Until now, our focus has been on engaging with shareholders, given that this process is, at its core, a shareholder decision. Indeed, Jim’s two letters to the Board and shareholders, which have been made public, have rightly focused on financial performance and disclosure issues that a number of shareholders would like to see improved.
Former New Zealand Herald editor-in-chief, Gavin Ellis, described Jim’s first 11-page letter as “excoriating” and a “sobering read,” predicting it would resonate with many ordinary shareholders concerned with the performance and direction of the company. But beyond the financials, there’s a broader conversation to be had about NZME’s role in New Zealand’s media landscape and its responsibility as a cornerstone of the Fourth Estate which has been highlighted as an area of concern by Ellis and other commentators.
NZME, through the New Zealand Herald and its other platforms, provides news, analysis, and commentary essential for our democracy to function and thrive. We are keenly aware of this public function and are committed to improving the quality of the content. Jim has publicly confirmed his agreement with NZME’s current Editorial Conduct and Ethics Policy, as well as his intention to raise editorial standards. Contrary to much of the media commentary, this is not about an individual pushing a political agenda or upending the newsroom - it’s about ensuring that NZME’s journalism is robust, balanced, and trusted by New Zealanders.
To achieve this, we propose establishing an Editorial Board, which I would chair. This board would work on a consensual basis to guide editorial strategy, ensuring decisions uphold NZME’s commitment to balanced and trusted journalism. Already, we’ve had approaches from well-known senior Kiwi journalists eager to contribute to this vision. Our intention is for this board to encompass a range of views and experiences - it won’t be any single individual’s bully pulpit.
I have no doubt that this Editorial Board can operate in a manner which supports and enhances the newsroom. I very much enjoyed working with editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness and editor-at-large Shayne Currie when I was leading ZB Plus, and I have a great deal of respect for them both. I’ve also kept in touch with a number of other senior journalists, and they know I’m a big supporter of the newsroom.
Additionally, we want to restore the editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald to NZME’s executive leadership team. From my time at NZME, it was clear that the downgrading of editorial leadership was not taken well by staff when it was implemented. I understand that at the time several senior journalists lobbied chief executive, Michael Boggs, to restore that role to the ELT but were unsuccessful.
This reinstatement would ensure that editorial perspectives are embedded in the company’s strategic decisions, fostering a culture where journalism is not just a product measured by clicks but a public good.
Beyond these key initiatives, there are a range of issues that need to be addressed, including: recruitment and training of journalists, comment moderation, and reader engagement. News organisations are no longer gatekeepers but curators of content - this is a new paradigm that, in my view, the New Zealand Herald has yet to embrace. In a small market such as New Zealand, it will always be challenging to balance subscription and advertising revenue as the news continues to migrate from print to digital. However, sustainable journalism will continue to hinge on one thing: earning and keeping readers’ trust at the heart of the New Zealand Herald’s mission.
Let’s also address some of the wilder speculation head-on. Jim Grenon is not a political extremist nor will the New Zealand Herald serve the same purpose as the Centrist. I first met Jim in the same way that I have met many people over the last few years. Jim reached out to me in early 2023 as someone who enjoyed my writings on Substack and was interested in discussing some of the topics that I was exploring. For all his success, I’ve found Jim to be a humble and well-grounded individual and I’m very confident that he’s in this for the right reasons.
He’s also a significant shareholder who cares about NZME’s performance and its role in New Zealand society. His critiques of NZME’s financial and operational performance stem from a desire to see the company thrive, not from some hidden political motive. The suggestion otherwise is a distraction from the real issues: financial underperformance, declining trust in media, and the need for a clearer strategy in a rapidly changing industry.
For me, this nomination forms part of a natural career transition. After a career in big law, I’m shifting towards governance roles where I can contribute to organisations that shape New Zealand’s future. NZME is a natural fit. Its role in informing the public and holding power to account resonates with my belief in the importance of strong institutions and the crucial role that the media plays in a democracy.
With trust in media at historic lows, NZME must change to strengthen its role as a trusted voice. My motivation is to deliver balanced, diverse journalism (including a range of political views) that bolsters New Zealand’s democracy.
This nomination process is not just about adding a few new faces - it’s about a necessary and thorough board refresh. Last week, director David Gibson’s resignation for personal reasons highlighted the pressing need for board renewal, with institutional shareholders continuing to urge NZME to address financial challenges through fresh leadership. Two other directors, Barbara Chapman (the current Chair) and Sussan Turner, each appointed in 2018, have served for seven years, while Carol Campbell, appointed in 2016, has served for nine years.
While the current Board has navigated NZME through some challenging times, these tenures approach or exceed the upper limit of most corporate governance best practices, which typically recommend rotation after seven to nine years for independent directors to ensure fresh perspectives and to avoid entrenchment.
Institutional shareholders have clearly signalled a desire for change, with significant support for our slate. It’s surprising, then, to see the majority of the current Board dig in, resisting a refresh that aligns with both shareholder sentiment and governance norms.
In 2020, then-Chair of NZME Peter Cullinane faced a similar situation. He resigned 15 minutes before that year’s AGM, citing a lack of support from Australian fund managers and stating it was “not appropriate” to chair a meeting without shareholder confidence.
“There was a group of Australian fund managers who were looking to signal a protest vote and I was up for re-election and I was the recipient of that protest vote,” he told RNZ at the time.
“There was a significant block of votes out of Australia that were against me and in my view it’s better not to chair a meeting knowing you don’t have the support of significant shareholders.”
Cullinane’s insight - that leadership must reflect shareholder trust - applies just as much to the current Chair and Board as it did to his situation. Clinging to board positions in the face of clear calls for change risks undermining NZME’s credibility and governance, and, objectively, is not in the best interests of the company.
This refresh is an opportunity to bring diverse expertise and renewed energy to NZME’s Board. Our nominees - Jim Grenon, Des Gittings, Simon West, and me - combine financial acumen, governance, business and legal experience, and a commitment to journalistic excellence.
As we move towards the shareholder vote on June 3, I encourage everyone - shareholders, journalists, and readers - to engage with our vision for NZME. Of course, we also hope the existing Board acknowledges the need for change and works with us to facilitate an orderly transition before the AGM.
This is an opportunity to strengthen one of New Zealand’s most important institutions. We’re committed to listening, collaborating, and delivering measurable improvements in both financial performance and editorial quality (and yes, I will be continuing this Substack).
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
Former New Zealand Herald editor-in-chief, Gavin Ellis, described Jim’s first 11-page letter as “excoriating” and a “sobering read,” predicting it would resonate with many ordinary shareholders concerned with the performance and direction of the company. But beyond the financials, there’s a broader conversation to be had about NZME’s role in New Zealand’s media landscape and its responsibility as a cornerstone of the Fourth Estate which has been highlighted as an area of concern by Ellis and other commentators.
NZME, through the New Zealand Herald and its other platforms, provides news, analysis, and commentary essential for our democracy to function and thrive. We are keenly aware of this public function and are committed to improving the quality of the content. Jim has publicly confirmed his agreement with NZME’s current Editorial Conduct and Ethics Policy, as well as his intention to raise editorial standards. Contrary to much of the media commentary, this is not about an individual pushing a political agenda or upending the newsroom - it’s about ensuring that NZME’s journalism is robust, balanced, and trusted by New Zealanders.
To achieve this, we propose establishing an Editorial Board, which I would chair. This board would work on a consensual basis to guide editorial strategy, ensuring decisions uphold NZME’s commitment to balanced and trusted journalism. Already, we’ve had approaches from well-known senior Kiwi journalists eager to contribute to this vision. Our intention is for this board to encompass a range of views and experiences - it won’t be any single individual’s bully pulpit.
I have no doubt that this Editorial Board can operate in a manner which supports and enhances the newsroom. I very much enjoyed working with editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness and editor-at-large Shayne Currie when I was leading ZB Plus, and I have a great deal of respect for them both. I’ve also kept in touch with a number of other senior journalists, and they know I’m a big supporter of the newsroom.
Additionally, we want to restore the editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald to NZME’s executive leadership team. From my time at NZME, it was clear that the downgrading of editorial leadership was not taken well by staff when it was implemented. I understand that at the time several senior journalists lobbied chief executive, Michael Boggs, to restore that role to the ELT but were unsuccessful.
This reinstatement would ensure that editorial perspectives are embedded in the company’s strategic decisions, fostering a culture where journalism is not just a product measured by clicks but a public good.
Beyond these key initiatives, there are a range of issues that need to be addressed, including: recruitment and training of journalists, comment moderation, and reader engagement. News organisations are no longer gatekeepers but curators of content - this is a new paradigm that, in my view, the New Zealand Herald has yet to embrace. In a small market such as New Zealand, it will always be challenging to balance subscription and advertising revenue as the news continues to migrate from print to digital. However, sustainable journalism will continue to hinge on one thing: earning and keeping readers’ trust at the heart of the New Zealand Herald’s mission.
Let’s also address some of the wilder speculation head-on. Jim Grenon is not a political extremist nor will the New Zealand Herald serve the same purpose as the Centrist. I first met Jim in the same way that I have met many people over the last few years. Jim reached out to me in early 2023 as someone who enjoyed my writings on Substack and was interested in discussing some of the topics that I was exploring. For all his success, I’ve found Jim to be a humble and well-grounded individual and I’m very confident that he’s in this for the right reasons.
He’s also a significant shareholder who cares about NZME’s performance and its role in New Zealand society. His critiques of NZME’s financial and operational performance stem from a desire to see the company thrive, not from some hidden political motive. The suggestion otherwise is a distraction from the real issues: financial underperformance, declining trust in media, and the need for a clearer strategy in a rapidly changing industry.
For me, this nomination forms part of a natural career transition. After a career in big law, I’m shifting towards governance roles where I can contribute to organisations that shape New Zealand’s future. NZME is a natural fit. Its role in informing the public and holding power to account resonates with my belief in the importance of strong institutions and the crucial role that the media plays in a democracy.
With trust in media at historic lows, NZME must change to strengthen its role as a trusted voice. My motivation is to deliver balanced, diverse journalism (including a range of political views) that bolsters New Zealand’s democracy.
This nomination process is not just about adding a few new faces - it’s about a necessary and thorough board refresh. Last week, director David Gibson’s resignation for personal reasons highlighted the pressing need for board renewal, with institutional shareholders continuing to urge NZME to address financial challenges through fresh leadership. Two other directors, Barbara Chapman (the current Chair) and Sussan Turner, each appointed in 2018, have served for seven years, while Carol Campbell, appointed in 2016, has served for nine years.
While the current Board has navigated NZME through some challenging times, these tenures approach or exceed the upper limit of most corporate governance best practices, which typically recommend rotation after seven to nine years for independent directors to ensure fresh perspectives and to avoid entrenchment.
Institutional shareholders have clearly signalled a desire for change, with significant support for our slate. It’s surprising, then, to see the majority of the current Board dig in, resisting a refresh that aligns with both shareholder sentiment and governance norms.
In 2020, then-Chair of NZME Peter Cullinane faced a similar situation. He resigned 15 minutes before that year’s AGM, citing a lack of support from Australian fund managers and stating it was “not appropriate” to chair a meeting without shareholder confidence.
“There was a group of Australian fund managers who were looking to signal a protest vote and I was up for re-election and I was the recipient of that protest vote,” he told RNZ at the time.
“There was a significant block of votes out of Australia that were against me and in my view it’s better not to chair a meeting knowing you don’t have the support of significant shareholders.”
Cullinane’s insight - that leadership must reflect shareholder trust - applies just as much to the current Chair and Board as it did to his situation. Clinging to board positions in the face of clear calls for change risks undermining NZME’s credibility and governance, and, objectively, is not in the best interests of the company.
This refresh is an opportunity to bring diverse expertise and renewed energy to NZME’s Board. Our nominees - Jim Grenon, Des Gittings, Simon West, and me - combine financial acumen, governance, business and legal experience, and a commitment to journalistic excellence.
As we move towards the shareholder vote on June 3, I encourage everyone - shareholders, journalists, and readers - to engage with our vision for NZME. Of course, we also hope the existing Board acknowledges the need for change and works with us to facilitate an orderly transition before the AGM.
This is an opportunity to strengthen one of New Zealand’s most important institutions. We’re committed to listening, collaborating, and delivering measurable improvements in both financial performance and editorial quality (and yes, I will be continuing this Substack).
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
8 comments:
'it’s about ensuring that NZME’s journalism is robust, balanced, and trusted', little wonder there is so much pushback from unions and other media groups. Such an idea is like sunlight to a vampire to them.
At last, a glimpse of hope on the media horizon. After all the New Zealand legacy media from what I can see is the major player in the demise of our democracy. It's been the conduit feeding nieve kiwis propaganda on all manor of woke ideologies. All thats needed now is a clean out of TVNZ , RNZ and the bankruptcy of the corrupt Stuff / Spinoff lunatics.
Bring it on! A well run, balanced NZME has the potential to make an enormous contribution to NZ.
I would like to see some balance on climate change. The Media Council is useless. I hope a new board will make a difference on climate change and other issues as well.
The fact the current incumbents are fighting this proposed change tooth and nail ,is all we REALLY need to know . As it stands, they are a left wing propaganda tool , rather than really showing any pretense even at 'balance 'or , heaven forbid ,OBJECTIVITY.
The metaphorical guillotine is the only sane solution imo.
What I want from the media is balanced, factual, non biased, investigated reporting of the news. I do not want a journalists (I use the word loosely) personal, biased opinions presented to me as news. I want all of this from all branches of the media, newspaper, radio and tv. Social media posts are not news. therefore have no appeal to me in any shape or form.
I recently cancelled my subscription to a Stuff local paper as it was all about the opinions making managment happy (assume because of PJIF) I was a written paper diehard, so a big decision for me. If NZME can deliver the goods, I will hopefully subscribe to it, even if it is mainly Auckland news!
Nz herald’s coverage (as was those by its msm counterparts) of the violence and abuse on real women at the posey parker rally was a disgrace and an exercise in pure unbalanced woke reporting and commentary. Small wonder since its reigning chair of the board, now fighting a rearguard action against being voted out, was also patron of the ‘rainbow excellence’ awards for several years. Barbara Chapman’s dedication and commitment to dei reads like the captain of the hmmz manawanui’s cv.
Post a Comment