NZME should get back to the business of offering world class media, with advertising options included for all legal adverts, not picking and choosing which opinions deserve a hearing, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
“NZME happily offered an advertising package to Hobson’s Pledge, signed off on the ads, and submitted their invoice for payment. A few would-be-censors bang their intolerance drum, and the Board and management get spooked. This sort of weakness is entirely part of why public trust in the media continues to plummet, and political discourse is more and more polarised.
“NZME is a publicly-listed private company. They ultimately have the right to reject this advertising. But they deserve strong criticism for this decision, and it’s not surprising that shareholders raise questions as to why good money is being rejected on ideological grounds.
“Bad ideas are beaten with better ideas, not censorial grandstanding. Of course, it is appropriate that advertorial material meet legal standards. But that’s not the question here. Opponents of Hobson’s Pledge should challenge the ad with the Advertising Standard’s Authority, not contest NZME’s right and interest in running advertorial content.
“Large media outlets like NZME are prone to complain endlessly about the unsustainability of the media ecosystem, and how social media is stealing their advertising revenue. NZME should stand up to political toy-throwing and simply offer the same advertising package to those who would express opposite views. Such contests of ideas belong in full view of the public, not hidden in the back offices of NZME.”
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
“NZME is a publicly-listed private company. They ultimately have the right to reject this advertising. But they deserve strong criticism for this decision, and it’s not surprising that shareholders raise questions as to why good money is being rejected on ideological grounds.
“Bad ideas are beaten with better ideas, not censorial grandstanding. Of course, it is appropriate that advertorial material meet legal standards. But that’s not the question here. Opponents of Hobson’s Pledge should challenge the ad with the Advertising Standard’s Authority, not contest NZME’s right and interest in running advertorial content.
“Large media outlets like NZME are prone to complain endlessly about the unsustainability of the media ecosystem, and how social media is stealing their advertising revenue. NZME should stand up to political toy-throwing and simply offer the same advertising package to those who would express opposite views. Such contests of ideas belong in full view of the public, not hidden in the back offices of NZME.”
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
NZME have proven to their shareholders and their subscribers what they actually stand for.
That is they stand for the ideology they like not bipartisanship as the 4th estate.
As stated they should print all comers and let the truth be heard with the good beating the bad as it were.
The subscribers and the shareholders should be demanding an answer from whoever was in charge of this fiasco given the original advert was approved by their own legal team.
I'd go as far as to state that this is a failure of courage in the face of a mouthy bully and the Herald executive and board should be ashamed of their lack of backbone.
Either it is a fact that the Hreald has a very yellow streak or they are actually totally on board with the said bullys......
Law 101: offer + acceptance + consideration = a binding legal contract.
HP should be taking legal action against NZME for enforcement of contract.
No - opponents of the Hobson's choice ad. should be required to present clear evidence of their objections - not simply frantic noise.
Exactly.
The coalition deserves some ire on this too. Since assuming the mantle of Government it has done absolutely nothing to set the Public Interest Journalism Fund provisions to rights. The $55M plus has been sunk (although much appears to still be in use for dubious projects pushing the left ideological claptrap), however it must be within the wit of humans to modify the contract provisions such that the requirements encourage balanced reporting - let's face it, if it were Labour pulling the strings (are they still?) it would happen tomorrow if not yesterday. Labour made extreme provisions to ensure their barrow would be pushed after an election defeat and the coalition seems quite content to let this nonsense roll on without correction. Not saying the coalition should play the same dirty games that Labour et al have but for pity's sake stop laying back waiting to be screwed.
It"s a bit rich for DTNZ to promote the idea that “Bad ideas are beaten with better ideas", given that their content reposted by this platform consists totally of ideas that are not just bad, but lack merit of any sort. Quoting Ayling with approval is just a cynical tactic to gain some street cred with the free speech crowd, but which rapidly evaporates when you look at the malevolent content of their so called Independent News website.
Had Comrade Ardern inherited state funded TV and Radio channels as clearly right wing then as they are so clearly lefft wing now she would have cut their heads off and changed it week one.
What one earth is Goldsmith doing with his time ? A fundamental plank of a healthy democracy is a balanced and fair public media.
Why give the left publicly funded media to constantly score unnoposed home runs.
Why not change their names to TV Labour and Radio Minority Grievance.
Maiki Sherman's recent interview of Darleen Tana was so soft and cuddly and sacharine sweet it was positively nauseating !
Balanced journalism , absolutely not .
It must be recognized that the Left will never be required to produce evidence - in any situation. Loud protest is enough to stop due process and fair action.
Will Seymour's Treaty Bill ever be allowed to get to the Select Committee phase?
In the "context of what has happened to NZME", is not different to what the Left Leaning Activists & sadly this includes some within the Gay Community - who across both America & the UK have done the same thing. For Maori Journalism to also be involved, then they must "have read the script" from those overseas events, and used the same tactics here in NZ.
One "hopes", that other advertising entities see what has happened and "pull their advertising accounts from NZME".
NZME, go "woke, you will go broke". It is also called "bending the knee". At that point also, when the sales of printed copy fade, so will NZME.
"Spineless leadership at the helm of our largest media outfit"?
It is not OUR media outlet, it belongs to the STATE, and is one of their "mockingbird media" outlets.
Post a Comment