Melissa Lee is no longer Minister of Broadcasting. That portfolio has been assigned to Mr. Paul Goldsmith – seen to be a slightly safer pair of hands than Ms. Lee.
The reasons for Ms. Lee’s demotion seem obvious from the outside. Whilst Mainstream Media (MSM) was going through a state of chaotic turmoil she did nothing. She avoided interviews. When she was cornered by MSM she failed to answer questions. The perception – and these days perception is everything – was that she was out of her depth and didn’t have a plan. But there are a number of issues surrounding this incident that have occurred to me, and I write this without access to formal papers or the fruits of an OIA request – as to the latter the time that it takes to get OIA requests answered effectively means that the issue has atrophied. So this is very much a “how it seems to me” article.
What We Do Not Know
One of the things that we do not know is the assistance and support that Ms. Lee had from her officials and advisors. We do know that some of the broader issues surrounding the Broadcasting portfolio were communicated in the various Briefings to Incoming Ministers but we do not have a day to day picture of the discussions that she was having or the advice that she was getting (or not getting) from officials.
Another thing that we do not know is whether a Cabinet Paper had been prepared in draft or otherwise. There has been a suggestion that there was a draft circulating but that it never made it for Cabinet consideration. More of that below.
That being the case, we do not know what strategies or plans Ms. Lee had devised, if any. Clearly there were a number of moving parts in the portfolio but sadly there was no indication from Ms. Lee of the direction that she wished to take with her portfolio
Another thing we do not know is the impact of any views of the coalition partners – Messrs Seymour and Peters – on the decision making process. Given Mr. Peters’ well know criticism of MSM and given his frequent absences from New Zealand attending to the Foreign Affairs portfolio there could well have been difficulties in Ms. Lee “getting around the table” with the coalition partners and especially Mr. Peters. It is highly unlikely that either of the coalition partners would favour a financial bailout and indeed MSM outlets have been quite vigorous in their denials that this was what was required. Perhaps the memory of the backlash about the Public Interest Journalism Fund still smarted and made MSM wary of taking Government handouts – if indeed any were forthcoming.
What Do We Know
First, TVNZ seems determined to pursue its cost cutting course and programmes such as Sunday and Fair Go will vanish from our screens along with some of the other news shows. These decisions are based on operational realities. One wonders what the Minister could have done. To decree that certain programmes were to remain would be an extraordinary level of interference with the commercial decisions of TVNZ.
Secondly, Newshub/Warner Bros Discovery have worked out a solution for a continuation of a news broadcast. It is significant that as far as we know there was no Government input into the discussions for a solution or the solution that was reached between WBD and Stuff. In a classic example of letting the players solve their own problems, the players came up with a solution.
What the Industry Wanted of the Minister
In a word – action.
Action on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill which is awaiting a report back from the Select Committee. What could the Minister do? The industry would have liked some form of commitment “going forward” that the Bill would receive support from the Government.
I have previously written critically of the Bill. It would result in a State sponsored handout of funds derived from the big digital platforms in the direction of MSM. This ostensibly would be to compensate MSM for the loss of advertising revenue that has migrated in the direction of the digital platforms. In reality it would be a form of subsidy – an artificial support for MSM outlets who cannot survive in a commercial and competitive environment.
The action that MSM required of the Minister was an up-to-date regulatory environment – one that suited the Digital Paradigm. The Broadcasting Act needed to be updated. In some way shape or form Internet-based operations that did not fall within the scope of the Broadcasting Act needed to be captured. This better and improved regulatory environment would keep the digital competition under control and would allow MSM to maintain its competitive advantage.
The action that MSM wanted was continued Government intervention – but not too heavy handed, mind – in broadcasting.
The Virtue of Inaction
The Minister’s inaction allowed solutions to be reached and operational decisions made without her input – as it should be.
The mistake that Ms. Lee made was not to communicate her position – that being that it was up to MSM to solve their problems without State intervention or assistance. Like it or not TVNZ, as a State owned broadcaster, will continue to be propped up by the State although in my view the Government should sell its interest as it should with Radio NZ.
Perhaps the Minister could have stated clearly that her policy was one of less Government involvement in broadcasting, not more. As events have proven State support of broadcasting comes at a cost – that being of public confidence in MSM. Any more State support will merely continue the downward slide of trust and confidence in MSM.
Perhaps Ms. Lee’s mistake was not her apparent inaction, but her failure to clearly communicate the reasons for her inaction.
A Contrast In Styles
When the “rolling” of Ms. Lee was announced her replacement was also named – Mr. Paul Goldsmith who holds a number of other portfolios. At the time of the announcement he was in London but wated no time in getting his message across. He was interviewed by Mr. Shayne Currie of the NZ Herald and some of the general comments that Mr. Goldsmith made seem to suggest a “back to the future approach”.
Mr. Currie reports:
“Newly minted Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith is wasting no time coming to grips with his new portfolio, identifying the two biggest challenges facing the media and screen production sector - and pledging to even the playing field with international social, search and streaming giants.
Speaking to Media Insider from London, less than 24 hours into the role, the new minister’s language is assertive and assured - and supportive of the media sector generally - even if it’s light on specific details.”
But at least the interview reveals that there might have been a Cabinet paper from Melissa Lee.
“He won’t say whether he’s seen former minister Melissa Lee’s much-hyped Cabinet paper - “I won’t get into how Cabinet operates and what’s coming and what’s going” - but his approach would be to “clarify what the priorities are and how I’m going to get there.”
I get the impression from this that there may have been some unsuccessful submissions to Cabinet. It may be that the grading system employed by Cabinet and the PM may have led to Ms. Lee’s demise.
As for support for MSM in the face of competition from digital platforms the following comments by Mr. Goldsmith make concerning reading.
“First, in the media space, is how do we ensure that we continue to have a strong and economically sustainable local media for the obvious reasons - it’s so fundamental to our democratic makeup - and recognising the challenges that they’ve got and the decline in advertising revenue.”
The most useful thing “we can try our best to do”, he says, is to even the playing field alongside the international tech giants, “recognising that it’s not a straightforward matter”.
There was no single solution but the Government would work “systematically through various things that can even things up, somewhat”.
While the National-led coalition has been previously lukewarm and occasionally downright opposed to the previous Government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill - legislation that would force the likes of Meta and Google to pay for the journalism that helps sustain their business models - Goldsmith is more conciliatory.
“People make a very strong case for it [the Bill]; I’m certainly open to it, but I’m going to have to take a little bit of time to get some advice, and it’s something that we need to go through with the channels of government. But I’m certainly open to it ... [and] a full consideration of that.”
Mr. Goldsmith seems to be hedging his bets, especially on the future of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. One wonders if he truly is of the view that this form of subsidisation is what the State should be encouraging or backing for MSM.
Mr. Goldsmith has other objectives as well. One involves the screen production sector. Another suggestion – and I am not sure that this comes from Mr. Goldsmith or Mr. Currie – is that the government may well provide relief for broadcasters from paying Kordia transmission fees - they total around $40 million a year - as part of short-term relief options.
But it seems to me that under the new Minister there will be a level of State protectionism and support for MSM. In light of the fact that the Digital Paradigm has introduced new challenges and new models for doing business in the communications space I am forced to conclude that there will be some financial benefits sent in the direction of MSM involving, in some way, shape or form, imposts on the digital platforms. As I have suggested this is a form of subsidy – possibly by stealth. But the other conclusion is that despite the communications revolution ushered in by the Digital Paradigm, MSM will continue in its old, previously understood and therefore comfortable model.
Marshall McLuhan pointed out how, in using new technologies, our vision is restricted by our previous experience. We do not immediately grasp the potential of new technologies but interpret them in the light of what we know. McLuhan called this effect ‘the rear view mirror’.
‘When faced with a totally new situation’, McLuhan declared, ‘we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future’.
Moreover, McLuhan suggested, we cling to the rear view mirror because the view it offers may be more comforting than confronting what is visible through the windscreen.
In McLuhan’s words
‘Ordinary human instinct causes people to recoil from these new environments and to rely on the rear-view mirror as a kind of repeat or ricorso of the preceding environment, thus insuring total disorientation at all times. It is not that there is anything wrong with the old environment, but it simply will not serve as navigational guide to the new one’.
It may well be that should the new Minister revert to the State support and subsidisation of MSM he will exemplify McLuhan’s premise and march backwards into the future.
I feel some sympathy for Minister Lee, but she did at one point remind me of the devious Labour minister Nanaia Mahuta by her avoiding the subject, not giving clear answers, and thus rumour and suspicion arose - in this case the rumour that she was considering a Government bailout for NZ MSM. This led to a mass email campaign of protest to her Parliament address to not do it!
My impression is that however many years in Parliament as a career politician you have does not prepare you for interface with the rough and tumble of public sentiment.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783781139561484599