Philip Crump: NZME’s New Chapter and the Six Challenges Undermining Media Trust

After months of negotiation, the path forward for NZME is now clear.

After two months of horse trading, the major institutional shareholders of NZME have reached a consensus on the composition of the new Board and the implementation of key initiatives.

Subject to shareholder approval, the agreement will see Steven Joyce join the Board as the proposed Chair, alongside Jim Grenon and existing directors Carol Campbell, Guy Horrocks, and Sussan Turner. Campbell will remain on the Board until a replacement director with audit expertise is identified, and Bowen Pan will join to provide technology expertise.

From Jim’s slate, Des Gittings will be appointed to the OneRoof Advisory Board, and I will take a position on a newly established editorial board.

Speaking to the Herald on Friday, Jim expressed his satisfaction, stating, “I am very happy with the outcome.” Troy Bowker of Caniwi Capital, another NZME shareholder involved in the process, commented, “The proposed new board and resignation of the current chair is a positive change and good initial step in the right direction for NZME.”

This compromise agreement lays a robust foundation for meaningful change at NZME, and particularly for the Herald.

In my April 20 Substack, I advocated for the reinstatement of the Herald’s editor-in-chief to the executive leadership team and the creation of an editorial board. It is encouraging that the first proposal has already been adopted, and the second will be established under the new Board’s direction.

The response to my article from shareholders, journalists, and the public was overwhelmingly positive. However, one comment from a journalist at a competing publication caught my attention:

“The core problem with this NZME proposal (imo) is that terms like ‘balanced’ and ‘trusted’ are increasingly contested, but are being deployed as if they’re self-evident … all newsrooms have this problem, which is why there are moves away from using this kind of language (or at least better defining the terms), whereas these guys are embracing it.”

While media companies are grappling with a rapidly evolving business model, this comment underscored a less obvious but equally critical challenge facing newsrooms: the transformation in how news stories are crafted in the digital era.

Some media companies are moving away from the traditional approach to structuring news stories. Instead of beginning with a ‘hard intro’ where readers are given the most important information first - ‘the who, what, when, where and why of the story’, some newspapers have instead decided to adopt a softer explainer-style approach that leads people into the most important and contentious elements of a story, including subjective takes on it, further down.

This shift is not, however, unique to any single newsroom but reflects a broader trend across media. Undoubtedly, however, the combined effect of a strained business model and the transformation of how news stories are crafted, is occurring at the same time as we are witnessing a decline in the public’s trust in media.

The crisis of trust in media is a complex issue, driven by multiple factors that extend beyond New Zealand. Based on my observations of the media landscape, these are six key issues that I believe are eroding public confidence in journalism.

1. Emphasising Narrative over Factual Reporting

Journalists increasingly favour identifying “the truth” in stories. Indeed, many editorial charters talk about having a responsibility to the truth. This approach may initially seem reasonable and principled, but in practice, journalists often select a preferred narrative which they consider “the truth”, shaping the story to emphasise it while sidelining conflicting facts and evidence. As anyone who has done a philosophy degree will know, objective, absolute truth can be difficult to determine at the best of times, and in many issues will never be capable of final determination. However, this has not stopped some journalists from making their own calls on many contentious issues. Once that happens, facts will be ordered to fit the narrative. This shift from objective reporting of facts to advocacy obscures nuance and can present a singular perspective as authoritative.

2. Abandoning Balance for Editorial Advocacy

When journalists chase “the truth”, the first thing that is sacrificed is ‘balance’. Indeed many journalists now regard ‘balance’ with some scepticism, considering that it can lead to giving undue prominence to information that conflicts with “the truth”. Rather than ‘balance’ this is instead called ‘bothsidism’ which journalists aim to avoid by selectively amplifying viewpoints that support “the truth” while marginalising others. This rejection of ‘balance’ stifles debate and signals a preference for advocacy over fairness. Informed readers can, of course, recognise this tactic and they lose confidence in a newspaper as an impartial source of information as a result.

3. Shaping Discourse through Editorial Gatekeeping

Editorial decisions to cover or ignore stories often reflect the biases or agendas of individual journalists which has the effect of steering public discourse to favour specific narratives. By amplifying certain issues while ignoring or minimising others, regardless of their significance, newspapers erode their role as neutral arbiters. Indeed, it can be the absence of coverage of an issue which infuriates readers just as much as the stories that are written.

4. Prioritising Sensationalism to Chase Engagement

As newsrooms become more reliant upon digital algorithms, journalists are increasingly under pressure to produce sensationalist, low-quality content to maximise clicks. Exaggerated headlines and shallow reporting sacrifices depth and analysis for a very short spike in engagement. This approach alienates readers who value substance and fuels scepticism about newspapers’ commitment to quality journalism. There is, of course, a place for light, popular stories which we all consume but there is still a need for in-depth news which may not get as many clicks but which are required to increase the number of premium-paying readers.

5. Manipulating Perceptions with Loaded Language

Journalists frequently use loaded descriptors to subtly enhance or diminish the reputation of individuals, groups or ideas. This strategic use of labels embeds value judgments and steers the reader’s perception without any transparent analysis. The Media Council principles give journalists a wide discretion under the principle of freedom of expression to apply descriptors as long as they are not misleading or defamatory. Of course, descriptors are legitimately used to add colour to an article and can provide meaningful context - a politician can, for instance, sometimes be usefully described as ‘embattled’. But often these labels are abused and reveal the biases of the journalists deploying them rather than enlightening the reader. Over time, these cheap shots erode the value of the masthead.

6. Reinforcing Narratives with Selective Experts and Anonymous Sources

Journalists often cite selectively chosen ‘experts’ with questionable credentials or undisclosed affiliations to bolster one side of a contested issue, while sidelining dissenting expertise. Similarly, the overuse of anonymous sources, particularly without transparency about their credibility, obscures accountability. These practices are employed to prop up narratives but they erode trust as readers detect manipulation masquerading as authoritative reporting.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but each of these issues contributes to the growing perception that media is failing to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and accountability that readers expect. If New Zealand’s media is to increase the trust of its audience, it must confront these issues head-on, balancing the demands of the digital era with a renewed commitment to the principles of rigorous, transparent journalism.

The changes at NZME represent a promising step toward addressing these challenges, but they are only the beginning. The establishment of an editorial board and the reinstatement of the editor-in-chief to the executive leadership team signal a commitment to strengthening editorial integrity. However, only by acknowledging the factors eroding trust and quality can newsrooms hope to maintain their role as a cornerstone of an informed society. Addressing these issues requires not just critique but actionable reform, which I will outline in my Six Golden Rules on Wednesday.

Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE