THE POLITICS OF NEW ZEALAND'S 'POST JOURNALISM'

 


The New Zealand media industry is in a state of collapse. With fewer media outlets and fewer journalists, what are the implications for the diversity and stability of our democracy? Bryce Edwards writes that it has paved the way for a more explicitly partisan media.

IN MARCH the freelance writer Madeleine Holden published an article for The Spinoff estimating the number of journalists remaining in New Zealand. She noted that there had been 4,071 people in the 2006 census who recorded their profession as newspaper or periodical editor, print journalist, radio journalist or television journalist. This declined to 3,381 by 2018, even as the population grew substantially. Holden surveyed newsrooms and estimated that by 2024 there were around 1,400 journalists left – most of them working for five large media companies: Stuff, Radio New Zealand, NZME, TVNZ and Allied Press.

The number is now significantly lower. Since March there have been repeated waves of closures and layoffs across the sector this year. Newshub has closed down, with TV3’s news now being produced by Stuff. TVNZ is downgrading its news website, and it’s closed down Sunday, its long-form investigative show, Fair Go, along with its late news and midday news. NZME are closing fourteen community newspapers across the country. North and South magazine has suspended its operation and is attempting to migrate to a digital platform. The Spinoff is laying off staff and attempting to raise revenue through a membership drive. And yesterday, Whakaata Maori (Maori Television) announced the loss of 27 roles, and that it’s daily news show Te Ao Maori News will broadcast its final bulletin next week.

The industry is in a state of collapse – which raises questions about the ability of the public to remain informed about political and social issues, and the stability of our democracy in a world in which news is delivered by user-generated content on technology platforms, instead of professional journalists.

ORIGINS OF THE MEDIA APOCALYPSE
The main challenge confronting the industry is the loss of advertising revenue. Media companies used to enjoy monopoly rents on local and tv advertising. They used the excess profits to fund journalism, which was supplemented by reader subscriptions. This business model has been disrupted by the technology platforms, most notably those owned by Alphabet and Meta. Nearly all the advertising revenue in New Zealand now flows to Facebook, Google, Instagram and YouTube, and without it, many media companies are no longer solvent.

There’s also the loss of trust. This isn’t an isolated problem. Most liberal democracies are experiencing a loss of trust in their traditional institutions but this has been especially rapid in New Zealand. In October Statistics NZ published the results of the 2023 General Social Survey, which found high levels of support for police, the courts and education system but significantly lower levels of public trust in Parliament and the media.

In May former New Zealand Herald editor Gavin Ellis published a report about the state of the current media industry, identifying the collapse in trust as a key issue. He explained: “The mixing of fact and opinion in news stories is identified as a cause of the public’s low level of trust, and online analytics were found to have aberrated news judgement previously driven by journalistic values.”

Many in media also claim that the regulatory environment is highly unfavourable towards them, while their competitors in the online-technology sector remain largely unregulated. The tech platforms pay little tax in New Zealand, create few jobs, and make few attempts to verify if the content they’re delivering is accurate, or even legal. Facebook has become a popular site for criminal organisations to conduct fraud campaigns.

In an extensive feature about the state of the industry and the torrent of scams, Spinoff founder Duncan Grieve notes the stark asymmetry between the way the government treats tech and media companies, noting that advertising is “the source of well over a billion dollars in combined annual revenue for Google and Meta. Where traditional media’s clients are highly vetted, and there are significant penalties and outcry when real or perceived violation of codes occurs, there is no similar oversight or consequence for search or social media advertising. All this helps explain why we have come to accept that frauds and scams which originate through Facebook posts and advertising are a problem for banks, but a profit centre for Facebook.”

Grieve also asks “Who exactly is charged with overseeing the social media companies? We have a minister for racing, a minister for arts, a minister for sports – even a minister for space. Yet even figuring out which minister oversees social media is difficult... Last week I asked DPMC, the all-powerful group which sits behind the prime minister and cabinet. They told me it was internal affairs minister and Act deputy leader Brooke Van Velden. I requested an interview, only to be told that ‘after discussions here, we’ve realised this is one for the minister of commerce and consumer affairs, Hon Andrew Bayly.’ It feels telling that as far as social media goes – among the most influential developments in the history of the internet – the government still isn’t quite sure who is in charge.”

RISE AND FALL OF THE FAIR NEWS DEAL
The industry’s preferred answer to these problems was the Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill. This legislation would compel technology platforms to strike deals with New Zealand media companies, paying them for linking to their content. If they failed to reach a deal, then they’d be subject to binding arbitration.

The technology platforms opposed the bill, which was developed under the previous government by Labour broadcasting minister Willie Jackson. National criticised the legislation in opposition but changed their mind after intense lobbying from the media sector.

The bill was supposed to be passed by the end of the year, but in October Google threatened to block New Zealand’s digital media outlets from its search results if the legislation was passed. Meta – the owners of Facebook – used a similar tactic in Canada, in response to similar legislation, leading to a dramatic decline in traffic for Canadian outlets.

The Coalition Government has removed the Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill from its order paper and cannot say when the legislation will proceed. The Albanese government in Australia is currently reviewing their own version of this law, and our own government will prefer to align our regulatory environment with that of Canberra’s.

IS THE INDUSTRY DOOMED?
In 2021 the writer Danyl Mclauchlan published an essay on The Spinoff predicting the impending collapse of traditional news. He summarised the ideas of a media theorist called Andrey Mir, writing “What’s really happened is a change in the quantum of information. It used to be that you bought a morning newspaper, or a weekly magazine, then read some or all of the stories. Maybe you just did the crossword, or read the comics – doesn’t matter. What mattered is that you paid for the newspaper. Now the quantum of information is a headline. ‘Kabul has fallen to the Taliban.’ Or not even a headline, since most news stories get live tweeted by the journalists covering them before they even file any copy. Maybe you click a link to the eventual story, maybe you don’t. If you do, the content is probably ‘free’, in that in exchange for reading it your data is being captured and your attention and behaviour is being monetised by Google or Facebook or the media company you’re clicking through to.”

Mclauchlan argued: “There is no longer an economic rationale for newspapers but there is a social rationale, the notion that they’re integral to the survival of democracy itself.” And he cited Mir further, suggesting that the newspapers promote the idea – held by older generations – that the myth of newspapers’ significance “will keep them alive for a few more years, until the ageing demographics that still absorb media in this antiquated quantum of information die off. When the millennials and zoomers – who largely regard them as bizarre historical artifacts – become the primary consumer market, the format is dead.”

For Mclauchlan and Mir, the future of journalism is “post-journalism”. It no longer pretends to objectivity or political neutrality. Instead, it is deeply ideological, fostering polarisation and anger to engage audiences and drive donations and membership subscriptions: “The ad-driven media produced happy customers. The reader-driven media produce angry citizens. The former served consumerism. The latter serves polarization.”

In the leadup to the 2024 US election the podcaster Joe Rogan featured extensive interviews with Donald Trump, his vice-presidential candidate J D Vance and his wealthiest supporter Elon Musk, all three of them lasting approximately three hours. The democratic candidate Kamala Harris chose not to appear on Rogan’s show, instead featuring on a rival podcast named Call Her Daddy, a show dedicated to women’s perspectives on sex, relationships, and millennial dating culture.

It marked the transition to a form of politics conducted via postjournalism. New Zealand is also experiencing the emergence of more explicitly partisan media. Sean Plunkett’s Platform and The Spinoff itself are both postjournalism projects. In Holden’s feature on the state of media she notes that the proportion of journalists employed at state owned organisations is increasing. By the end of next year, Radio New Zealand might be the only non-paywalled mainstream news website offering traditional media content, and based on the trajectory of public trust surveys, increasing numbers of citizens will seek their news from alternate sources.

Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence and  Director of the Democracy Project, Victoria University of Wellington. This article was first published by the Democracy Project.