[imc-auckland-video] PJR Review Response

[Geraldene Peters]

For the record, below is the letter sent last night to Janet (copied to
Wayne Hope and David Robie).

Best, G


____________________________________________________________________

Dear Janet,

Thankyou for taking time out to review our documentary "Whose News".  As a
twenty-five minute, collectively produced survey of issues pertaining to
News Media ownership in New Zealand, made and distributed at a cost of $800,
it's a very modest piece - so it was a surprise to see that we were thought
worthy of a review in PJR.

Had I known, when you purchased an individual copy, that you were intending
it for review, I would have also offered you a copy of the  Secondary
Schools Study Guide, which lays out some context for the production and
purpose of "Whose News".  As a complementary resource to the documentary, it
was also designed to extend and prompt further exploration of many of the
points engaged with in the documentary overview.  Although the documentary
has screened a few times on each of the six regional television stations
that broadcast it (screenings that did generate purchase orders for WN), the
primary use for the documentary has been as an educational resource. To
date, WN has been bought by over eighty secondary schools and tertiary
institutions, is actively used as an NCEA curriculum resource (with
supportive feedback from media studies teachers), and at least three
universities have used the documentary in media studies lectures.

WN is then, not principally an investigative programme. We made this choice
fairly early on. Clearly, within the limits of a twenty five minute piece,
if we'd decided to 'get investigative' we'd have only been able to cover one
or two issues satisfactorily. As the number of programme sections (ten)
attest,  we decided to go for a broad overview approach.  We were more
interested in opening up a matrix of issues for consideration, rather than
attempting a 'probing' journalistic investigation.  Typically, documentaries
that take the former approach (eg. The Corporation), raise more questions
than they can hope to provide answers for.

It seems fair to say then, that the title of your review "Important media
issues raised, but a patchy probe", misrepresents the principal purpose of
the documentary.  This is exacerbated by any lack of qualification in the
body of the review.  Undoubtedly this could be partially attributed to the
limitations of a 1000 word review space, and the choice of a textual rather
than contextual review methodology.  Although we can appreciate the
limitations of space, the review methodology chosen has led to some
misreadings and/or misrepresentations that seem important for us as
documentary makers to engage with.

1.  
>JB:  Leading with the statement that NZ has the Œmost deregulated,
>commercialised media market in the world¹, it examines private ownership and
>the drive for profits with the implication they both have a profound effect on
>news content.

...
>But although the question of influence by these foreign
>owners is raised, the film gives only one example.

The statement mentioned is a key statement, but not the leading statement.
More fitting for a broad approach - we begin with street vox pops of
peoples' perception of the news.  The beginning: "It seems like there's a
wide range of different newspapers, radio and TV stations to choose from.
This appearance of diversity hides the fact that most of these different
media outlets are owned by a small number of media companies...".  The
second two sections of "Whose News" certainly do engage with structures of
news media ownership, followed by a third section case study of
proprietorial influences at work - the Mulroney/Klein example. Our overview
approach militated against including more than one case study, and to have
had more than one example would have also drawn attention away from the
second part of our argument - that in this country issues of
commercialisation have a much stronger influence on the shape of news than
the pressures of proprietorial interests.  A point that is explicitly stated
through Voiceover and choice of Interviewee comment.

Ten minutes into the documentary, section five segues into Commercialisation
and begins:

V/O: "Ownership influence is important, but it¹s the need to make a profit
that has a more decisive role."

Joe A:  "O¹Reilly interferes in his Irish media, Murdoch interferes in his
British and American media, and perhaps even in his Australian media, but as
far as I know, they¹re not much interested in what¹s going on in terms of
New Zealand media ­ except that they make a profit. So it¹s the commercial
pressures that change the nature of news and current affairs broadcasting."

2.
>JB:  Rosenberg suggests that Rupert Murdoch papers supported the war in
> Iraq but gives no evidence. The Guardian ran a story claiming that
> the Murdoch press editors world-wide followed their boss¹s pro-war line
> (Greenslade, 2003). Wellington¹s Dominion Post was included. The
> Dominion Post carried editorials and stories by Robert Fisk opposing the
> war and the NZ Government had popular support for refusing to join President
> Bush¹s rush to war, so this claim that their editorial line supported the
> US invasion of Iraq would be worth investigating.

This point takes us back to Bill's comments in section Four. The transcript
reads:

Bill R:  "Foreign ownership brings a number of issues."
  
"- and it  particularly applies to broadcast media - the issue of local
content - that  when you have transnational ownership it¹s much more likely
that they¹ll use  their international networks to provide content rather
than use much more  expensive local content."

"I think if you look at the track record of most of those  overseas owners
comes political views that match that strong element of  commercialism. All
of them, the existing ones (Fairfax is slightly different)  have clearly
stated their strong support for the neo-liberal policies that NZ  pursued
during the 1980s and 90s. They are strong advocates of the  international
trade agreements. Rupert Murdoch strongly supported the war in Iraq."

"and with most of them also goes the willingness to use  their media outlets
when they want to, to pursue those political views."

Here, consistent with his shifts between the global and the local, Bill R is
talking about proprietorial influences in general. His following
Klein/Mulroney reference makes it specific - i.e. It happens here too - but
this is in turn followed by our rhetorical emphasis on the larger influence
of commercialisation within the NZ context (again, any instances of
proprietorial interests at work are important to recognise when they occur,
but are second to commercial imperatives.)  Bill's Murdoch reference is
general enough to embrace Murdoch's print and television interests overseas,
and in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Dominion-Post editorial quote from Greenslade's article supports Bill's
point. Moreover - although the Herald is owned by O'Reilly, rather than
Murdoch's INL (Fairfax of course didn't take over until  1st July 2003) -
the documentary does make the point that editorial proclivities can be
difficult to pin down:  in the context of the Malcolm Evans section, David
Wakim makes a similar point to yours about the Herald including Fiske
commentary on the war.

3.
> To follow the logic of Rosenberg¹s argument that foreign
> owners subvert content, the documentary makers should look at the only
> remaining locally owned metropolitan daily in NZ, the Otago Daily Times,
> and compare its content with the other metropolitan dailies to see if the
>stories are substantially different in emphasis and quality. As the press has
> always been a commercial enterprise, it is likely that NZ capitalist owners
> operate their papers as businesses like their overseas counterparts.

In relation to the first part of your point - press is only one medium we
engage with, and Bill R. is one of three principal interviewees.  If we had
chosen to go the investigative route then this would have probably have been
useful to do, but this was not part of our approach, and we decided to
broaden our focus from Bill's work to include Joe and Alistair's
perspectives.  We agree with the substance of your point re. Capitalist
press, but it doesn't seem strong enough to problematise the approach of
"Whose News".  

4.
The Malcolm Evans Case.

It seems worthwhile noting that the study guide resources opened up the
debate, in a similar manner to which you do.  Again, we knew to try and
address the limitations of documentary presentation in some way.  In
relation to the general points you make about the case, p.11 of the
following academic article provides a productive counterpoint to the issues
you raise in counterpoint to the documentary.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Manning.pdf

5.
> For the claim that commercial pressures undermine the quality of
> news, the documentary presents convincing evidence from Joe Atkinson,
> of Auckland University, on the deterioration of state television news since
> the push for deregulation in the 1980s when TVNZ was made a state-owned
> enterprise. The commentary says it is Œtoo soon¹ to test whether the new
> TVNZ charter with its public service goals, has made any impact on news
> and news programmes. This reluctance to inquire leaves another important
> comparison unexplored.

Again, our project was not essentially an investigative one. We effectively
finished filming the documentary and had the paper edit ready to go by
October/November of 2003.  Bill Ralston was appointed head of News and
Current Affairs around June 2003. Appreciable changes weren't apparent
within the space of four months. The Mediawatch assessment you seem to be
referring to was made in June of 2004.  This is hardly a fair comparison
(not that we'd rate ourselves as coming close to the general insightfulness
of Mediawatch's commentary.)

6.
> However, Whose News? concludes by suggesting public broadcasting as
> a solution, not part of the problem of the inferior news standards.

To be precise our Voiceover says:
"The effects of the Charter are too early to judge. But if voluntary
self-regulation like the Charter has little impact more government
intervention may well be needed."
The most that can be said is that the documentary suggests it could be PART
of the solution (which incidentally, is not an Indymedia solution).
Certainly, Bill and Alistair see it as part of the solution - but their's
are versions of public broadcasting that operate with a different conception
of "Public Service" than currently has sway in NZ broadcasting.

In the spirit of dialogue, we'd welcome any response you might have to the
points raised above.  We haven't yet decided whether or not to submit our
reply to your review to PJR for publication consideration in the next issue.

All the best,
Geraldene Peters
(on behalf of the "Whose News" collective)