But I do see a difference between a state funded broadcaster providing the platform to the self entitled, pompous and opinionated as opposed to a private sector media outlet - material labelled “opinion” or not.
People expect balance from state broadcasters - TVNZ has of late shown little of that.
Thanks for your comment. What I am about to say should not be construed as a statement of a "legal" position but is a personal view only.
You use the term "state broadcaster". That is a term that has developed but does not correctly describe the position. TVNZ and RNZ are not "arms of the state". They may put out the State message (as private broadcasters do, but they are not in the pocket of the State.
Rather they are funded by the State but are independent of it. That independence must include the ability to publish opinions.
I doubt that what has been happening with Campbell's opinions - pompous, opinionated (which is what they are) and self-entitled or whatever - would attract the ire of the Broadcasting Standards Authority or the New Zealand Media Council.
Furthermore the requirement for balance is in respect of news reportage rather than opinion. We are lucky that the BSA and NZMA require that in news reportage. The FCC requirement for balance went in the USA some time ago which is how Fox News got a foothold. Thankfully our media is not at that level and certainly Campbell is no left wing equivalent of Tucker Carlson.
Valid points indeed however that independence, despite being tax funded, comes with the expectation that there is indeed balance. It has been obvious to me for quite while now that TVNZ is inclined to platform certain views while denying platform to others. For example, it has been along time since it provided Don Brash with air time to expound his opinions.
As for RNZ - from the occasional glimpse of its content I understand it is not much better.
I believe there is substantial imbalance, agenda, and bias in tax payer funded media channels and it would appear from the ongoing decline in the public’s trust of these broadcasters that I am one of many that hold that belief. In a country that has just voted centre-right it seems oddly out of whack that the voice of the people hasn’t resulted in the “mainstream media” becoming more “mainstream” but appearing even less balanced than prior to October 2023.
That feels more like evangelical pulpit preaching than independent, impartial, balanced reporting to the people to me and a systematic, institutionalised problem to be addressed head on than splitting hairs over.
My starting point is the freedom of expression - there must be untrammelled freedom - especially from State interference - to express a point of view.
There is a school which argues that a right carries with it responsibilities - an argument for the limitation of rights so that they do not become absolutes.
On that basis along with the right of freedom of expression is the responsibility to exercise it responsibly (perhaps a redundancy but it is what it is).
The responsible exercise of the right could be to put both sides of an argument - in the judicial sphere it is referred to as audi alteram partem - hear the other side.
So if a media outlet wanted to demonstrate a fair and equitable exercise of the freedom of expression it would allow for another point of view.
The problem is that does not seem to be happening - indeed confidence in mainstream media has declined over the years.
Bit I am not sure what the "head on" solution is. I would reject interference with the freedom of expression, even if responsible exercise seems to be absent. As a recent survey has demonstrated there are other platforms - even Don Brash has his - The Bassett Brash and Hide Blog.
I have no objection to Campbell or anyone else having an "opinion piece" published by a state-funded broadcaster. What I do object to is that there is NO counterbalancing opinion that I have found.
I understand that but as I suggested in response to a previous comment there is no requirement for balance when it comes to opinion.
But if that is a concern - and I share your misgiving to a degree - the answer is to submit a response to TVNZ and see what happens. I know there are some Mainstream Media outlets that welcome responses to things they put up.
Thanks for your comment - much appreciated as usual.
I've begun my letter to TVNZ saying I think they've scuppered any credibility if Campbell is going to be allowed to interview coalition politicians, since he exhibits such bias. Also asking when they'll be presenting another balancing opinion on the same topics? And Not holding my breath for a positive response, though.
I posted a comment on LinkedIn suggesting that TVNZ should publish other points of view to that of Campbell. I am not holding my breath but I would proceed with your approach.
You may like to know that my column with the Listener is to provide an alternative point of view and qudos to the editor for that.
Goodness - I've had no letter to the Listener published for 3 years since they were always "contrarian", so I'll look forward to reading your column. I sent my letter to TVNZ and had huge difficulty finding how to do this, since it wasn't a formal complaint. I worked it out eventually but they don't make it easy. Funny, that!
It is a fortnightly piece. So far a piece on wealth tax, cultural reports, politicisation of the judiciary and the next one is on 3 Strikes. I have a deadline this Friday. Tempted to do a piece on the ICJ decision but 600 words is not enough…..
What TVNZ should do in the interests of maintaining impartiality, if they are actually interested in following the legislation that governs their existence, is produce a counter view to that of Campbell. Even Stuff gives Damian Grant a run each week. Can TVNZ not find a commentator with some pro-government views?
I don't have a university education or an extensive vocabulary however I am old and wise enough to spot a crock - I find John Campbell's journalistic offerings offensive, agenda driven and on a par with Shaneel Lal's. They are morally inexcusable in my opinion but unfortunately no one is allowed to put up an argument and that is the problem. Main stream media in my observation is one sided opinion, and that includes reporting 'factual news' and even when the facts change, the reporting doesn't acknowledge it. (Think Israel and the Hague decision).
We can waste a lot of time pontificating (stretching my vocabulary here) freedom of speech for the likes of Campbell and Lal but what about freedom of reply?
Yes, yes, we can go to other sources of news and opinion, but we pay for it (yes you Halfling's View) but as a taxpayer I am funding TVNZ and RNZ and hoped for more. Defund I say.
I was going to release a piece on Holocaust Remembrance Day but the ICJ decision overtook that. I will still publish the article along with a companion piece on the ICJ decision.
I intend to post these as subscriber only pieces but I note your remark in that regard which is a fair comment.
What I propose is this. Write to me privately at djhdcj@gmail.com and I will send you copies. Does that sound fair enough?
We are indeed not far apart - those intent on dividing and conquering might even say we are too close :) On the matter of freedom of expression we are very much on the same page.
I am very much an adherent of the school of thought you describe - drilled in from a young age and remaining core to my values as I’ve wisened up to the fact of life.
For me also “head on” is largely undefined apart from knowing that accepting the status quo, the conditions, inputs, processes, systems, funding etc., that have contributed to the current situation is not an option.
The rot sets in at journalism training level (it is not the only occupation suffering from this), continues with Board selection, is sustained through current funding models and entrenched public service advertising spend processes. It’s a complex beast and no doubt some consequences will be unforeseen, unintended, unfortunate even but it is time for some serious tinkering and not just at the edges.
I would start with NZ On Air, RNZ and TVNZ board overhauls and a public service advertising formula requiring minimum percentage spend allocation to alternative media outlets. A requirement on journalism schools to refocus journalism ethics on the Fourth Estate’s role as investigators, fact checkers and balance seekers as opposed to social justice warriors and influencers wouldn’t go amiss either.
But with the judiciary and bureaucracy also appearing to lean in the same direction as the Fourth Estate I am not hopeful, being one of those who now fears that a quiet coup is in the making during the term of this new government - the first time in our history I think when the majority’s will is to be thwarted by the combination of these 3 groups. Hoping I am wrong I nevertheless fear our nation is in for very choppy waters in the next 10-20 years regardless of where she docks at the emd of that period.
What you propose has certain compulsory aspects to it which would emanate from the State. That does not sit well with me. But I do agree that the nature of journalism education has to refocus in the way that you suggest.
The problem is that the social justice warrior ethos doesn't start at tertiary level - it starts lower down the educational food chain. And in some respects I don't have too much of a problem with a SJW approach as long as it is recognized and factored in to an assessment of the content - a form of media literacy if you will. But what is really needed is training whereby you leave your biases and pre-conceptions (and politics) at the door. Avoid the occasional insidious value laden word (like casually describing the current Govt as "right wing". That adds nothing to a fact based story.
As to influencers -well they are entitled to freedom of expression. Many of the influencers that I have come across in my travels are pretty vapid and undeserving of credibility.
I was interested in your comment about the Judiciary. Would you like to expand on that? I wrote a piece in the Listener for the current week about the politicization of the Judiciary. You might like to have a look at that.
Thanks again for your comments - much appreciated and valued.
Thanks - I appreciate but don’t expect your considered discourse.
I’ll track down your Listener article before I over extend myself expanding too much on my inclusion of the judiciary in light of your background 😎 but in general I’ve been amazed at how much our law, even “recent” (i.e. that made/amemended after the 1980’s), is open ended or unclear leaving judges to fill in the gaps or interpret.
This may have worked in the days of political and social conservatism generally holding sway with the democratic vote as a checking mechanism with a high uptake (ie a healthy, popular liberal democracy) but I don’t see it working so well with dropping vote counts (as a result of laziness or a disillusionment with the political system?) and the old school, “firm but fair, majority interest focussed justice (as opposed to minority protecting focussed) judges making way for a more youthful, left leaning judiciary.
My early youth was spent in a country with a legal system not based on “ye common law of olde” with a good dose of precedent driven rulings so I might have a different take on thing as a result but, having moved here in the early 80’s it seems to me that over time our system, although having its roots in common law, has nevertheless become increasingly prescriptive (sp?) but often sloppily so. There seems to be (and have been) a laziness amongst lawmakers that “close enough is good enough given that our common law roots will come to the rescue”.
Maybe I’m way off the mark here as I only did Law 101 at uni many years ago and as they say “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
That’s it for enlightening discourse for me today though - my wife is starting to feel neglected now that the weather has closed in!
But I do see a difference between a state funded broadcaster providing the platform to the self entitled, pompous and opinionated as opposed to a private sector media outlet - material labelled “opinion” or not.
People expect balance from state broadcasters - TVNZ has of late shown little of that.
Hi
Thanks for your comment. What I am about to say should not be construed as a statement of a "legal" position but is a personal view only.
You use the term "state broadcaster". That is a term that has developed but does not correctly describe the position. TVNZ and RNZ are not "arms of the state". They may put out the State message (as private broadcasters do, but they are not in the pocket of the State.
Rather they are funded by the State but are independent of it. That independence must include the ability to publish opinions.
I doubt that what has been happening with Campbell's opinions - pompous, opinionated (which is what they are) and self-entitled or whatever - would attract the ire of the Broadcasting Standards Authority or the New Zealand Media Council.
Furthermore the requirement for balance is in respect of news reportage rather than opinion. We are lucky that the BSA and NZMA require that in news reportage. The FCC requirement for balance went in the USA some time ago which is how Fox News got a foothold. Thankfully our media is not at that level and certainly Campbell is no left wing equivalent of Tucker Carlson.
Valid points indeed however that independence, despite being tax funded, comes with the expectation that there is indeed balance. It has been obvious to me for quite while now that TVNZ is inclined to platform certain views while denying platform to others. For example, it has been along time since it provided Don Brash with air time to expound his opinions.
As for RNZ - from the occasional glimpse of its content I understand it is not much better.
I believe there is substantial imbalance, agenda, and bias in tax payer funded media channels and it would appear from the ongoing decline in the public’s trust of these broadcasters that I am one of many that hold that belief. In a country that has just voted centre-right it seems oddly out of whack that the voice of the people hasn’t resulted in the “mainstream media” becoming more “mainstream” but appearing even less balanced than prior to October 2023.
That feels more like evangelical pulpit preaching than independent, impartial, balanced reporting to the people to me and a systematic, institutionalised problem to be addressed head on than splitting hairs over.
I don't think we are that far apart.
My starting point is the freedom of expression - there must be untrammelled freedom - especially from State interference - to express a point of view.
There is a school which argues that a right carries with it responsibilities - an argument for the limitation of rights so that they do not become absolutes.
On that basis along with the right of freedom of expression is the responsibility to exercise it responsibly (perhaps a redundancy but it is what it is).
The responsible exercise of the right could be to put both sides of an argument - in the judicial sphere it is referred to as audi alteram partem - hear the other side.
So if a media outlet wanted to demonstrate a fair and equitable exercise of the freedom of expression it would allow for another point of view.
The problem is that does not seem to be happening - indeed confidence in mainstream media has declined over the years.
Bit I am not sure what the "head on" solution is. I would reject interference with the freedom of expression, even if responsible exercise seems to be absent. As a recent survey has demonstrated there are other platforms - even Don Brash has his - The Bassett Brash and Hide Blog.
I have no objection to Campbell or anyone else having an "opinion piece" published by a state-funded broadcaster. What I do object to is that there is NO counterbalancing opinion that I have found.
I understand that but as I suggested in response to a previous comment there is no requirement for balance when it comes to opinion.
But if that is a concern - and I share your misgiving to a degree - the answer is to submit a response to TVNZ and see what happens. I know there are some Mainstream Media outlets that welcome responses to things they put up.
Thanks for your comment - much appreciated as usual.
I've begun my letter to TVNZ saying I think they've scuppered any credibility if Campbell is going to be allowed to interview coalition politicians, since he exhibits such bias. Also asking when they'll be presenting another balancing opinion on the same topics? And Not holding my breath for a positive response, though.
Well done.
I posted a comment on LinkedIn suggesting that TVNZ should publish other points of view to that of Campbell. I am not holding my breath but I would proceed with your approach.
You may like to know that my column with the Listener is to provide an alternative point of view and qudos to the editor for that.
Goodness - I've had no letter to the Listener published for 3 years since they were always "contrarian", so I'll look forward to reading your column. I sent my letter to TVNZ and had huge difficulty finding how to do this, since it wasn't a formal complaint. I worked it out eventually but they don't make it easy. Funny, that!
It is a fortnightly piece. So far a piece on wealth tax, cultural reports, politicisation of the judiciary and the next one is on 3 Strikes. I have a deadline this Friday. Tempted to do a piece on the ICJ decision but 600 words is not enough…..
What TVNZ should do in the interests of maintaining impartiality, if they are actually interested in following the legislation that governs their existence, is produce a counter view to that of Campbell. Even Stuff gives Damian Grant a run each week. Can TVNZ not find a commentator with some pro-government views?
Quite agree Peter. Balance is critical.
I don't have a university education or an extensive vocabulary however I am old and wise enough to spot a crock - I find John Campbell's journalistic offerings offensive, agenda driven and on a par with Shaneel Lal's. They are morally inexcusable in my opinion but unfortunately no one is allowed to put up an argument and that is the problem. Main stream media in my observation is one sided opinion, and that includes reporting 'factual news' and even when the facts change, the reporting doesn't acknowledge it. (Think Israel and the Hague decision).
We can waste a lot of time pontificating (stretching my vocabulary here) freedom of speech for the likes of Campbell and Lal but what about freedom of reply?
Yes, yes, we can go to other sources of news and opinion, but we pay for it (yes you Halfling's View) but as a taxpayer I am funding TVNZ and RNZ and hoped for more. Defund I say.
Pamela and I will
Thanks for your reply and your comment.
I note your remark about Israel and The ICJ.
I was going to release a piece on Holocaust Remembrance Day but the ICJ decision overtook that. I will still publish the article along with a companion piece on the ICJ decision.
I intend to post these as subscriber only pieces but I note your remark in that regard which is a fair comment.
What I propose is this. Write to me privately at djhdcj@gmail.com and I will send you copies. Does that sound fair enough?
Thanks for your comments
Kind regards
David Harvey
We are indeed not far apart - those intent on dividing and conquering might even say we are too close :) On the matter of freedom of expression we are very much on the same page.
I am very much an adherent of the school of thought you describe - drilled in from a young age and remaining core to my values as I’ve wisened up to the fact of life.
For me also “head on” is largely undefined apart from knowing that accepting the status quo, the conditions, inputs, processes, systems, funding etc., that have contributed to the current situation is not an option.
The rot sets in at journalism training level (it is not the only occupation suffering from this), continues with Board selection, is sustained through current funding models and entrenched public service advertising spend processes. It’s a complex beast and no doubt some consequences will be unforeseen, unintended, unfortunate even but it is time for some serious tinkering and not just at the edges.
I would start with NZ On Air, RNZ and TVNZ board overhauls and a public service advertising formula requiring minimum percentage spend allocation to alternative media outlets. A requirement on journalism schools to refocus journalism ethics on the Fourth Estate’s role as investigators, fact checkers and balance seekers as opposed to social justice warriors and influencers wouldn’t go amiss either.
But with the judiciary and bureaucracy also appearing to lean in the same direction as the Fourth Estate I am not hopeful, being one of those who now fears that a quiet coup is in the making during the term of this new government - the first time in our history I think when the majority’s will is to be thwarted by the combination of these 3 groups. Hoping I am wrong I nevertheless fear our nation is in for very choppy waters in the next 10-20 years regardless of where she docks at the emd of that period.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
What you propose has certain compulsory aspects to it which would emanate from the State. That does not sit well with me. But I do agree that the nature of journalism education has to refocus in the way that you suggest.
The problem is that the social justice warrior ethos doesn't start at tertiary level - it starts lower down the educational food chain. And in some respects I don't have too much of a problem with a SJW approach as long as it is recognized and factored in to an assessment of the content - a form of media literacy if you will. But what is really needed is training whereby you leave your biases and pre-conceptions (and politics) at the door. Avoid the occasional insidious value laden word (like casually describing the current Govt as "right wing". That adds nothing to a fact based story.
As to influencers -well they are entitled to freedom of expression. Many of the influencers that I have come across in my travels are pretty vapid and undeserving of credibility.
I was interested in your comment about the Judiciary. Would you like to expand on that? I wrote a piece in the Listener for the current week about the politicization of the Judiciary. You might like to have a look at that.
Thanks again for your comments - much appreciated and valued.
Thanks - I appreciate but don’t expect your considered discourse.
I’ll track down your Listener article before I over extend myself expanding too much on my inclusion of the judiciary in light of your background 😎 but in general I’ve been amazed at how much our law, even “recent” (i.e. that made/amemended after the 1980’s), is open ended or unclear leaving judges to fill in the gaps or interpret.
This may have worked in the days of political and social conservatism generally holding sway with the democratic vote as a checking mechanism with a high uptake (ie a healthy, popular liberal democracy) but I don’t see it working so well with dropping vote counts (as a result of laziness or a disillusionment with the political system?) and the old school, “firm but fair, majority interest focussed justice (as opposed to minority protecting focussed) judges making way for a more youthful, left leaning judiciary.
My early youth was spent in a country with a legal system not based on “ye common law of olde” with a good dose of precedent driven rulings so I might have a different take on thing as a result but, having moved here in the early 80’s it seems to me that over time our system, although having its roots in common law, has nevertheless become increasingly prescriptive (sp?) but often sloppily so. There seems to be (and have been) a laziness amongst lawmakers that “close enough is good enough given that our common law roots will come to the rescue”.
Maybe I’m way off the mark here as I only did Law 101 at uni many years ago and as they say “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
That’s it for enlightening discourse for me today though - my wife is starting to feel neglected now that the weather has closed in!