On the outside of the public media push

Commercial media companies fear the new public media entity replacing RNZ and TVNZ will be greater than the sum of those two parts. The draft legislation obliges Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media to “collaborate” with them - but the owner of the biggest local news producer, Stuff, says no-one knows what that means and the law must define its role and responsibilities properly.  

The clock is ticking on public submissions on the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill. The deadline is Thursday 8 September.  

Experts, academics and lawyers met in Auckland again this week to draft a joint submission from Koi Tu - the Centre for Informed Futures - at the University of Auckland, 

It was a follow-up to a bigger gathering seven days earlier where there was enthusiasm about a new public media platform backed by greater funding from Government, albeit only guaranteed for the next three years. 

But concerns were expressed about the possibility of political influence over the new body and this week TVNZ CEO Simon Power told Stuff and NBR the Bill was “poorly constructed” and TVNZ would be advising the EDSI committee it needs to be “totally free from political influence and seen to be so”

But there was also disappointment among many who felt that beyond merging the current functions of RNZ and TVNZ, the Bill lacks detail and ambition. 

Another concern was the effect a beefed-up new public media body might have on the rest of the media. 

“The entity will not work against or in isolation to the rest of the media sector and has a broader obligation to collaborate,” the minister of broadcasting and media Willie Jackson said when he introduced the Bill to the House in June. 

In a press release in July, he said the new body would “collaborate, where appropriate, with other New Zealand media - for example, sharing infrastructure with other public media in order to reach audiences and develop talent across the sector.”

The general policy statement attached to the Bill tabled in July said ANZPM would be “required to work collaboratively across the media sector, wherever appropriate and financially responsible, to support a diverse, capable, and resilient media ecosystem.” 

Concern about what this might mean is not new. The cabinet paper from 2022 said collaboration with other media providers was a “point of tension” during the consultations with them. 

“It will be important that the legislation makes it clear how the entity should manage these tensions where they occur,” the paper said.  

But the ANZPM Bill merely requires Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media to “collaborate with Māori media entities  - and other media entities  . . . .where this is financially responsible and consistent with the Charter”.

Among those at the Koi Tu workshop last week unsure what that really means was Sinead Boucher of Stuff, the CEO and owner of the nation’s biggest publisher of news and employer of more journalists than any other.  

Boucher told Mediawatch Stuff's submission would highlight the lack of clarity about the scope of ANZPM’s operation and the impact on other media serving the public. 

 “(It) will be focused on the risks to both the risk of the media sector but also the possible success of the media entity itself if the legislation is not set up correctly in the first place,” she said.

Stuff already competes for audience and advertisers with RNZ and TVNZ. How will things be different when replaced by ANZPM? 

“It’s going to be a not-for-profit entity that can  . . . go into any kind of product, market or medium that it chooses. And it will be substantially funded by the government as well,” Boucher told Mediawatch.  

“That has the potential to be incredibly market-distorting . . . for the rest of the media ecosystem,” she said.

In years gone by, TVNZ’s rivals used to urge the government to turn TVNZ into a non-commercial broadcaster, leaving more of the market open to them. In theory, a not-for-profit ANZPM could be a less formidable rival than the aggressively commercial TVNZ of today? 

“There's a difference between not-for-profit and ‘not commercial.’ This entity doesn't have to return any profits to its own shareholder, but it can still be commercial, out in the market competing with the rest of the media ecosystem for advertising,” Sinead Boucher said.  

“It is both well-funded from the government and also not-for-profit so it can charge what it needs to  - and put that money back into the organisation. That is not the way the rest of the media system would work. So it's probably the worst possible outcome for us,’ she said. 

“It would  . . . compete very hard for the best talent, and journalists. We want to be able to pay everybody the money they deserve  - but against a competitor two or three steps ahead in terms of its funding model makes it very hard for the rest of the industry,” she said. 

Most comparable countries have had joined-up public broadcasters operating online, on radio and on TV for years. Don't New Zealanders deserve one too? 

“Look, I have nothing in principle against the formation of a public media entity. And I'm a strong believer in strong public media. But  . . . the distortions and its own funding model are really important to get right at the beginning,” she said. 

“The Bill in its current form is full of gaps and doesn't address some really significant things that probably should be enshrined in legislation rather than batted down the road for a Board or the staff to work out,” she said. 

Does she fear ANZPM might end up setting up news operations in place Stuff operates almost alone - such as Timaru and Malborough where Stuff publishes newspapers and employs reporters?

“I don’t know what future management would want to do but that is entirely possible. The way that the Bill is drafted at the moment doesn't put any guardrails around the interaction with the rest of the media ecosystem or what is most important for the entity to achieve itself,” she said.  

“It’s going to be a real giant in the market, and could theoretically move into any market, any medium, any model would be a real threat to the rest of the industry. Nobody wants just a public media entity and no one wants just a commercial media sector.,” she said. 

Clearly there is a strong self-interest at play. 

Will Stuff’s submission demand limits to ANZPM’s services or ring-fencing of its activities to protect Stuff’s patch? 

Stuff currently gets more public funding ever before via New Zealand on Air for multimedia journalism projects and the $55m Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) has paid new staff roles at Stuff and backrolled local reporting around the country. A bigger and better public media entity could dry up that source. 

“That type of funding from NZOA and the PIJF represents less than 1 per cent of the money we ourselves invest in journalism. It's wrong to say that we are funded by the government or supported by the government in that way. Those funds really help us augment or enhance things we're already doing and want to do," she said.