their ability to make independent decisions about their livelihoods and futures. This loss of control can lead to a sense of powerlessness and frustration, as individuals are forced to conform to the dictates of the state rather than pursuing their own goals and aspirations.

Moreover, collectivisation often requires a high degree of state intervention and control, which can lead to authoritarianism and the suppression of dissent. In order to maintain the collectivised system, the state may resort to coercive measures and surveillance, further curtailing individual liberties and freedoms.

The human cost of collectivisation can be immense, as evidenced by historical examples such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China. In both cases, the implementation of collectivisation led to widespread famine, suffering, and loss of life. The forced consolidation of farms and the disruption of traditional agricultural practices resulted in catastrophic declines in food production, leading to mass starvation and death.

In addition to the immediate human toll, collectivisation can also have long-term social and psychological effects. The breakdown of traditional communities and the loss of personal agency can lead to a sense of alienation and disillusionment among individuals, undermining social cohesion and stability.

One of the fundamental principles of economics is that incentives matter. In a collectivised system, the absence of personal incentives to work hard, innovate, and take risks can lead to a lack of progress and development. Conversely, in a market-based system, individuals are motivated by the prospect of personal gain and success, leading to greater productivity and innovation.

When individuals have a stake in the outcome of their efforts, they are more likely to invest time and resources into improving their skills and knowledge. This drive for self-improvement and success can lead to breakthroughs and advancements that benefit society as a whole.

While collectivisation may be driven by the noble goal of creating a more equitable society, its implementation often leads to a range of negative consequences. The suppression of individual initiative, economic inefficiency, erosion of personal freedom, and significant human cost are all compelling reasons to question the validity of collectivisation as a policy.

Ultimately, the success of any economic system depends on its ability to harness the talents, ambitions, and creativity of individuals. By stifling these qualities, collectivisation undermines the very foundations of progress and development. Instead, a system that encourages personal initiative and rewards hard work and innovation is more likely to lead to prosperity and well-being for all.

I offer the same caution to Mr Cormack as I do to Mr Grieve. Be careful what you wish for. I wonder if Mr Cormack would like to see Draper Cormack gobbled up by some collectivist organisation that clearly would know better than he how his business should be run.