What role does the New Zealand media play in supporting the integrity and transparency of public life in New Zealand? The following draft report on the state of the New Zealand media is something I've written for Transparency International, as part of a larger project on New Zealand's National Integrity System assessment. I'd be very appreciative of any feedback and further ideas. [Read more below]
Media
Draft pillar report version 3, 13 May 2013
Summary
The media has a critical role to play in the maintenance of the national integrity system in New Zealand. It acts as a watchdog on the powerful, it keeps the public informed on political issues, and it provides a forum for the exchange of views. In most senses this sector is healthy – it is regarded as both free and independent, and much attention is placed by the media on holding the government of the day to account as well as uncovering corruption where it might occur in any of the other pillars. However, there are areas in which the media is seen as less healthy and robust – mostly in the lack of diversity of media and views present in New Zealand, the decline of serious investigative journalism, and also in the reduced state of public and community broadcasting. More than anything, economics rather than any direct government actions are impeding a strong fourth estate.
These main findings are briefly summarised below:
A free and independent media
The media is independent and free in New Zealand. The media is very active and successful in informing the public on the activities of the government. There is seen to be a fair degree of objectivity in reporting on politics. Such reporting is relatively comprehensive (but not always in-depth). There are adequate legal safeguards to prevent unwarranted interference in the activities of the media. Journalists are generally very free to operate. Intimidation and harassment of journalists is very rare. In general, media outlets have to answer for their activities to stakeholders. There are sector-wide accountability mechanisms, which work somewhat effectively (Broadcasting Standards Authority, Press Council) even if they would benefit from an overhaul. Media organisations normally operate in a relatively transparent way.
A strong focus on corruption in the media
New Zealand media outlets are active and successful in investigating and exposing cases of corruption. Journalists take a very strong interest in highlighting and exposing corruption or lapses in integrity amongst those with power. However, often such reporting can be superficial and focused on the more salacious and sensationalist elements of these stories. It should be noted that investigative journalism is not a key part of the media’s work in this country. And while the media is somewhat active in investigating corruption cases, their work is generally focused only on a small number of cases.
A lack of diversity
The New Zealand media is not diverse in terms of ownership or content. Where there is a plurality of media sources (in terms of type, ideology, ownership), they do not cover the entire political and social spectrum. So only to a small extent is there a diverse independent media providing a variety of perspectives, and there are doubts that the mainstream media adequately represents the entire political spectrum. There are few legal impediments to the establishment and existence of an independent and diverse media – there are very few general legal restrictions on setting up media. Instead, it is economic barriers that act to inhibit the establishment and existence of media entities. And arguably, media diversity is not promoted through the state. Some media scholars believe that there is not adequate competition regulation and legislation. New Zealand is said to have the most deregulated media market in the western world.
Limited public and community broadcasting
Public and community broadcasting are not fostered in New Zealand. The commercial environment is not conducive to the development of public and community oriented media, and the state itself plays only a limited role in fostering public broadcasting. Although the state provides and owns broadcast media, the biggest entity, Television New Zealand, is no longer seen as a bona fide public service broadcaster. Conversely, both Radio New Zealand and Maori Television continue to credibly hold that status.
Introduction
The news media plays a vital role in New Zealand's democracy. We expect the ‘fourth estate’ to act as an independent ‘watchdog’ – a role in which journalists ‘speak truth to power’, act ‘on behalf of the people’, and highlight abuses of power. The role of the media is also to provide the public with information about complex policy and issues, and allow a forum for debate and diverse views.
According to Victoria University of Wellington media scholar, Kate McMillan, ‘The news media’s ability to fulfil its democratic role is affected by: the laws protecting freedom of expression, regulation and censorship, media access to official information, ownership of the media, levels of funding for public-service broadcasting, commercial pressures to increase advertising revenues, and levels of newsroom resourcing’ (McMillan, 2012). This pillar report looks at these components. There are also concerns identified about both the bias of the media – especially in political coverage – and the concentration of media ownership in relatively few hands. However these latter issues are outside the questions outlined in the NIS methodology.
It is also important to note that at the time of writing, there is an ongoing debate and consideration in the New Zealand about new proposals from the Law Commission for the regulation of the media. The outcome of this discussion will have a significant impact on some elements of the media landscape evaluated in this report. Currently, the New Zealand Press Council regulates the print industry and the Broadcasting Standards Authority governs the television and radio industry, but this could change with the development of new unitary regulator.
Moreover, this evaluation takes place while the media sector continues to grapple with incredibly pressing economic, cultural and technological issues. Quite simply, the business models that media production in the 20th century are breaking down, and therefore a great deal of flux is occurring in this sector. This is producing uncertainty about the media’s ongoing role in helping maintain the integrity of the national system.
Resources (law)
Score: 3/5
To what extent does the legal framework provide an environment conducive to a diverse independent media?
The legal framework pertaining to the existence and operations of independent media is conducive to the establishment of media, but not to the diversity of media, nor is it particularly conducive to strong public broadcasting.
New Zealand has an extremely deregulated media market, with little in the way of state regulations and impediments to the establishment of new and competing media.[1] There are virtually no legal constraints on setting up broadcast media entities, there are absolutely no restrictions on setting up print media entities, and entry into the journalistic profession is unrestricted by law.
On the other hand, however, the market model means that there is little regulatory encouragement of diversity in the media or widespread ownership of media. There is a strong feeling amongst experts that media regulation is not adequate enough to promote media diversity.
New Zealand’s broadcasting legislation does not provide for an environment conducive to public, commercial and community broadcasting. According to McMillan, ‘Deregulation and the development of private radio and television since the 1980s has meant that public broadcasting now competes with private broadcasters. In 2013 the main public service broadcasters are Radio New Zealand and Maori Television’ (McMillan, 2012). TVNZ is also state owned, but does not appear to have any particular qualities that define it as a public service broadcaster. Instead, the broadcaster is required to operate as a private commercial company, and provide dividends to the state.
Capacity
Resources (practice)
Score: 2/5
To what extent is there a diverse independent media providing a variety of perspectives?
Media in New Zealand is highly monopolised. This does not mean that there are few media outlets – there is certainly a plurality of media sources – but that there is a lack diversity in terms of ideology and ownership. Arguably, the media does not adequately represent the entire political spectrum, and nor does it reflect a full broad spectrum of social interests and groups. Many important social and political interests do not find a voice in the media landscape of the country.
A large part of the lack of diversity relates to the intense concentration of media ownership in New Zealand.[2] Outside of publicly-owned broadcasting, four media companies dominate the landscape – Fairfax Media, APN News and Media (APN), MediaWorks, and Sky TV.
In terms of newspapers, two Australian companies dominate the market: Fairfax Media and APN. They own most daily newspapers in a country in which all cities – even the larger ones – now have only one daily newspaper.
Commercial radio is dominated by APN, which owns the Radio Network, and by MediaWorks, which owns RadioWorks. Mediaworks is in turn owned by the Australian firm Ironbridge. In television, aside from the publicly-owned TV One, TV2, and Maori TV, the main players are MediaWorks, which operates TV3 and Four, and Sky TV, which dominates the pay-tv market and also runs the free-to-air Prime Television. Sky currently has about 850,000 subscribers, representing a residential household penetration of approximately 49.4%.
Public broadcasting takes the form of three main television channels: TV One and TV2 (Television New Zealand) and Maori Television; and in terms of radio there are two non-commercial networks: Radio New Zealand National and Radio New Zealand Concert.
Radio New Zealand and Maori Television rely, according to McMillan, ‘largely on government funding. In contrast, TVNZ receives 90% of its funding from advertising. This has raised questions over TVNZ’s ability to deliver public service broadcasting, in particular news and current affairs’ (McMillan, 2012). The current National Government is frequently criticized over its attitude to public broadcasting, and in 2012 closed down a smaller non-commercial channel, TVNZ7.
State funding for broadcasting is in theory an area whereby the government of the day can have an influence over the media. The Broadcasting Commission (otherwise known as ‘New Zealand On Air’) is state agency responsible for the funding of public-good broadcasting content across television, radio and new media platforms. Spending about $130m a year, the agency funds radio, television, music and digital media production for a range of public and private broadcasters and platforms. For example, NZ On Air fully funds Radio New Zealand. Although the agency is an autonomous crown entity separate from central government and is governed by a board, the appointments to the board are made by the Minister of Broadcasting, raising issues of partisan bias. For example, in 2012 allegations of a conflict of interest were leveled at board member Stephen McElrea, because he was also Prime Minister John Key's National Party electorate chairman, and had allegedly attempted to stop the broadcast of a controversial documentary, Inside Child Poverty, from occurring four days before the 2011 general election. The agency subsequently made attempts to see if it could legally prevent broadcasters from screening any politically sensitive programmes that it funded during election campaigns.
According to Freedom House’s review of New Zealand media, a ‘serious blow to media diversity’ occurred with the closure in 2011 of the 132-year-old cooperative news agency the New Zealand Press Association.
There are questions about the adequacy of resources and training for journalists. In New Zealand, journalism is generally seen as a vocational trade, and qualifications in the industry are normally expected to be skills-based rather than academic. Consequently, few media companies encourage their staff to acquire higher qualifications once in the job.
Independence (law)
Score: 3/5
To what extent are there legal safeguards to prevent unwarranted external interference in the activities of the media?
In any country, the democratic functions of the media are dependent upon laws that protect freedom of expression, the extent to which official information can be obtained, and the levels and nature of censorship and regulation. In all these areas the New Zealand media functions well because there are comprehensive legal safeguards to prevent unwarranted external interference in the media. The legal framework is conducive to a relatively independent media with few restrictions and very little overt censorship.[3] However, libel laws are still relatively restrictive for the media, and official information legislation does not function effectively.
Legal safeguards are in place to ensure the independence of the media. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects the media’s freedom of expression, and the Privacy Act 1993 provides exemptions for the media from requirements that might otherwise make it less free.
Journalists are generally able to protect their sources, and the Evidence Act 2006 gives media the ability to keep the details of their sources confidential. However, in restricted circumstances both the police and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) can force journalists to reveal their sources. For the police this requires a request for a warrant from a judge, and journalists can make appeals to the High Court to keep their sources protected. However the SFO can act on its own initiative without any judicial process. One such recent example of this being used was when the SFO demanded that the National Business Review hand over all material – including source – of its investigation into the collapse of the South Canterbury Finance company.
The work of journalists is also greatly enhanced by the Official Information act 1982, which makes available to the public most internal government documents, upon request. However, journalists are increasingly thwarted by the use of exemptions by government departments – see the Public Sector pillar report for more information about this.
State censorship is relatively moderate and infrequent in New Zealand. Few complaints about the suppression of expression occur nowadays. Instead it is defamation law that results in more problems for the media. Traditionally libel laws have also played a role in suppressing the freedom of the press, especially because defamation proceedings have – as in the traditional Westminster model – often produced considerable burdens on media publishers. It is often argued that the defamation laws are ‘overly plaintiff-friendly’ (Cheer, 2008, p.10).
However, since the 1998-2000 landmark case of Lange vs. Atkinson, the media has been able to rely on the defence of ‘qualified privilege’, which means that journalists can avoid defamation actions if it is clear that any criticism of public figures arises out of ‘honest belief’. The Lange vs. Atkinson Court of Appeal decision therefore means that the performance of politicians can more easily be commented upon in the media. Nonetheless, there are occasions when media pay a high price for defamation. For example in 2010 the 18-year-old New Korea Herald newspaper was forced to close in after being ordered by the High Court to pay $250,000 in damages after defaming a prominent Korean businessman.
New Zealand governments have generally been reluctant to impose regulatory controls over the press. Instead, for newspapers and magazines the print media has established its own voluntary regulatory system, the Press Council; the broadcast media have a state entity, the Broadcasting Standards Authority regulating that sector.
As noted earlier, the Law Commission has proposed that these organisations be merged into a new agency that would cover virtually all forms of media. The new proposed body would be independent of both the government and the media industry.
Independence (practice)
Score: 4/5
To what extent is the media free from unwarranted external interference in its work in practice?
The New Zealand media is relatively free from any unwarranted external interference. While the state and/or other external actors occasionally interfere with the activities of the media, these instances of interference are usually non-severe, without significant consequences for the behaviour of media.
The 2013 Global Press Freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders ranks New Zealand at 8 (out of 175 countries), and rates media freedoms as ‘good’. New Zealand is noted as being the only non-European country in the top ten. Similarly, a Freedom House report of 2012 rates the media in the New Zealand as ‘free’.[4] Therefore we can be confident that journalists can assert their right to freedom of expression without fear. The various media regulatory agencies are seen to operate independently of state interference.
There have, however, been some concerns about political harassment of journalists and media agencies in recent years. Two investigative journalists endured particularly strong attacks from the Prime Minister in 2011. Nicky Hager published a book, Other People’s Wars, which was critically dismissed by Prime Minister John Key, who had not read the book, but said it was a work of fiction and that Hager had no credibility. Similarly, award-winning investigative journalist Jon Stephenson was forced to defend himself against a bitter attack on his credibility by the Prime Minister and defence officials after Metro magazine published his expose on the New Zealand military’s arrangement for handing over prisoners in Afghanistan to US forces.
However a potentially more chilling episode occurring during the general election of that year when the Prime Minister condemned the media and made an official complaint to the police against various media agencies. The controversy related to what became known as the ‘teapot tape’ scandal in which the Prime Minister met at a café with the Act Party candidate John Banks for a photo-opportunity, but were covertly recorded by a freelance cameraman, Bradley Ambrose. The journalist claimed that the audio recording had been made unintentionally. Along with other members of the media, Ambrose had been invited to record the initial meeting of the two politicians in the café, but when all journalists were ushered out of the café, Ambrose claimed that he was prevented from being able to remove his microphone from the café table, and it was only after the event that he discovered that it had recorded the whole conversation. He took the recording to the Herald on Sunday newspaper, which chose not to publish the recording.
John Key publically condemned what he called ‘News of the World style tactics’, and described the issue as ‘the start of a slippery slope’. After the Prime Minister’s complaint to police and the intervention of the Solicitor General, the police issued search warrants to various media outlets, and carried out an investigation, but which never led to a conviction. These events were characterized as ‘insidious attacks’ on media freedom by the former chairman of the New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO, Bryan Gould. According to the New Zealand Media Freedom Committee chairman Tim Murphy (also editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald), this incident was responsible for New Zealand dropping five places in the 2011 media freedom rankings produced by Reporters Without Borders.[5]
Untoward statements to the media come from governments of all colours, of course, and in 2006, for example, then Finance Minister Michael Cullen spoke out against a New Zealand Herald newspaper campaign against proposed government legislation. According to Ellis, ‘Cullen issued a veiled threat against the owners… suggesting that the government could withdraw retrospective legislation validating the company’s position on a potential $219 million GST liability if the newspaper persisted in its campaign’ (2009: p.408).
There are, then, some potential areas for concern over legal interference with the freedom of the press. That said, these interferences and issues are relatively minor when placed in the context of the problems that face the media in other parts of the world. And as Freedom House’s 2012 review of New Zealand noted, ‘Despite these incidents, journalists are generally able to cover the news freely, and physical attacks or threats against the media are rare’.
Governance
Transparency (law)
Score: 3/5
To what extent are there provisions to ensure transparency in the activities of the media?
New Zealand has no specific pieces of legislation to ensure transparency in the media. Media entities are subject to the same rules as any other private company. It is also not always clear that the media generally have clear rules on disclosure of information relating to internal staff, reporting and editorial policies. But few concerns appear to exist about this area.
Transparency (practice)
Score: 4/5
To what extent is there transparency in the media in practice?
There is considerable transparency of New Zealand media in practice, both in the print and broadcast media. Ownership is widely disclosed, as are editorial policies and information on internal staff. In general, New Zealand media outlets provide full and effective disclosure of relevant information on their activities. Sometimes, however, this is partial and/or outdated information.
Also, the media generally make information on its internal staff, reporting and editing policies publicly available. But this is something hard to access – especially for general members of the public.
The regulatory bodies – the BSA and Press Council – make their decisions public – mainly via press releases and publishing the information on their websites.
Accountability (law)
Score: 3-5/5
To what extent are there legal provisions to ensure that media outlets are answerable for their activities?
Comprehensive mechanisms are in place in New Zealand to ensure that media outlets are answerable for their activities. But these accountability regulations are complex and outdated. For this reason the Government’s Law Commission has proposed sweeping changes in this area, and in particular it has recommended an independent new regulatory body that would cover nearly all media. Nonetheless there are existing laws and industry practices that can be evaluated.
The broadcasting sector is subject to the statutory regulation, found in the Broadcasting Act 1989. This legislation puts broadcast media under the oversight of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, a body that considers public complaints about broadcasters. The Act also requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with: the observance of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, individual privacy, balance, fairness and accuracy, approved codes of broadcasting practice.
The print media sector, by contrast, is not regulated by a statutory body, but by self-regulation through the Press Council, a voluntary and industry-funded organisation that considers complaints against members. The Council involves representatives of the public, the publishers, and the journalists (McMillan, 2012).
Both media regulatory authorities are reactive in nature, generally only responding to complaints rather than monitoring the media. The Press
Council responds to about 80 complaints a year, and the BSA about 200. There are few legal requirements for media to be accountable to the public. For instance, there are no laws requiring the media to correct erroneous information in a timely manner. Instead, the defamation laws, together with the industry complaints processes, are meant to encourage such behaviour.
Accountability (practice)
Score: 4/5
To what extent can media outlets be held accountable in practice?
In general, New Zealand media outlets have to answer for their activities to stakeholders. There are sector-wide accountability mechanisms, which mostly work effectively. The various government and industry regulators and professional oversight boards – the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority (PSA) – operate relatively effectively. The agencies frequently rule against media organisations for breaching standards, and the BSA issues fines too.
In the past there have been concerns about the quality of the Press Council. For instance, a 2007 public and user survey conducted for the Press Council showed that it was seen as ‘biased, inconsistent, lacking in resources, and ineffective’ (Barker and Evans, 2007).
There are also a number of legal restraints on the media – especially laws protecting other public rights. According to McMillan, ‘The Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 have provisions designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin, age, gender or disability. If a person considers that false statements have been made about them through the media, they can sue the broadcaster or publisher of the statement, under the Defamation Act 1992. This does not apply to statements made under parliamentary privilege. The media are also banned from publishing the name of anyone granted name suppression in court’ (McMillan, 2012).
Media is also made accountable and accessible by a plethora of blogs, Twitter accounts[6] and journalists’ forums which enable journalists to interact with the public.
Integrity mechanisms (law)
Score: 2/5
To what extent are there provisions in place to ensure the integrity of media employees?
While some provisions exist, they do not cover all aspects related to the integrity of media employees and some provisions contain loopholes. There is certainly no sector-wide code of ethics or code of conduct, nor any legal requirement for them. The Press Council has a ‘Set of Principles’ that applies to all of its members. The Broadcasting Act also outlines a number principles and standards for radio and television broadcasters to adhere to.
There are no laws covering the conduct of journalists. So conflicts of interest, or other relationships do not have to be legally disclosed. Similarly, there are no rules or regulations pertaining to any issues of the ‘revolving door’ type in the relationship between the parliamentary press gallery and ministerial or parliamentary press secretaries.
Integrity mechanisms (practice)
Score: 3/5
To what extent is the integrity of media employees ensured in practice?
There is considerable evidence that the public does not feel confident of the media’s integrity. For example, according to pollsters UMR, in 2012 only a third of New Zealanders have either ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in the media generally, with two-thirds having only ‘some’ or ‘very little’ confidence in the institution.[7] A 2012 Reader’s Digest survey of trusted professions in New Zealand ranked journalists 34th out of 40 professions – just above real estate agents, insurance salespeople, and sex workers.[8] The 2010 Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer also signaled that New Zealanders have a low opinion of the integrity of the media – those surveyed were asked to rate how affected the media is by corruption on a 1-5 scale (1: not at all corrupt, 5: extremely corrupt) producing an average score of 3.1.
In general there appears to be a piecemeal and reactive approach to ensuring the integrity of media employees, including only some of the following elements: enforcement of existing rules, inquiries into alleged misbehaviour, sanctioning of misbehaviour and training of staff on integrity issues.
It is questionable as to whether the regulatory body sets of principles are widely and regularly referred to by journalists. One media academic comments on this issue: ‘when asked where these principles can be found in written form or what document clarifies them, there is a kind of confusion: is it in the Press Council’s Statement of Principles, the union’s code of ethics or the news organisation’s style book?’ (citation).
This does not mean that journalists are not ethical, but that there is little formal focus on codes of conduct. Generally, it is not common for journalists to receive independent instruction on ethics.
It is hard to gauge how widely journalists follow procedures when gifts or hospitality are offered. But the recent release of information relating to the credit card expenditure of government ministers has given a glimpse of the fact that journalists are often wined and dined by politicians. For example, in early 2010 the release of National Party ministerial credit cards showed that Tim Groser had spent $247 on dinner at Wellington’s Matterhorn with Dominion Post journalist Paul Easton, and that Nick Smith paid back $84.50 for a dinner with two journalists at Bellamy's. Later that year, older credit card details of previous Labour ministers were disclosed, including, for example, that Lianne Dalziel spent $160 taking National Business Review reporters out for lunch in Auckland.
Political journalists are also subsidised by the government to travel on prime ministerial trips abroad. Generally press gallery journalists are charged a nominal fee, such as $100, to travel on the Prime Minister’s RNZAF aircraft. There are undoubtedly good reasons for such media subsidies being given and accepted, but it is notable that such subsidies are not normally disclosed in the journalists reports.
During election campaigns, a very different situation can occur, with journalists being charged high rates to travel with politicians. For example, in the last two days of the 2008 general election campaign the National Party hired a plane to give leader John Key a presidential-style tour of the country, and the 12 travelling journalists were charged $1200 each, thereby subsidising the party’s campaigning costs.
Role
Investigate and expose cases of corruption practice
Score: 4/5
To what extent is the media active and successful in investigating and exposing cases of corruption?
In general, the New Zealand media is very active and successful in investigating and exposing individual cases of corruption. It is extremely vigilant about the abuse of power or other improprieties by governments and other pillars of the integrity system.
A case could be made that the media actually exaggerates the level of corruption in New Zealand. Of course it is difficult to evaluate if the media reflect levels of corruption in NZ accurately. It has become common for the media to give voice to those alleging corrupt practices. The high number of corruption-oriented stories in the media therefore appears at variance with the high-ranking New Zealand enjoys in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index
However, such a heavy focus on corruption is often very superficial and non-systematic. Instead of a rigourous pursuit of corruption and understanding the complexities of integrity in public life, it often appears that the media’s investigations are driven by a sense of fleeting news sensationalism.
There is a serious lack of investigative journalism in New Zealand. While it is hard to define ‘investigative journalism’ precisely and therefore separate it from other journalistic roles, there is certainly been a noticeable decline of such journalism. There are also common complaints from within the media industry of a lack of funding for investigative journalism, and a lack of industry support and recognition of investigative journalists and their work.
Inform public on corruption and its impact
Score: 3/5
To what extent is the media active and successful in informing the public on corruption and its impact on the country?
While media outlets pay some attention to informing the public on corruption and its impact, reports are often limited, biased and/or of poor quality. There are no apparent programmes run by the media to educate the public on corruption or how to curb it. Rather the media is regarded largely as an investigator of corruption, holding government, politicians, public officials generally and business to account.
The media always give significance coverage to New Zealand’s annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking. However, the coverage does not generally report what the ranking means or how it is derived. One study of media coverage of showed that ‘27% of reviewed media articles [incorrectly] draw comparisons of rankings and scores over time’ and ‘70% of reviewed media articles refer to the rankings without taking confidence intervals into account’ (Dalzell et al, 2010).
Inform public on governance issues
Score: 4/5
To what extent is the media active and successful in informing the public on the activities of the government and other governance actors?
In general, the New Zealand media is very active and successful in keeping the public informed on regular activities of the government and other governance institutions. The media report daily on politics and various political actors. There are impartial and unbiased radio and television programmes dedicated to current affairs. Newspapers also include coverage and analysis of government and governance actors. For example, Radio New Zealand National has a number of widely followed programmes such as Morning Report, Nine-to-Noon, and Checkpoint all covering political events and current affairs which include the interrogation of politicians and members of the Government. There are various television programmes dedicated to the analysis of current affairs, including daily news programmes and also programmes such as The Nation and Q+A where politicians are quizzed. There are also programmes which seek to uncover, probe and analyse government policy, corruption and/or political developments in New Zealand – for example, 3rd Degree and Campbell Live.
New Zealand newspapers have regular columnists providing a critique of government policy, political parties and current affairs – for example, John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald, Jane Clifton in the Listener, and Chris Trotter in various Fairfax papers.
In-depth investigative reporting is often assumed and stated to be in less robust health. However, as Nicky Hager says, a properly wide definition of investigative journalism shows that there is still plenty of it in practice: ‘it is a mistake to see daily journalism and investigative journalism as separate occupations. It is actually a continuum… Each of those journalists who have kept digging, driven by wanting to find out the truth, are doing investigative journalism’ (2012).
But financial imperatives are certainly driving down the resourcing of newsrooms. For example, it was reported by Ellis that ‘the number of journalists working full-time in the Parliamentary Press Gallery was estimated to have fallen by between 10 and 20 per cent after the 2008 general election as staff were redeployed or vacated positions left unfilled’ (2009: p.409).
Treaty of Waitangi
Score: 3/5
The Treaty of Waitangi can be understood to create obligations of partnership, respect and participation. What do the media do to partner with Maori, to respect and affirm Maori rights to make decisions and to enhance Maori participation in their field of activity? In particular, where the media have legal rights and obligations in this respect given to them by the Crown, how well do they honour them, including any Treaty obligations passed on by the Crown?
The media’s orientation and relationship to Maori and all issues related to Maori has changed considerably in the last two decades. Whereas once the media was overwhelmingly monocultural, unreflective of Maori society, and poor on reporting of Maori and Treaty issues, that is not always the case. Furthermore, the media landscape has fundamentally altered, and it now includes significant Maori-orientated media and journalists.
Within the last two decades there has been a proliferation of iwi-based radio stations and newspapers. But most importantly, the Maori Television Service started broadcasting in 2004. Funded almost entirely from the government, with a budget of about $45 million, the service is widely seen as successful. The main channel is Maori Television, which broadcasts in both Maori and English. A second channel was launched in 2008, Te Reo, which is New Zealand’s first 100% Maori language television channel.
Maori broadcasting is funded by Te Mangai Paho (Maori Broadcast Funding Agency) which is a New Zealand Crown Entity responsible for promotion of Maori language and culture. The agency was established by the state as part of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
The mainstream media still lacks some proficiencies in their coverage of Maori issues, but a significant attempt is normally made to work with partnership, respect and participation with Maori.
Sources
Matthew Backhouse (2012), ‘NZ's media freedom ranking drops after teapot tapes saga’, Otago Daily Times, 26 Jan 2012; URL: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/195740/nzs-media-freedom-ranking-drops-after-teapot-tapes-saga
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2012), BSA Annual Report 2012, URL: http://bsa.govt.nz/images/assets/Annual-Reports/Annual-Report-2012-Web.pdf
Cheer, Ursula (2008) ‘Reality and Myth: The New Zealand Media and the chilling effect of defamation law’, PhD thesis at the University of Canterbury.
Dalzell, C., Fenwicke, J., Komarovsky, A., Leduc, S., and Morrisson, F., (2010) ‘New Zealand and the Corruption Perceptions Index: How is NZ’s rating compiled and what can be inferred from it’, Ignite Consultants paper provided to Transparency International New Zealand, URL: http://www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/component/content/article/8-news/116-2011-
Ellis, Gavin (2009) ‘Who Owns the Media?’, in New Zealand Government and Politics, fifth edition, edited by Raymond Miller, Sydney: Oxford University Press.
Freedom House (2012) ‘New Zealand’, in Freedom of the Press 2012, URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2012/new-zealand
Hollings, J., Lealand, G., Samson, A., & Tilley, E. (2007). The big NZ journalism survey: Underpaid, under-trained, under-resourced, unsure about the future – but still idealistic. Pacific Journalism Review, 13(2), 175-197.
Geoff Kemp (2000) ‘Democracy, the Public and the Media’, in New Zealand Government and Politics, fifth edition, edited by Raymond Miller, Sydney: Oxford University Press.
Nicky Hager (2012) ‘Investigative journalism in the age of media meltdown: from National Party Headquarters to Afghanistan’, Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture, 31 October 2012, http://www.brucejesson.com/?p=394
Ignite Consultants (2010) New Zealand and the Corruption Perceptions Index: How is New Zealand’s rating compiled and what can and cannot be inferred from it? Report by Ignite Consulting to Transparency International New Zealand Wellington. Accessed via the Transparency International New Zealand web-site at http://www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/component/content/article/8-news/116-2011-corruption-perceptions-index-ranks-new-zealand-as-the-least-corrupt-
Kate McMillan (2012) 'Media and politics', Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 29-May-12, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/media-and-politics
Myllylahti, Merja (2012) JMAD New Zealand Media Ownership Report 2012, November 23 2012, URL: http://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/323546/JMAD-New-Zealand-Media-Ownership-2012.pdf
Reader’s Digest, ‘New Zealand's Most Trusted Professions 2012’, URL:
http://www.readersdigest.co.nz/new-zealands-most-trusted-professions-2012
Rupar, V. (2006). How did you find that out? The transparency of the newsgathering process and the meaning of news: A case study of New Zealand journalism. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 141-158.
Transparency International (2010) Global Corruption Barometer 2010
URL: www.transparency.de/fileadmin/pdfs/Wissen/.../GCB_2010.pdf
UMR Research (2013) Annual Review of the Nation, http://umr.co.nz/sites/umr/files/umr_mood_of_the_nation_2013_online_0.pdf
Zirker, D., Gregory, B. and Scrimgeour, F. (2012), ‘A Kiwi Halo? Defining and Assessing Corruption in a “Non-Corrupt” System’, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, vol. 34, no. 1, June, 2012, pp. 1 -29.
New Zealand Herald, ‘NZ rises in press freedom ranking’, Feb 2, 2013
URL: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863009
[1] According to media scholar Geoff Kemp, ‘Market liberalization in the late 1980s and 1990s produced one of the world’s most deregulated media sectors’ (2009: p.392). Ownership of media entities is now regulated only by the general competition laws of the Commerce Act 1986.
[2] Media academic Gavin Ellis notes that ‘ownership of New Zealand’s media became so concentrated that a report published in 2003 by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development stated that the country presented the starkest example of media company consolidation’ (2009: p.401).
[3] All media is subject to the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The activities of broadcasters are also covered by the Broadcasting Act 1989, which makes them subject to the requirements of accuracy and balance.
[4] According to the latest Freedom House report, New Zealand has a total score of 17 on a 0 to 100 scale (whereby 0 equates with most free and 100 means least free).
[5] See: Matthew Backhouse (2012), ‘NZ's media freedom ranking drops after teapot tapes saga’, Otago Daily Times, 26 Jan 2012.
[6] A list of media organizations and journalists on Twitter is aggregated here: http://billbennett.co.nz/new-zealand-media-twitter/
[7] The UMR survey showed that the institution of ‘newspapers’ holds greater confidence than the media in general – 40% had either ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in the media generally, with 58% having only ‘some’ or ‘very little’ confidence in the institution (UMR, 2013).
[8] A separate 2012 Reader’s Digest survey of ‘New Zealand's Most Trusted People’, list three journalists in its top 100 (Mike McRoberts, 26; John Campbell, 50; Kim Hill, 69).
