And the elephants in the room that the MSM prefer to ignore and/or ridicule: the online news outlets that are independent ie Reality Check Radio, The Platform and The Good Oil. I don't know what their actual numbers are but all appear to be flourishing without injections of government cash. The Platform has a wealthy backer but as far as I know the others rely on subscriptions and donations and all manage varied and stimulating content.
I have just this minute finished a piece on changes at the Herald and the rise of "Outsider" media of which Platform and RCR are examples. I hadn't heard of the Good Oil so thanks for the heads up.
I dunno, much angst and worry about the decline of mainstream media. Lots of ideas on how to fix this, restore trad media to it's traditional place. But what if it's in rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, oblivious to the fleets of smaller boats around the iceberg, of the survivors in their small boats. Media is evolving in front of our eyes from the ground up. What has been called Alt media is growing fast and becoming the main source of information for many. This is an organic process, who ever is trustworthy, authentic and speaks truth will succeed.
Advertising agencies are definitely steering clients to the tech platforms - just take a look at any agency job posting. 'Familiar with Google Ad Words, Meta and TikTok' etc is a basic requirement.
Modern 'collectivisation' is usually just communism in drag and thus rather stupid. Typically, schemes even remotely similar to this, attract mostly left wing staff (centre-right folk have an entrepreneurial spirit so stay clear) and then either continue to bleed taxpayer money, or self-implode with their wokeness.
However, whilst I have zero sympathy for the current malaise affecting MSM, free market fractionalisation can also be a problem. I am already over-subscribed to so many non-MSM feeds, The Platform, Daily Wire, Spectator, multiple Substacks etc etc and also many noble causes such as NZCPR, Hobsons Pledge, FSU etc etc. (nope, no Spinoff in that list...)
The point is that these great ideas are unlikely to all flourish as simple folk like me can't support them all, so some unity may be required if they are to survive & compete with the 'big boys'. Surprisingly, perhaps Mr Cormack and I would agree on that.
Kia ora Judge Harvey, firstly thanks for taking the time to read my reckons and give your view on them.
I think I may have tripped you up unintentionally by saying the sector should collectivise, and then declaring I'm a lefty.
While yes, I am very much a lefty, and do believe in the power of collectivisation, what I meant in this context was something akin to the NPA - where media companies collectivise in order to bargain or lobby or make deals.
I'm not sure that full state-ownership of a media will work super well, both for the industry, and also to help with issues of trust in the media that are so rampant.
The main thrust of what I was trying to say - which you mentioned - was that NZ news media need to recognise that they're not competing with each other, they're competing with Meta and Google - and so to this end, should work together because obviously none of the media companies has anywhere near the leverage that those mega-corporates do (to be fair, they wouldn't collectively either).
To answer your question about what we recommend to clients: we don't do "media buying" so make no recommendation about where to spend their ad dollars.
Anyway, great run through. I think this is something that more people should be thinking about; a diminishing - to non-existent - fourth estate will be disastrous for society.
First - thanks for the courtesy title and thanks for taking to the time to read my mutterings.
I think this must be one of the very few times that a subject of one of my pieces has added to the debate and I thank you for your contribution and clarification.
As to the Fourthe Estate - this morning I wrote a piece tentatively titled "Audience Resonation" where I look at the future of the Fourth Estate and the absence of a "newspaper of record" in New Zealand.
I anticipate it going live early next week so "stay tuned".
TVNZ+ would not commit an offence by broadcasting objectionable content (as long as they cut the simultaneous stream of it). Broadcasting is excluded from the offence provisions in the censorship legislation. (See section 122(4) ... "electronic transmission (whether by way of facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other similar means of communication, *other than by broadcasting*"). The decision was made at the time the law was passed that media regulation under broadcasting standards was the appropriate means of dealing with objectionable material on air.
Along with the maximum sentences at the time of passage (showing a 15 year-old an R16 movie was a more serious offence than possession of an objectionable publication), this is perhaps the strongest evidence I have for my repeated observation that our censorship laws were fundamentally designed to deal with "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and not CSAM.
I agree with your assessment regarding Lady Chatterly. I was astonished to learn of the number of books that have an R18 classification and are kept "behind the desk" at libraries. "American Psycho" and "Fanny Hill"!!
Someone should apply to have them reclassified.
The shade of Patricial Bartlett still haunts us.
Thanks for the clarification on TVNZ+. I picked up Grieve's ball and ran with it.
And the elephants in the room that the MSM prefer to ignore and/or ridicule: the online news outlets that are independent ie Reality Check Radio, The Platform and The Good Oil. I don't know what their actual numbers are but all appear to be flourishing without injections of government cash. The Platform has a wealthy backer but as far as I know the others rely on subscriptions and donations and all manage varied and stimulating content.
Thanks for the comment Aroha
I have just this minute finished a piece on changes at the Herald and the rise of "Outsider" media of which Platform and RCR are examples. I hadn't heard of the Good Oil so thanks for the heads up.
I dunno, much angst and worry about the decline of mainstream media. Lots of ideas on how to fix this, restore trad media to it's traditional place. But what if it's in rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, oblivious to the fleets of smaller boats around the iceberg, of the survivors in their small boats. Media is evolving in front of our eyes from the ground up. What has been called Alt media is growing fast and becoming the main source of information for many. This is an organic process, who ever is trustworthy, authentic and speaks truth will succeed.
Advertising agencies are definitely steering clients to the tech platforms - just take a look at any agency job posting. 'Familiar with Google Ad Words, Meta and TikTok' etc is a basic requirement.
Modern 'collectivisation' is usually just communism in drag and thus rather stupid. Typically, schemes even remotely similar to this, attract mostly left wing staff (centre-right folk have an entrepreneurial spirit so stay clear) and then either continue to bleed taxpayer money, or self-implode with their wokeness.
However, whilst I have zero sympathy for the current malaise affecting MSM, free market fractionalisation can also be a problem. I am already over-subscribed to so many non-MSM feeds, The Platform, Daily Wire, Spectator, multiple Substacks etc etc and also many noble causes such as NZCPR, Hobsons Pledge, FSU etc etc. (nope, no Spinoff in that list...)
The point is that these great ideas are unlikely to all flourish as simple folk like me can't support them all, so some unity may be required if they are to survive & compete with the 'big boys'. Surprisingly, perhaps Mr Cormack and I would agree on that.
Kia ora Judge Harvey, firstly thanks for taking the time to read my reckons and give your view on them.
I think I may have tripped you up unintentionally by saying the sector should collectivise, and then declaring I'm a lefty.
While yes, I am very much a lefty, and do believe in the power of collectivisation, what I meant in this context was something akin to the NPA - where media companies collectivise in order to bargain or lobby or make deals.
I'm not sure that full state-ownership of a media will work super well, both for the industry, and also to help with issues of trust in the media that are so rampant.
The main thrust of what I was trying to say - which you mentioned - was that NZ news media need to recognise that they're not competing with each other, they're competing with Meta and Google - and so to this end, should work together because obviously none of the media companies has anywhere near the leverage that those mega-corporates do (to be fair, they wouldn't collectively either).
To answer your question about what we recommend to clients: we don't do "media buying" so make no recommendation about where to spend their ad dollars.
Anyway, great run through. I think this is something that more people should be thinking about; a diminishing - to non-existent - fourth estate will be disastrous for society.
David
David
First - thanks for the courtesy title and thanks for taking to the time to read my mutterings.
I think this must be one of the very few times that a subject of one of my pieces has added to the debate and I thank you for your contribution and clarification.
As to the Fourthe Estate - this morning I wrote a piece tentatively titled "Audience Resonation" where I look at the future of the Fourth Estate and the absence of a "newspaper of record" in New Zealand.
I anticipate it going live early next week so "stay tuned".
Thanks again for your gracious comment.
The Halfling
TVNZ+ would not commit an offence by broadcasting objectionable content (as long as they cut the simultaneous stream of it). Broadcasting is excluded from the offence provisions in the censorship legislation. (See section 122(4) ... "electronic transmission (whether by way of facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other similar means of communication, *other than by broadcasting*"). The decision was made at the time the law was passed that media regulation under broadcasting standards was the appropriate means of dealing with objectionable material on air.
Along with the maximum sentences at the time of passage (showing a 15 year-old an R16 movie was a more serious offence than possession of an objectionable publication), this is perhaps the strongest evidence I have for my repeated observation that our censorship laws were fundamentally designed to deal with "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and not CSAM.
I agree with your assessment regarding Lady Chatterly. I was astonished to learn of the number of books that have an R18 classification and are kept "behind the desk" at libraries. "American Psycho" and "Fanny Hill"!!
Someone should apply to have them reclassified.
The shade of Patricial Bartlett still haunts us.
Thanks for the clarification on TVNZ+. I picked up Grieve's ball and ran with it.
Have I been "Edgelered"? :-)