Back in 2019, I wrote an article for Pundit that painted both a hopeful and a pessimistic picture of public broadcasting. Hopeful, because the Labour-led Government had a public broadcasting policy. Pessimistic because public broadcasting is not something the New Zealanders are much concerned about. The Government was going to have to make a strong case for change.
Ever since the Muldoon Government began, in the 1970s, eroding the license fee that paid for public broadcasting, it has been a shrinking part of the culture. By the time the 4th Labour Government (in the 1980s) decided to deregulate broadcasting along with everything else, public broadcasting had only a rump of supporters who focused their attention on what was left of publicly owned radio. (The Government had broken up the old New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation to form Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand as State Owned Enterprises).
Even then, public broadcasting was saved only because a few powerful politicians and some cultural elites who supported advertising free news and the Concert Programme realised that their favourites were at risk.
RNZ continued to be publicly supported and funding that could be accessed by all broadcast media was provided (through New Zealand on Air) for local content.
Jump forward to today, and the tide of globalisation and the belief in new forms of media to meet the needs of audiences that underpinned decisions about deregulation in the 1980s has begun to ebb. Most nations understand the value of owning and filling the airwaves with ‘stories about themselves’ be they news, documentaries or entertainment.
They know no one else is going to care as deeply about them as they do themselves.
It is also clear that the explosion of new media has led to both good and bad outcomes. The good has come in the form of the most extraordinary access by everyone (who can pay) to almost endless content.
The bad has come in the shape of diverse, differentiated and fragmented populations disappearing into cul de sacs where they listen, read and watch only what agrees with their views.
When groups do not hear the views of others, division and animosity builds up – often driven by false and uncontested views.
This is not a new phenomenon, by the way. Throughout history false narratives have been circulated by whatever means available to stoke often violent conflicts.
In the 21st century we are playing out this familiar story on a much larger canvas. The harm will be commensurately larger.
Which brings us back to public broadcasting in New Zealand.
Often framed as non-commercial broadcasting, this is not the essence of what public broadcasting represents. The difference between public and private broadcasting is straightforward – private broadcasters make content to make money while public broadcasters receive money to make content.
This is a fundamental and vital difference. It does not make one better than the other, just different.
Public broadcasting is universal. It should serve the interests of everyone in the society. Everyone should be able to see themselves somewhere in what is broadcast.
Early forms of broadcasting (influenced in New Zealand by the British Reithian tradition) took this mandate to mean that there was a single culture to be communicated. There was a high-minded purpose to this view. It was seen as providing information, education and entertainment that would ‘improve’ the population.
A noble idea, perhaps, but a misguided one. There is more than one way of seeing the world in any country and as this diversity became more obvious from the 60s on, the idea that there was a preferred way of seeing the world became controversial.
Criticism meant that public broadcasting in most democracies has been the focus of much debate over recent decades. But few nations have undermined their public broadcasters as thoroughly as New Zealand.
The current Labour Government inherited all of the debates and societal changes impacting on public broadcasting. To their credit they saw the need for change.
TVNZ, owned by the state, is, in all but name, a private broadcaster. Its purpose is to earn revenue, serve the interests of advertisers and pay a dividend.
Radio New Zealand is a public broadcaster, with inadequate resources, trying to prove its worth by sounding more like a private broadcaster.
Neither entity can deliver the kind of broadcasting needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Labour’s promise was to change this situation but, the policy was poorly constructed, poorly communicated, poorly implemented and did not fit into the “transformation” programme talked about by the Government. It appeared to most people as an isolated ‘nice to have’.
First, Clare Curran, as Minister of Broadcasting, attempted to implement a secretive plan to make RNZ a larger platform for visual, written and sound content. She lost her position when her plans became public.
Kris Faafoi, the new Minister, came into the role as an experienced broadcaster and proved that experience does not necessarily equate with understanding. His big idea was to merge TVNZ and RNZ into one entity.
But Mr Faafoi seemed oblivious to any number of problems. Anyone with a passing knowledge of these organisations would have known that oil (TVNZ’s commercial culture) and water (RNZ’s public culture) would not mix. A simple merger was going to produce conflict not compatibility.
Then there were key issues like the cost. TVNZ paid its own way and returned a dividend to the Government. As a public broadcaster (not just publicly owned) it would need to be funded.
RNZ relied on Government for an inadequate level of funding (it received no increases during the nine years of the last National Government) provided through NZ On Air.
A properly funded public entity was going to require a substantial increase in funding.
The Government tried to off-set this problem by suggesting the new entity would be able to earn some income. Private broadcasters rightly protested that the size of the public broadcaster would allow it to completely dominate the media market.
To ensure the new entity would fulfil a mandate to serve all communities in New Zealand, the Government tried to set it up in a way that would allow it to be ‘guided’. The essence of any public broadcaster in a democracy is that is completely independent. Both its legal status and its funding source must be free of any political or any other form of interference. Otherwise, it is a State, not a public, broadcaster.
When Mr Faafoi saw how difficult all this was proving to be, he lost interest.
What was by now a ‘hospital pass’ was handed to Willie Jackson, also someone with a broadcasting background. Mr Jackson tried, by force of personality, to make the policy work. But it is not possible to make policy this bad work under any circumstances. And bad policy means bad politics.
In the end the Government agreed. When former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stepped down to be replaced by Chris Hipkins, the opportunity to jettison policies that were causing the Government problems arose. Without much ceremony, the RNZ/TVNZ merger was shut down. In its place, the Government intends providing more funding for the already existing broadcasting entities.
Good politics. It takes a difficult issue off the agenda. But bringing this unfortunate saga to an end will not address the issues public broadcasting might have helped with.
A robust public broadcaster should be part of any 21st century society wanting to ensure its citizens know about each other and have access to a shared understanding of the world – be it through information, education or entertainment.
Most New Zealanders can see the need for this but do not see public broadcasting as an important part of the solution. They needed to be convinced. The case was not made and – well, it is all history now.
The Government, meanwhile, says it will be focusing on the ‘cost of living crisis’. This already looks like a winning election strategy because it undermines National’s hopes of being victorious by saying what it was against rather than what it is for.
Clever politics on the part of the Government. Sadly, however, our main parties are again falling into the pattern that has dogged New Zealand politics for a long time. The short-term and the urgent win out over the long-term and the important.
We limp on as a nation with our eyes firmly fixed on the immediate, all the while knowing we should be paying attention to the horizon.
A robust public broadcaster could help lift our collective sights. But we do not have one and the situation is unlikely to change.