Vox Media

Media Commentary and John Campbell

I came to Media Law and the study of communications media because of a number of accidents. It all started with the availability of the Internet and the use of that medium as a tool for lawyers – primarily in the area of research.

That expanded as it became clear that the new medium provided a number of challenges to existing rules of law – copyright in particular was an early focus – and so I drifted from a consideration of how the technology could help lawyers to whether the rules around intellectual property would need to be revisited.

Then there was the question of computer crime and propose amendments to the Crimes Act in 1999 which were finally enacted in 2003. Defamation on the Internet and associated issues of jurisdiction also became apparent.

There was the move towards digitisation of news media which raised question surrounding the rules about media regulation (which still, in the minds of some I don’t include myself in that cohort, require State intervention). It was a developing, dynamic field characterised by continuing disruptive change.

For nineteen years I taught a course – Law and IT -  at the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland which led to writing a text book entitled internet.law.nz published by LexisNexis and now in its fifth edition. My studies and the development of the law surrounding new technologies resulted in my PhD studies on the impact of a new information technology (the printing press) on the law and legal culture in Early Modern England. That was published as a book – The Law Emprynted and Englysshed – The Printing Press as an Agent of Change in Law and Legal Culture 1475 – 1642. The analytical model that I developed in my PhD study was further developed and refined for a new book which was published as Collisions in the Digital Paradigm – Law and Rulemaking in the Internet Age. And in the meantime a University colleague, Rosemary Tobin, and I co-authored a text New Zealand Media and Entertainment Law.

I don’t teach any more. The Law and IT course fell into abeyance and Covid did not help. I was delighted to learn that Auckland Law is offering an ICT Law course as an elective next semester and I understand that there is to be a dedicated Chair in ICT Law the occupant of which is yet to be announced. In the meantime I have taken a door tenancy with a set of Chambers in Auckland – Sangro Chambers – which focusses on Media and IP Law. The head of chambers, Willy Akel is a leading media lawyer both in New Zealand and internationally.

The field continues to develop. The new new thing (As Michael Lewis described the phenomenon) is artificial intelligence although in truth the focus seems to be more on Large Language Models like ChatGPT. The truth is that AI has been with us for a long time. It has just become more immediate as one of its uses has become more available.

Keeping up with developments in the field is time consuming. There are a number of commentators on the state of the media in New Zealand. Radio New Zealand’s Media Watch which looks critically at the state of media is one such source. An independent organisation – NZ Media Watch – has been recently set up which provides a different and independent perspective. Shayne Currie, a former managing editor at NZME and experienced journalist, writes a weekly column for the Herald entitled Media Insider which features a number of stories about different aspects of the media ecosystem including news media, television and the advertising and associated media industries.

Currie at times is a rather lengthy read and often a reader might wonder where he is heading. He indirectly acknowledges this in a recent article where he concedes his columns are lengthy. But as so often is the case the journey has its own rewards although I wonder if at times Currie tends to be a bit too gossipy. But then the column is entitled Media Insider – and there are times when it is definitely that.

Earlier this year I published an article entitled “Vox Populi”. It was a critique of an article by John Campbell which appeared on the TVNZ Website. To be absolutely clear Campbell’s article was clearly presented and labelled as an opinion piece.

Campbell wrote another piece covering the Turangawaewae gathering on 20 January 2024.

That article attracted the attention of Karl du Fresne who was highly critical of the fact that TVNZ – a state broadcaster- had allowed such a partisan piece to be published. Du Fresne called for Campbell to be sacked, not because he disagreed with Campbell - although clearly he does - but because he is of the view that Campbell had a special duty of impartiality. Thus the thrust of du Fresne’s critique is directed to an absence of journalistic integrity.

In his latest Media Insider, Currie examines the “Campbell Phenomenon” and squarely confronts the issues that du Fresne has raised. In part he agrees with them. Because Campbell has been so clear on his position he is unlikely to present the news again in future.

Currie observes as follows:

“In my own opinion, du Fresne was over the top in his comments about  Campbell; some of the language he used about him was unnecessary.

I was indeed surprised that a well-known promoter of free speech had penned such a column. His call for Campbell to be sacked was excessive.

But I do think Campbell has painted himself into a corner in terms of his future responsibilities - something that TVNZ will need to be careful about, even though it insists its happy for him to present any of its news shows.

There’s no issue with Campbell continuing to investigate newsworthy issues - something he has done with distinction in the past, most notably with his team of journalistic crusaders at Campbell Live during that show’s 10-year run on TV3.

But this time last year he was reading TVNZ’s 6pm news - part of a summer roster of newsreaders at the state broadcaster.

In my view, it would be very difficult for Campbell to perform that particular role again - perhaps, at this stage of his career, he might not want to anyway.

Most newsreaders consider themselves unbiased and dispassionate, disseminating information that leaves the viewer free to make up their mind on news events without being coloured by who’s sitting at the desk.

As one senior TVNZ staffer told me a fair while ago: “Other presenter roles exist to enhance core material by adding personality, experience and opinion to the core material; with news, the content is inarguably the star of the show.”

TVNZ might also have to be careful about whether Campbell could fill in as a presenter on some of its other news and current affairs shows, for example, the politically focused Q+A.”

Currie continues as follows:

I personally don’t have any issue with Campbell writing a column, or TVNZ giving him a platform. I’m sure the TVNZ digital editors will be keen to ensure they have a wide range of views, from across the political spectrum.

As long as the columns are clearly marked as opinion - and they are - then fine.

But Campbell’s commentaries raise points about whether he can now fulfill certain other roles at the state broadcaster.

TVNZ insists he can.

“We are happy for John to step out of his chief correspondent role to present any of our programmes if the need arises, including the 6pm bulletin,” said a spokeswoman, adding there were no specific plans.

She said Campbell’s focus hadn’t changed but it had grown. His was a senior role, providing “indepth reporting and specialist expertise” across the news and current affairs portfolio.

She also reiterated my point above that Hosking and du Plessis-Allan write columns for the NZ Herald “and front news-leaning shows on ZB”.

On this point, I think there is a subtle difference.

Hosking and du Plessis-Allan are broadcasters - rather than journalists - whose shows and special talents draw big audiences expecting to hear their views, interviews and approaches to the day’s top issues.

They do not read the news at the top of the hour or chase down their own stories in the field.

On du Fresne’s column, the TVNZ spokeswoman said: “Opinion pieces and editorials are not new journalism formats. They play a role in holding power to account, reflecting different perspectives held in our communities and inspiring robust conversations.

“John’s pieces are doing that - they’re resonating with New Zealanders who agree or disagree with the perspective and driving huge digital audiences. Given du Fresne also engages in this style of reporting himself, the irony is not lost on us.”

Currie’s position about the extent of Campbell’s role with TVNZ is not as confident as Campbell’s TVNZ employers and I think they need to reconsider their open support for him. Campbell may have diluted the value of his brand in taking the clear positions that he has.

In many respects I agree with Currie. I think du Fresne, with whom I agree on many matters, overstated the case. But to be fair he is consistent. Du Fresne on his blog has long been a critic of what he sees as declining media and particularly journalistic standards. But sacking Campbell is a bridge too far. I understand the concern with his position of influence using a State broadcaster as a platform but as long as his material is entitled “Opinion” there should be no problem. Although TVNZ is clearly supportive of him, and more extensively than Currie would have, it does not necessarily mean that it endorses his views.

From my earlier post it will be clear that I hold no brief for Campbell. I find his style pompous, self-righteous, booming and overbearing with faux bonhomie and a vision of New Zealand as he would like to think it was or should be but never was and is unlikely to be.

That said, I would never deny him a platform nor would I deny him the right to hold and to express an opinion. That is an essential aspect of our liberal democracy. And although I don’t like his style and find his pomposity grating, I will still read and consider his material and his opinions, in the same way as I do with another self-righteous progressive, Simon Wilson, who writes for the Herald.

Points of view are all important in allowing individuals to arrive at a conclusion about an issue. Consideration of differing points of view requires an open mind, which is often not easy to achieve but attainable with practice. Disagreement with a point of view does not justify shutting it down. At some stage the points of view and the information contained can crystallise an issue and at times allow for consensus or acceptance of a position.

Shutting people down and stifling their opinions is not the way to go.