If Hobson’s Pledge, a lobby group led by Don Brash, wasn’t on your radar a few weeks ago, it will almost certainly be now. Of course, it ought not be confused with the ironic term ‘Hobson’s Choice’ which means ‘having no choice at all’, which in light of the NZ Herald’s actions only makes it all the more ironic. I’ll spare you, though, all the details from the controversy of the past two weeks, and deal here instead with two key questions.
The first is relatively easy: Can a newspaper like the NZ Herald lawfully turn down an advertisement?
The short answer: Yes, they can.
As a publicly listed private company, NZME, as owner of the NZ Herald, is under no legal compulsion to accept advertising requests from Hobson’s Pledge or any other group. Having said this, a company advertising policy is necessary for the purposes of clarity, consistency and consumer confidence. Ads bring money. Money keeps journalists employed and the lights on.
But let’s face it, the bigger question in the case of the Hobson’s Pledge debacle is one of principle. Can the NZ Herald still claim to be a robust medium for wider democratic discourse and debate?
The short answer? Not currently.
But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be rescued.
The Herald is supposed to be the newspaper of record, a chronicler of the nation’s history. It has long claimed to be a civic stage for the competition of diverse and often diametrically opposing viewpoints on social, cultural and political matters. Has it ever lived up to this ideal?
When it was first founded in 1863 the paper was a vociferous, one-eyed advocate for the British military’s seizure of Māori lands and subsequent European settlement. In the eyes of the Herald’s modern editorial team, they presumably feel they’ve inherited the historical sins of an institution for which they must atone. Just a few weeks ago they ran a front-page feature detailing all Māori land confiscated by the Crown after 1840. It carried with it a powerful editorial message and, one could argue, offered an important contribution to what should be a national discussion and debate about our past and future. But last week the paper made the rookie mistake of thinking it could still offer its services as an impartial platform. How dare a lobby group led by a man who was once Reserve Bank governor, Leader of the Opposition and Act Party leader pay a princely sum for advertising space on its front page?
In their exuberant rush to remain solvent, someone in the Herald’s advertising department obviously forgot this is the year 2024. We live in puritanical times, when platforming is a cardinal sin. The long, shameful, penitent walk performed by the newspaper must now ensue, so don’t be surprised if it reasserts itself with a zealous editorial partisanship which eclipses anything we’ve seen to date.
Of course, just because the Herald’s advertising department has shown a ‘serious lapse of judgement’, we shouldn’t forget that plenty of ‘advocacy advertisements’ of a highly political nature have made it onto the front of the paper before. These just happened to reflect a particular political bent. In the run up to last year’s election, for example, the Council of Trade Unions placed a full front-page attack ad directed at then-Leader of the Opposition Chris Luxon. Despite copious criticisms from certain conservative voices, the Herald staunchly stood its ground by citing the principles of freedom of expression and of the press.
Recently, a public letter signed by more than 170 academics and lawyers argued that the claims in the Hobson’s Pledge advertorial were “misleading and inaccurate.” They may have reasonable grounds for public critique of claims by Hobson’s Pledge, but there is no obvious breach of advertising standards in this case. The problem is that hundreds of claims made in all kinds of advertisements – political or not - can be disputed by experts for and against. So, it’s entirely possible there’s an issue with the language or interpretation of the facts used in the Hobson’s Pledge claims. But the public would like to at least hear these competing claims, and then have them openly debated and critiqued, because the issue concerns the whole country and the answer is not apparent to many.
It is also well established in logic that a viewpoint being held by a majority of experts should never be the decisive factor when assessing knowledge claims because this becomes a form of confirmation bias (and it is not obvious in this case that there is even a clear majority position or for that matter two simple and opposing views). So it is, quite frankly, elitist on the part of many experts if they think the public hasn’t the right to even consider the arguments and evidence for themselves. No ideas arise fully formed from anyone’s mouth – expert or not - and we certainly don’t need ‘intellectual guardians’ vetting political opinions before we’re allowed to read them in the newspaper.
Many Kiwis have grown tired of the oft-heard lament that the impending death of NZ news media can only be staved off by a state-funded subsidy. The Public Interest Journalism Fund instituted under Labour was highly unpopular because of the ideological nudging which came with it. So, if potential ad revenue is being turned away because a client’s viewpoint doesn’t comport with certain acceptable political views, the news outlet shouldn’t expect any sympathy themselves from the public when they face their next financial emergency.
The answer, I would suggest, is not for free speech advocates to boycott the NZ Herald. Boycotting is going to destroy an institution which still has the potential to elevate and broaden public discourse, inform society and provide a credible historical record. A boycott is in many respects just an older form of ‘cancel culture’, which is precisely why some groups have employed it here. Yet while boycotting may weaken institutions, and even topple them, such a move creates a new problem - it takes an enormous amount of time, wisdom, and energy to establish something positive, credible and sustainable in its place.
A culture of free speech at heart does require a place for clemency, and the belief that people and institutions can change given the chance of rediscovering fundamental democratic values. So, instead of letting the ship founder in the shallow waters of ideological conformity, concerned citizens who believe in broad political discourse could purchase shares in NZME in significant numbers and call for greater diversity of expression from the newspaper. The aim would not be cynical reverse censorship or the imposition of a conservative editorial voice, but the rejuvenation of a platform which allows for more diverse perspectives from across the spectrum.
What this latest fiasco at the Herald shows us without a doubt is that our news media have almost no backbone in representing the diverse views of a public which just a few short years ago bailed journalism out during its darkest hour. ‘Approved’ political views at the Herald will get free press while others quite literally aren’t even allowed to buy print space. NZME should not underestimate the damage this approach is having on public trust in media. Throw boycotts into the mix and we will ultimately get a zero-sum game.
While it may seem impossible that this case could get any more ironic, let’s not forget the free publicity which Hobson’s Pledge is now getting due to the furore. You would think by now it ought to be obvious to all the would-be censors out there that silenced opponents will, though battered and bruised, eventually grow stronger due to exclusion, not weaker. And that it makes itself weaker too. It’s just a shame the fourth estate has come to believe it has no other choice.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
But let’s face it, the bigger question in the case of the Hobson’s Pledge debacle is one of principle. Can the NZ Herald still claim to be a robust medium for wider democratic discourse and debate?
The short answer? Not currently.
But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be rescued.
The Herald is supposed to be the newspaper of record, a chronicler of the nation’s history. It has long claimed to be a civic stage for the competition of diverse and often diametrically opposing viewpoints on social, cultural and political matters. Has it ever lived up to this ideal?
When it was first founded in 1863 the paper was a vociferous, one-eyed advocate for the British military’s seizure of Māori lands and subsequent European settlement. In the eyes of the Herald’s modern editorial team, they presumably feel they’ve inherited the historical sins of an institution for which they must atone. Just a few weeks ago they ran a front-page feature detailing all Māori land confiscated by the Crown after 1840. It carried with it a powerful editorial message and, one could argue, offered an important contribution to what should be a national discussion and debate about our past and future. But last week the paper made the rookie mistake of thinking it could still offer its services as an impartial platform. How dare a lobby group led by a man who was once Reserve Bank governor, Leader of the Opposition and Act Party leader pay a princely sum for advertising space on its front page?
In their exuberant rush to remain solvent, someone in the Herald’s advertising department obviously forgot this is the year 2024. We live in puritanical times, when platforming is a cardinal sin. The long, shameful, penitent walk performed by the newspaper must now ensue, so don’t be surprised if it reasserts itself with a zealous editorial partisanship which eclipses anything we’ve seen to date.
Of course, just because the Herald’s advertising department has shown a ‘serious lapse of judgement’, we shouldn’t forget that plenty of ‘advocacy advertisements’ of a highly political nature have made it onto the front of the paper before. These just happened to reflect a particular political bent. In the run up to last year’s election, for example, the Council of Trade Unions placed a full front-page attack ad directed at then-Leader of the Opposition Chris Luxon. Despite copious criticisms from certain conservative voices, the Herald staunchly stood its ground by citing the principles of freedom of expression and of the press.
Recently, a public letter signed by more than 170 academics and lawyers argued that the claims in the Hobson’s Pledge advertorial were “misleading and inaccurate.” They may have reasonable grounds for public critique of claims by Hobson’s Pledge, but there is no obvious breach of advertising standards in this case. The problem is that hundreds of claims made in all kinds of advertisements – political or not - can be disputed by experts for and against. So, it’s entirely possible there’s an issue with the language or interpretation of the facts used in the Hobson’s Pledge claims. But the public would like to at least hear these competing claims, and then have them openly debated and critiqued, because the issue concerns the whole country and the answer is not apparent to many.
It is also well established in logic that a viewpoint being held by a majority of experts should never be the decisive factor when assessing knowledge claims because this becomes a form of confirmation bias (and it is not obvious in this case that there is even a clear majority position or for that matter two simple and opposing views). So it is, quite frankly, elitist on the part of many experts if they think the public hasn’t the right to even consider the arguments and evidence for themselves. No ideas arise fully formed from anyone’s mouth – expert or not - and we certainly don’t need ‘intellectual guardians’ vetting political opinions before we’re allowed to read them in the newspaper.
Many Kiwis have grown tired of the oft-heard lament that the impending death of NZ news media can only be staved off by a state-funded subsidy. The Public Interest Journalism Fund instituted under Labour was highly unpopular because of the ideological nudging which came with it. So, if potential ad revenue is being turned away because a client’s viewpoint doesn’t comport with certain acceptable political views, the news outlet shouldn’t expect any sympathy themselves from the public when they face their next financial emergency.
The answer, I would suggest, is not for free speech advocates to boycott the NZ Herald. Boycotting is going to destroy an institution which still has the potential to elevate and broaden public discourse, inform society and provide a credible historical record. A boycott is in many respects just an older form of ‘cancel culture’, which is precisely why some groups have employed it here. Yet while boycotting may weaken institutions, and even topple them, such a move creates a new problem - it takes an enormous amount of time, wisdom, and energy to establish something positive, credible and sustainable in its place.
A culture of free speech at heart does require a place for clemency, and the belief that people and institutions can change given the chance of rediscovering fundamental democratic values. So, instead of letting the ship founder in the shallow waters of ideological conformity, concerned citizens who believe in broad political discourse could purchase shares in NZME in significant numbers and call for greater diversity of expression from the newspaper. The aim would not be cynical reverse censorship or the imposition of a conservative editorial voice, but the rejuvenation of a platform which allows for more diverse perspectives from across the spectrum.
What this latest fiasco at the Herald shows us without a doubt is that our news media have almost no backbone in representing the diverse views of a public which just a few short years ago bailed journalism out during its darkest hour. ‘Approved’ political views at the Herald will get free press while others quite literally aren’t even allowed to buy print space. NZME should not underestimate the damage this approach is having on public trust in media. Throw boycotts into the mix and we will ultimately get a zero-sum game.
While it may seem impossible that this case could get any more ironic, let’s not forget the free publicity which Hobson’s Pledge is now getting due to the furore. You would think by now it ought to be obvious to all the would-be censors out there that silenced opponents will, though battered and bruised, eventually grow stronger due to exclusion, not weaker. And that it makes itself weaker too. It’s just a shame the fourth estate has come to believe it has no other choice.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
4 comments:
The PIJFcame not with ideological nudging as a conditon, but with idealogical bludgeoning.
We cannot have a democracy when major media can operate as the Herald does. Trump may have who in 2020 if the news of Hunter Biden's laptop was not suppressed.
But boycott it I did. I cancelled my subscription over them bowing to a minority of biased academics.
I boycotted them probably 18mths to 2yrs ago. When they published that Hobsons Pledge wrap around for a moment I thought: Goodness! They’re actually giving air to the other side of the story. Maybe I’ll be able to subscribe again… More fool me. When it comes to the NZ Herald I fear I’m doomed to eternal disappointment. My boycott is now even more firmly entrenched.
Post a Comment