Who is accountable at TVNZ?
Editorial independence protects TVNZ from political interference. But when balance fails, who is actually accountable?
1News recently reported that gang members slightly outnumber police in New Zealand. What it did not report was that violent crime victims had fallen by 49,000 over the same period.
The omission was striking. The crime figures showing the decline were released the same day.
The fallout quickly reached the top of the state broadcaster. TVNZ board chair Andrew Barclay later raised the story with Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith during a weekend phone call.
Veteran political commentator Barry Soper suggested the imbalance was embarrassing enough that a senior figure at TVNZ contacted Police Minister Mark Mitchell to apologise for the way the crime figures were handled.
If a senior executive felt the need to apologise, the implication is straightforward. The imbalance was recognised internally as serious enough to create political and reputational risk.
Yet the public debate (notably lead by journalists who have a vested interest to protect what they consider their turf) has largely focused on whether political pressure influenced the newsroom. But that question leaves another one largely unanswered: if a state broadcaster produces reporting widely seen as incomplete or imbalanced, who is actually responsible for correcting it?
The Television New Zealand Act 2003 is clear that ministers “cannot interfere with the editorial decisions of the company”.
Goldsmith insists the government has taken a “hands-off” approach to TVNZ’s editorial decisions. He said it would be “inappropriate for us to discuss editorial matters” and that he “did not make any comment” when Barclay raised the issue during their phone call.
On paper, that is how the system is supposed to work.
Yet if ministers cannot interfere and the board cannot directly instruct coverage, who ensures the state broadcaster meets its mandate of balance and impartiality? What if the reality is employee activists are being provided a platform and paid (their salary) to push their views?
Editorial independence does not mean the board is powerless. It means accountability sits one step back, through leadership, oversight and appointments. Because something prompted the second story.
TVNZ later said, “the decision to run a second story was made to ensure balanced coverage”. That admission alone suggests the first story was not balanced.
Governments complain about coverage all the time. That is not unusual. The real question is why the balance appeared only after the complaints.
The board’s interest and the limits of oversight
Boards are not newsroom editors. But if a board sees a failure of balance, it has a duty to ask questions.
In practice, the board is not there to dictate individual coverage. The minister can raise concerns but not intervene. Chief executive Jodi O’Donnell says she can “ask the newsroom to review” a story, but “that is where my role stops”.
But that does not mean the board lacks clout. It governs the company, oversees senior management, and ultimately has influence through appointments, performance and, if necessary, termination. If editorial failures become persistent or serious, the board’s role is to make sure the right people are in charge.
So, where is the hard edge of accountability? If the day-to-day editorial instruction is not up to snuff, as judged by the board, then it falls to them.
The real mechanism: pressure, backed by governance
TVNZ has previously commissioned a review that found “no evidence of systemic bias or lack of impartiality”. However, the full report remains secret after the Ombudsman ruled it could be withheld. Other credible groups could also do a review and potentially find the opposite. Such a report is inevitably subjective and, unless the methodology in the report is clearly laid out and holds up to scrutiny, it is not very persuasive.
The system corrected itself. But only after the noise became unavoidable.
A genuinely balanced broadcaster should not need a minister’s complaint to remember to include a 49,000 drop in violent crime victims in a crime story released the same day.
One concern is that ministers might interfere to promote their party. But what about the concern about being a haven for activists, with a board and executives that only act once public pressure becomes too obvious to ignore?
The Centrist is an online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
The omission was striking. The crime figures showing the decline were released the same day.
The fallout quickly reached the top of the state broadcaster. TVNZ board chair Andrew Barclay later raised the story with Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith during a weekend phone call.
Veteran political commentator Barry Soper suggested the imbalance was embarrassing enough that a senior figure at TVNZ contacted Police Minister Mark Mitchell to apologise for the way the crime figures were handled.
If a senior executive felt the need to apologise, the implication is straightforward. The imbalance was recognised internally as serious enough to create political and reputational risk.
Yet the public debate (notably lead by journalists who have a vested interest to protect what they consider their turf) has largely focused on whether political pressure influenced the newsroom. But that question leaves another one largely unanswered: if a state broadcaster produces reporting widely seen as incomplete or imbalanced, who is actually responsible for correcting it?
The Television New Zealand Act 2003 is clear that ministers “cannot interfere with the editorial decisions of the company”.
Goldsmith insists the government has taken a “hands-off” approach to TVNZ’s editorial decisions. He said it would be “inappropriate for us to discuss editorial matters” and that he “did not make any comment” when Barclay raised the issue during their phone call.
On paper, that is how the system is supposed to work.
Yet if ministers cannot interfere and the board cannot directly instruct coverage, who ensures the state broadcaster meets its mandate of balance and impartiality? What if the reality is employee activists are being provided a platform and paid (their salary) to push their views?
Editorial independence does not mean the board is powerless. It means accountability sits one step back, through leadership, oversight and appointments. Because something prompted the second story.
TVNZ later said, “the decision to run a second story was made to ensure balanced coverage”. That admission alone suggests the first story was not balanced.
Governments complain about coverage all the time. That is not unusual. The real question is why the balance appeared only after the complaints.
The board’s interest and the limits of oversight
Boards are not newsroom editors. But if a board sees a failure of balance, it has a duty to ask questions.
In practice, the board is not there to dictate individual coverage. The minister can raise concerns but not intervene. Chief executive Jodi O’Donnell says she can “ask the newsroom to review” a story, but “that is where my role stops”.
But that does not mean the board lacks clout. It governs the company, oversees senior management, and ultimately has influence through appointments, performance and, if necessary, termination. If editorial failures become persistent or serious, the board’s role is to make sure the right people are in charge.
So, where is the hard edge of accountability? If the day-to-day editorial instruction is not up to snuff, as judged by the board, then it falls to them.
The real mechanism: pressure, backed by governance
TVNZ has previously commissioned a review that found “no evidence of systemic bias or lack of impartiality”. However, the full report remains secret after the Ombudsman ruled it could be withheld. Other credible groups could also do a review and potentially find the opposite. Such a report is inevitably subjective and, unless the methodology in the report is clearly laid out and holds up to scrutiny, it is not very persuasive.
The system corrected itself. But only after the noise became unavoidable.
A genuinely balanced broadcaster should not need a minister’s complaint to remember to include a 49,000 drop in violent crime victims in a crime story released the same day.
One concern is that ministers might interfere to promote their party. But what about the concern about being a haven for activists, with a board and executives that only act once public pressure becomes too obvious to ignore?
The Centrist is an online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Who says Ministers cannot interfere in media bias. Jacinda certainly did, and that is probably the one thing she did well. That involved stacking the Boards of RNZ and TVNZ with her political cronies, who in turn appointed people with their political persuasion as editors and reporters. There is also the funding and the "public interest" media bribes, as well as access to material. If Jacinda didn't like a reporter or if they asked difficult questions, she refused to be interviewed by them, while "helpful information" got given to "helpful reporters". This was all assisted by an army of taxpayer funded spin doctors that Jacinda employed.
When Luxon came to power he allowed Jacinda's media edifice and propaganda machine to continue and then wonders why the media are against him.
Minister Goldsmith demonstrates his real role daily: Luxon's lackey.
There are now enough instances of far left bias it's got to be hard to ignore. I look at it this way: the news never gets told the way I want it to be. I find it's content biased, offensive, highly far left focused, that I just cant watch it. Then 7 sharp comes on. I could produce that show myself. It just pretty much a Maori promotional piece. Disclaimer, I haven't watched these shows for a while now, but it sounds like nothing has changed!
My wife watches the evening msm news TVs 1 & 3 to see what is being said, not to suck the bias in but it clearly winds her up (me too if I listen). When 7 Blunt comes on I just reach for the laptop and go into neutral. She also watches Te Karere to see what lies and distortion are going on with that and it is a good thing that she does not use bad language (I cannot claim that attribute!). Goldsmith has been useless in his Comms role and Luxon uses the same tactics as Ardern, i.e. He will not engage with the Platform.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.