What nonsense. The argument of 'Property rights' in this context is simple evasion of the truth. The truth is that by banning Michael Bassett from their opinion pages, and banning Brash's ad the Herald has abrogated its duty to the public - to be objective and to inform.
They also ran an advocacy ad for the Peoples Republic before Easter. That may tell us something about their alignment but they are at liberty to do that in the same way that we are at liberty to cancel subscriptions
Ah, the legal fine points explained by a very smart lawyer/Judge. You probably have a legal point, but you are struggling with a moral one. Sure, the Herald can refuse, that is their right. But the utter hypocrisy of the Herald to claim they are a non-partisan or even decent representative of journalism or news reporting, is the salient point here. Perhaps if they rebranded as ‘The Woke Left Wing Aotearoan Herald’ with a marketing line like ‘where every opinion counts, as long as you agree with us’. I guess all this is why they are going down the gurgler huh? Good riddance.
Rarely indeed do find myself disagreeing with you D. But on this occasion we part company. Yes, NZME is a shareholder owned entity but at the same time one asserting to exist (as the Washington Post puts it) to strive to ensure that “democracy (does not) die in darkness”. Refusing to publish the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement can only rationally be seen as a deliberate suppression of a constitutional/political point of view. It reeks of pandering to the extremists in our society. Hobson’s Pledge could scarcely be identified as an extremist organisation or group like those whose incessant “noise” is regularly afforded an echo chamber by NZME. As your contributor Mike Houlding says above, NZME has abrogated its (freely assumed) duty to the public - to be objective and inform. So-called ‘’property rights’’ should have nothing to do with it.
The background thinking for the perspective put forward lies in the writings of John Locke and the moral aspects appear in the writings of Ayn Rand {that will result in the invocation of heresy from some)
I would suggest that a newspapers duty is well stated by Gavin Ellis in his Knightley Views column this morning
"the mixing of reportage and reporter opinion must stop. Give a separate space for comment to those who merit it and tell the rest to do their damned jobs – seeking out and reporting facts with demonstrable professionalism. It also says the audience now expects media outlets to routinely disclose how and why they are covering the news – or not."
Advertising, however, has to do not with news but raising revenue. Advocacy advertising occupies a specific space within that category. Therein lies the difference. It is not the reporting of news.
Thanks for this reply, and I'm very happy to read Gavin Ellis's comment. I would hope that his vision would include seeking out facts and information from all sides of an issue.
I was reading your post and feeling in agreement with you, and then those couple of readers disagreed with you. Your reply to me covers some more of the story but I'd be interested to hear how your luncheon friend would follow up.
The disagreement seems to conflate the obligations of a newspaper as a member of the 4th Estate and the generation of revenue from advertising. The two are separate. The problem is exacerbated by "advocacy advertising' which is a statement of a position intended to persuade to a point of view rather then to persuade to purchase a product.
What I would say to Rod (the lunchtime friend) is pretty much what has passed over our exchanges. I have no doubt that we would each expand on our points over a very enjoyable meal. Differences of opinion often occur in friendships and that is a good thing.
Thanks for the information about Knightly News which I have had a look at.
Thinking further on the matter I do feel that the Property Rights aspect of the discussion is correct. But I think the NZ Herald has let itself and it's shareholders down in this instance. The distrust in the media that has increased so markedly in the past few years has related in part to the bias shown in their reporting, and the exclusion of other than favoured points of view. Not running the ad (and actually, due to the publicity about it) is a demonstration that the bias is alive and well. I'm not saying that publishing the ad alone would turn anything around, but it would have been a small sign that the Herald recognises and accepts diverse points of view. Which is what they badly need to do to bring the readers back.
Indeed, its ‘freely assumed’ duty to the public ‘to be objective & inform’ is the point here. All subscribers should go them under the CGA for failing so miserably to be anything like they claim to be!
I don't see Don Brash as saying that the Herald should be forced to publish the ad. He is just calling them out for their refusal to do so. The Herald is entitled to refuse. Brash is entitled to roundly criticize them.
There is a wider issue. Partisan advertising decisions drive more nails into the coffin holding the corpse of public trust.
Totally agree with you David but I guess the issue Brash raises is whether the decision making is in line with the property owners interests or are they in line with their staff's interests? But I agree entirely with your summary, you are once again correct.
Awesome. This clearly outlines reality in a way that is easy to understand. But also highlights the emotion that can be unleashed when someone is rejected from a place they believe they have a right to stand in. Something which we're all struggling with in a variety of ways in our world today.
Ultimately correct - NZME is free to accept or not accept ads from anyone. But they happily take advertising dollars from the liquor industry - a huge source of harm in our society.
No - but turning down ads from Hobson's Pledge and Speak Up For Women on what appears to be ideological grounds seems a bit high-minded in light of the fact they take ads from the alcohol industry.
Property rights are not infringed by placing an advertisement that disagrees with owner's rights. Many shareholder-owners might simply swallow and say take the money. The owner still owns all that was owned prior to the advert. The real issue is about Commerce Act abuse of near monopoly power operated by the Editor. The NZ Herald has near monopoly power in the old MSM Auckland region market. Traditional MSM created a still powerful voice influencing readers. MSM influence has diminished over time but is still relatively powerful compared to smaller alternatives. The refusal to place an advert invites regulation to be balanced. All authors should state their bias. The paper should state their bias. The lack of transparency is not in the best interests of the public. Voters may want change. I admit my thoughts are influenced by an offshore writer whose article I recently viewed. It helped reinforce my own views. Anyone with influence need to be honest, display integrity, and indicate any bias. My bias is towards fairness. I regularly read the NZ Herald and other media for displays of unfairness in our civic lives.
There is a difference between what the Herald does in terms of news dissemination and taking advertising. The approach is that I will not allow my property to be used by an advertiser with whose views I disagree.
" Property rights are the foundation of all other rights." Not sure about that. I have believed for some time that freedom of religious belief and expression to be the foundational right. Who we believe we are and who we believe God is determines everything else. Certainly property rights are an important negative right but hardly the foundation. The right to property seems, at least to me, to depend on the commandment "thou shalt not steal."
What nonsense. The argument of 'Property rights' in this context is simple evasion of the truth. The truth is that by banning Michael Bassett from their opinion pages, and banning Brash's ad the Herald has abrogated its duty to the public - to be objective and to inform.
They also ran an advocacy ad for the Peoples Republic before Easter. That may tell us something about their alignment but they are at liberty to do that in the same way that we are at liberty to cancel subscriptions
Ah, the legal fine points explained by a very smart lawyer/Judge. You probably have a legal point, but you are struggling with a moral one. Sure, the Herald can refuse, that is their right. But the utter hypocrisy of the Herald to claim they are a non-partisan or even decent representative of journalism or news reporting, is the salient point here. Perhaps if they rebranded as ‘The Woke Left Wing Aotearoan Herald’ with a marketing line like ‘where every opinion counts, as long as you agree with us’. I guess all this is why they are going down the gurgler huh? Good riddance.
Rarely indeed do find myself disagreeing with you D. But on this occasion we part company. Yes, NZME is a shareholder owned entity but at the same time one asserting to exist (as the Washington Post puts it) to strive to ensure that “democracy (does not) die in darkness”. Refusing to publish the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement can only rationally be seen as a deliberate suppression of a constitutional/political point of view. It reeks of pandering to the extremists in our society. Hobson’s Pledge could scarcely be identified as an extremist organisation or group like those whose incessant “noise” is regularly afforded an echo chamber by NZME. As your contributor Mike Houlding says above, NZME has abrogated its (freely assumed) duty to the public - to be objective and inform. So-called ‘’property rights’’ should have nothing to do with it.
I figured there would be some disagreement and as you know it is welcomed. Maybe we can discuss this overlunch when next you are in town
It would be good if you could discuss it on this page. It's an interesting conversation. Now I'm interested in the notion of a newspaper's duty.
I am happy to do that Sheryl.
The background thinking for the perspective put forward lies in the writings of John Locke and the moral aspects appear in the writings of Ayn Rand {that will result in the invocation of heresy from some)
I would suggest that a newspapers duty is well stated by Gavin Ellis in his Knightley Views column this morning
"the mixing of reportage and reporter opinion must stop. Give a separate space for comment to those who merit it and tell the rest to do their damned jobs – seeking out and reporting facts with demonstrable professionalism. It also says the audience now expects media outlets to routinely disclose how and why they are covering the news – or not."
Advertising, however, has to do not with news but raising revenue. Advocacy advertising occupies a specific space within that category. Therein lies the difference. It is not the reporting of news.
Thanks for this reply, and I'm very happy to read Gavin Ellis's comment. I would hope that his vision would include seeking out facts and information from all sides of an issue.
I was reading your post and feeling in agreement with you, and then those couple of readers disagreed with you. Your reply to me covers some more of the story but I'd be interested to hear how your luncheon friend would follow up.
Hi Sheryl
Gavins full article (they come out each Tuesday) is here https://knightlyviews.com/legion-of-wake-up-calls-in-news-trust-report/
The disagreement seems to conflate the obligations of a newspaper as a member of the 4th Estate and the generation of revenue from advertising. The two are separate. The problem is exacerbated by "advocacy advertising' which is a statement of a position intended to persuade to a point of view rather then to persuade to purchase a product.
What I would say to Rod (the lunchtime friend) is pretty much what has passed over our exchanges. I have no doubt that we would each expand on our points over a very enjoyable meal. Differences of opinion often occur in friendships and that is a good thing.
Thanks for the information about Knightly News which I have had a look at.
Thinking further on the matter I do feel that the Property Rights aspect of the discussion is correct. But I think the NZ Herald has let itself and it's shareholders down in this instance. The distrust in the media that has increased so markedly in the past few years has related in part to the bias shown in their reporting, and the exclusion of other than favoured points of view. Not running the ad (and actually, due to the publicity about it) is a demonstration that the bias is alive and well. I'm not saying that publishing the ad alone would turn anything around, but it would have been a small sign that the Herald recognises and accepts diverse points of view. Which is what they badly need to do to bring the readers back.
Lunch is on me!
Indeed, its ‘freely assumed’ duty to the public ‘to be objective & inform’ is the point here. All subscribers should go them under the CGA for failing so miserably to be anything like they claim to be!
I totally agree with the reasoning behind this article
That's why the only way to get all views expressed is by controlling the means of their dissemination.
I hope the attempted coup at NZME succeeds and we get some balance back
I don't see Don Brash as saying that the Herald should be forced to publish the ad. He is just calling them out for their refusal to do so. The Herald is entitled to refuse. Brash is entitled to roundly criticize them.
There is a wider issue. Partisan advertising decisions drive more nails into the coffin holding the corpse of public trust.
Totally agree with you David but I guess the issue Brash raises is whether the decision making is in line with the property owners interests or are they in line with their staff's interests? But I agree entirely with your summary, you are once again correct.
Awesome. This clearly outlines reality in a way that is easy to understand. But also highlights the emotion that can be unleashed when someone is rejected from a place they believe they have a right to stand in. Something which we're all struggling with in a variety of ways in our world today.
Ultimately correct - NZME is free to accept or not accept ads from anyone. But they happily take advertising dollars from the liquor industry - a huge source of harm in our society.
I gather that you are inferring that there is a moral issue here?
No - but turning down ads from Hobson's Pledge and Speak Up For Women on what appears to be ideological grounds seems a bit high-minded in light of the fact they take ads from the alcohol industry.
Property rights are not infringed by placing an advertisement that disagrees with owner's rights. Many shareholder-owners might simply swallow and say take the money. The owner still owns all that was owned prior to the advert. The real issue is about Commerce Act abuse of near monopoly power operated by the Editor. The NZ Herald has near monopoly power in the old MSM Auckland region market. Traditional MSM created a still powerful voice influencing readers. MSM influence has diminished over time but is still relatively powerful compared to smaller alternatives. The refusal to place an advert invites regulation to be balanced. All authors should state their bias. The paper should state their bias. The lack of transparency is not in the best interests of the public. Voters may want change. I admit my thoughts are influenced by an offshore writer whose article I recently viewed. It helped reinforce my own views. Anyone with influence need to be honest, display integrity, and indicate any bias. My bias is towards fairness. I regularly read the NZ Herald and other media for displays of unfairness in our civic lives.
There is a difference between what the Herald does in terms of news dissemination and taking advertising. The approach is that I will not allow my property to be used by an advertiser with whose views I disagree.
" Property rights are the foundation of all other rights." Not sure about that. I have believed for some time that freedom of religious belief and expression to be the foundational right. Who we believe we are and who we believe God is determines everything else. Certainly property rights are an important negative right but hardly the foundation. The right to property seems, at least to me, to depend on the commandment "thou shalt not steal."
The right to this type of property depends on the Companies Act.