The recognition that there is a media problem is correct, but the chosen solution is likely to be disastrous.
Whether it intends or not, the government is embarked on a course to undermine Radio New Zealand. It wants to merge TVNZ and RNZ in order, it says, to strengthen the media. ‘Merge’ is a weasel word. Mergers involve one entity taking over the other. One does not expect RNZ to take over TVNZ. Even the Treasury warns they are two very different cultures.
The identified problems are twofold. First, the media advertising market – the main source of the commercial media’s revenue is in turmoil as social media have scooped up market share while using content taken from the traditional media. One would have thought the first step in a resolution would be to get the social media to pay for the traditional media’s stories that they use. Many countries are exploring ways to do this but it is a low priority for New Zealand and rarely mentioned.
How a redisorganisation contributes to resolving this funding problem is unclear unless it is to enable TVNZ to get its hands on RNZ’s public funding. (More below.)
Not incidentally, the claim is always made that a merger/takeover reduces costs by cutting overheads and the like. Experience shows it frequently adds to them. Never let facts get in the way of an enthusiastic merger proposal.
The other serious public problem is the convergence of media platforms. Like other outlets, RNZ has a website, podcasts and video presentations. No one envisaged this when TVNZ and RNZ were created back in the 1980s. The strategy of the previous Labour minister, Clare Curran, was ‘RNZ plus’ in which its video capacity would be strengthened. As sensible as it sounds, that does not resolve the TVNZ advertising problem.
Going back to the 1980s reminds us of the parallels of this redisorganisation with standard practices under Rogernomics, with the mushroom approach in which the public is stuck into a dark corner and covered with muck. Meanwhile, decisions are made without public involvement or honest consultation. It is happening again.
About a year ago the decision was made that the merger/takeover would proceed and the Ministry of Culture and Heritage outsourced the policy function to PwC, an accounting firm, to make a business case. (Note the term ‘business’. The framework is the commercialisation of RNZ – even had PwC much expertise in public policy, its advice will be trapped in a Rogernomic framework.)
Last March the government announced its next step. You, dear mushroom, suffering from delusions of a democrat, would have assumed that involved a public discussion on the PwC report. But the commercialisation momentum was under way. Deloittes, a new accounting firm as competent as PwC, has been commissioned to provide the business case (that word again).
The PwC report appears to recommend a hybrid in which the new organisation would depend upon both advertising revenue and public funds. (We don’t know why/how; see the endnote.) It ignores that this option was rejected in the 1980s when commercial radio was split off from public service radio. Just how fundamental the cultural difference is can be illustrated by Mike Hosking who was a disappointment presenting Morning Report (with Geoff Robinson) but has been a jewel in the commercial ZB crown. The consultants probably did not know of the tensions between the TVNZ and the RNZ when they were both parts of the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand. Its exhausted chairman, Ian Cross, once argued for a government direction of how to split the broadcasting licence fee between them to reduce their financial warring.
Tensions would be worse today. The media market is much more competitive both for audiences and the advertising dollar. Even if there was a funding direction, it can be got around under current accounting practices by overcharging one branch for overheads to fund others. (The Department of Internal Affairs does this to Archives New Zealand and the National Library.)
The Deloittes development of the business case for the takeover/merger is being supervised by a ‘Strong Public Media Business Case Governance Group’ (count the weasle words). The board of seven are said to be experts in the media and public policy. Six of them are media experts – the balance of their experience is the commercial media. There is no expertise in public policy, especially one familiar with developments from Rogernomics. (The practice is to call anyone an ‘expert’ who is more knowledgeable than those who give the designation. In this case it is an indication of just how incompetent those driving the redisorganisation are.)
The chair of the seven is Tracey Martin with a reputation for ‘getting things done’. (Interesting that they did not go to Clare Curran.) Martin’s reputation is, actually, for doing what her advisers tell her; she was Minister of Internal Affairs and Oranga Tamariki (and Senior Citizens, although that never appeared much among her activities) and showed no leadership at all. That suggests that her job is to corral any of the other six who have doubts to endorse the Deloitte recommendations.
They are due in the middle of the year and are then to go to Cabinet. Minister Faafoi has said that ‘engaging with the public’ will be part of the new group’s job and went on that the Cabinet will make a decision without formally consulting the public or other political parties – how Rogernomic. So the fait accompli generates a bill, a select committee hearing (under Rogernomics they ignored any thoughtful submission which disagreed – we are still unwinding some of the messes the process left behind) and then the whiMPs – the government caucus MPs – will be whipped through the parliamentary lobbies to pass the bill. Sound familiar?
Any guarantees offered by the minister and ministry are worthless. Recall, that the Minister and the DIA promised to a select committee that they would maintain the integrity of Archives New Zealand and the National Library. A decade later the minister has retired and the officials gone. So has the integrity.
Following the implementation of the merger, TVNZ will steal the RNZ funding, which will force RNZ to seek commercial sources of funding – advertising on the website here, sponsorship there. Step by step public service broadcasting will be undermined. From Geof Robinson to Mike Hosking.
In the past we have had Ministers of the Crown committed to culture and heritage: Peter Fraser, Alan Highet, Jonathan Hunt, Doug Graham, Helen Clark, Chris Finlayson. Where are they today?
Given the disappointing – some would say disgraceful – cultural policy record of the current government – for example on Archives New Zealand, the National Library, the Public Lending Right – why should media policy expect any better?
Endnote: Dear Mushrooms,
An OIA request provided the PwC report with 50 pages – over half – completely redacted. The missing is all the analysis. We are told it has been omitted because it has not been finalised. Even so the minister announced that it recommended a mixed-funding case and was proceeding with it. We have no idea why. Sound familiar?
Remember that, as far as can be judged, no one on the (weasel words) consulting committee has the accounting or economic skills to assess the business case fully, and there appears to be no provision for public consultation until the decision is made. Sound familiar?
In the corner with you, Brian.