Local journalism faces genuine crisis. Towns across New Zealand risk becoming “news deserts” where civic life unfolds without professional scrutiny. Dr Gavin Ellis’s comprehensive report for Koi Tū documents this decline with sobering thoroughness.
Ellis deserves credit for mapping an urgent problem. His 48-page analysis reveals how newspaper closures correlate with reduced civic engagement, higher corruption rates, and weakened democratic participation. The data is extensive, the international scope impressive. …
His analysis faces several challenges: dismissive treatment of legitimate concerns raised by New Zealand’s experience with the $55 million , questionable assumptions about market failure, and weak international evidence for subsidy effectiveness.
Ellis describes criticism of the PIJF as a “disinformation campaign.” This mischaracterises legitimate concerns about the fund’s design and consequences. The problem wasn’t imaginary bribery but the structural risk created when government funding comes with political conditions.
The fund required recipients to commit to specific political interpretations and policy positions as eligibility criteria. Whatever the merit of those positions, requiring journalists to affirm particular viewpoints to access taxpayer money creates obvious independence concerns. The problem isn’t the content of the conditions but the principle of conditioning media funding on political alignment.
I generally rate what Eliis says, but his characterising PIJF as a disinformation campaign is outrageous. The definition of disinformation is people saying something that is objectively false, and knowing it is false.
The criticism of PIJF is that it required all media applicants to sign up to a left-wing view of what the Treaty of Waitangi means. This is not disinformation. It is legitimate criticism.
The fact Ellis himself is unable to distinguish between legitimate criticism and disinformation, shows why the media is in such trouble.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
5 comments:
This column would be understandable if it had explained what PJIF means.
Gavin Ellis as part of a solution? Give me a break.
The part often missed is that the PIJF came with penalty clauses. Break the agreement in the future and all funds must be returned plus penalties rates. So don't expect our craven media to change tack soon.
If only there was a strong leader around that could just cancel the whole thing. More chance Chloe would express sympathy for a Jewish rape victim.
Accepting PIJF funding was agreeing to lie to the public - a Goebbels type strategy by the Ardern Government - this is what thye Herald, Stuff, TVNZ, RNZ etc agreed to :
PIJF - from the funding criteria document :
3. Goals of the Public Interest Journalism Fund
The following detail has been informed by engagement with the sector for the purposes of this fund. The Public Interest Journalism Fund must achieve all of these things:
1. Seek to inform and engage the public about issues that affect a person’s right to flourish within our society and impact on society’s ability to fully support its citizens.
2. Provide accurate, accountable, and fair coverage that reflects and empowers all sectors of the community upholding the public’s right to know.
3. Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner.
4. Reflect the cultural diversity of New Zealand.
5. Encourage a robust and sustainable media sector.
it means left wing bribe
Post a Comment