EPMU Journalism Review

In August 2007 the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union held a conference at Parliament titled Journalism Matters.

The objective of the two-day conference was to discuss concerns our journalist members have about the state of journalism in New Zealand.

In the face of growing commercial pressures, newsroom cuts and the emergence of new media there is a sense that quality journalism is under threat. Our concerns are not unique. They are shared by our colleagues across the Tasman, in the United States and in Europe.

Indeed in Europe on November 5th journalists' unions held a national day of action to bring attention to their concerns about the falling standards of journalism.

Our conference was attended by journalists, newspaper executives, journalism educators and others interested in the state of journalism in New Zealand. There was not a universal agreement on the topic.

Newspaper executives - naturally enough - felt there was little wrong. But others - particularly working journalists - talked of a sense of crisis.

As a result of that conference the union has decided to embark on a review of the state of journalism. We want to go to the core of what journalism should be and ask whether the news media are delivering it.

1) To seek comment from journalists, members of the public and interested parties about the state of New Zealand’s news media and to gather suggestions they have for improvement. Submissions on issues such as the impact of new media and technologies, media ownership and commercial pressures, whether local communities are well served by their news outlets, the role of international news in the lives of New Zealanders, as well as other areas of interest are welcome.

2) To review the relevance and content of the Journalists' Code of Ethics and to determine what additional ethical considerations should be included to cover new media.

3) To examine the pay rates of New Zealand journalists and to compare their remuneration with other occupations.

4) To analyse the media's diversity both in terms of participation within newsrooms and in terms of representation by the New Zealand news media.

5) To examine the role and status of public service broadcasting in New Zealand (including TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, Maori Television Service)

Introduction

Are commercial pressures, job cuts and the emergence of new media undermining what most of us would understand as quality journalism?

There are also increasing numbers of freelance journalists working in New Zealand and there is concern that they are being paid well below comparable international rates.

For this review we are calling for public submissions. Submissions close at the end of April, 2008, and can be made by email to communication@epmu.org.nz or in hard copy to:

EPMU Journalism Review
Freepost 109107
PO Box 14-277
Kilbirnie
Wellington 6241

In the following pages we summarise what we think are the main concerns. But we ask more questions than we give answers.

What is journalism, or what should journalism be?

In recent work in the United States - where senior journalists and journalism educators undertook a similar review - the pursuit of truth was deemed the journalist's single most important goal.
And the American study concluded journalists worked for just one employer – the public. The review emphasised the importance of good journalism that supports and promotes the public interest above the commercial interests of news media companies.

How does that sit in the New Zealand context? Should journalism here be about pursuing the truth and about serving the public?

The purpose of this review is to give journalists, interested parties and the wider public the opportunity to have their say. Once we have collated all the responses - later next year - we will produce a study which summarises New Zealand journalism in the twenty first century and what it needs to do to meet those lofty goals.

This review covers areas as wide as journalists' pay rates, the impact of new media and technologies, media ownership and commercial pressures, diversity in a multi-cultural country and the continuing relevance of a journalists’ code of ethics.

We start from the assumption we all agree a well-functioning media is critical to a functioning democracy; that the role of the journalist is to support the role of the citizen. The media should be providing the information citizens need to fully engage in a free society. And the media should be a watch dog on those who hold commercial and political power to ensure they don’t abuse that privilege.

And that does not just mean keeping a watch on those holding political power. Those in business, running unions, sports organisations – anyone who has some element of control and influence – should come under scrutiny.

But should we start by putting an emphatic full-stop between the words Citizen. and Journalist? All journalists are citizens, but the question today is: "Are all citizens journalists?" Clearly the answer is "Not yet."

This raises the issue of filtered versus non-filtered news. Does the news media today continue to play the role of impartial gate-keeper; or can citizens rely on other outlets and networks to inform their political and social decision-making?

It also suggests the combination "citizen-hyphen-journalist" and the attendant quality issues. Is it the case that citizen-journalism and blogging have clouded the issue of quality journalism and devalued the professional and the expert, as Andrew Keen suggests in his recent book, The Cult of the Amateur?

We can debate the issues about so-called "DIY", do-it-yourself journalism, but is it really journalism?

Does it matter that amateur journalists are now inserting themselves into the news-gathering and news-breaking arena? One view is that this has enriched the news media and brought new sources to the attention of mainstream journalists. Another view is that this phenomenon is detracting from the values of impartiality and public interest, creating confusion among audiences and threatening the jobs of professional reporters and editors.

Where do freelance journalists fit within this context? Traditionally there are two paths into freelancing – from fulltime journalism and through having a passion for something and ‘falling into’ journalism. Whatever path is taken, the end result, according to freelance activists, is that pay rates are very low. This has an obvious impact on wages and conditions in the newsroom. What should be done about this?

Then there's the link between "celebrity" and journalism. There's journalism about celebrities (perhaps a dumbing down of the news agenda) and there's "celebrity-hyphen-journalist". This is the situation where the personality of the journalist (mainly in TV, but also in blogging and columns) takes over. Are audiences well served by the rise of the celebrity anchor or personality? Does the attention they garner to themselves enhance, or detract from the role of the professional?

There has been considerable discussion about digital convergence and the issues of cross-platform journalism.  If reporters are required to work across platforms do they risk becoming generalists in video/audio/photography and writing, but not really masters of any discipline?

We shouldn't get too hung up about platforms. Convergence is not going to go away and in the scheme of things the "digital revolution" may yet have some way to go. If it's anything like the industrial revolution, it could go on for another couple of generations, at least.

In that context, the important thing to remember about journalism is that the key intellectual skills of a journalist - the ability to "record", "disclose", "remember" and "entertain" will not go away either. Journalists are the public intellectuals of the everyday. Their job is to do more than merely report, there is a role for interpretation, analysis and critical thinking. Do new media technologies help or hinder this important intellectual pursuit?

But equally it is their pursuit of truthfulness - and the professional processes they use - that sets them apart from propagandists, public relations practitioners, bloggers or ordinary citizens.

New media platforms are also encroaching on the traditional work practices of newsrooms, whether in the print or broadcast media. This often means “doing more with less”. As news budgets continue to be cut in pursuit of the bottom line, fewer journalists are doing more work. There are strong indications that the quality of journalism suffers under these conditions.

Is the changing face of New Zealand represented in the media? The short answer is "No". Most journalists are from fairly privileged white, middle class backgrounds, but New Zealand's population is changing. Maori and Pasifika populations are growing and so is the "Asian" community. The "Asian" community is made up of many different national and ethnic groups and they each deserve recognition. Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Laotian, Burmese, Japanese, Indian (Sikhs, Hindus, Tamils, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Muslims and Christians).

Journalism schools are also struggling with this population shift. According to JTO (Journalists Training Organisation) figures there is still a large gap between the general demographic profile of New Zealand and the graduates from the journalism schools. There are journalism courses in some polytechs that do attract a number of Maori and Pasifika students and some journalism schools are increasingly innovative about diversity. But more needs to be done, by both the educators and the employers.

Newsrooms should better reflect the communities they report on. The question remains how can they do that?

Further, do existing news values also reflect different cultural values in New Zealand? Maori generally have a perception that they are portrayed in a negative way in the news media. Is this true? If so, why? What of other ethnic groups? Are they fairly reported?

There's also an age issue in terms of the NZ demographic picture. People under 25 generally don't read newspapers, while those over 50 do. This is certainly having an impact on both the commercial and the content side of the news in print and broadcasting.

Everyone seems concerned about the impact of globalisation on the New Zealand news industry. New Zealand has one of the most concentrated and foreign-dominated media industries in the world. Recent and important work by media scholar Bill Rosenberg spells it out quite clearly. There are some good tables and figures in Bill's work. The Wellington conference discussed the suggestion that globalisation leads to a homogenisation of the news agenda and an element of "dumbing down" the news to lowest common denominators.

A key issue then, is this: Can good journalism coexist with corporate ownership? As Judy McGregor pointed out in her address, this is an important fault line in the media. It cannot necessarily be solved by changes and reforms, such as cross-media ownership laws.

Are New Zealand’s current media ownership laws an impediment to good journalism? Should we be worried about who owns our major news outlets?

The commercial news pressures on media companies also appear to be having a negative impact on news values. Editorial managers are now more concerned about what sells –whether it’s newspapers, or advertising on radio, television or other media. Inevitably that seems to lead to an emphasis on celebrity news, crime and trivia.

Here’s an anecdote from one newspaper. During daily meetings to determine the news agenda for the day the first question asked about each story idea is: “Will it sell a newspaper?”

How much does an approach like that distort news? Is it appropriate for journalists to be worried about whether their work will sell?

And if that’s the case what influence is advertising now having on news judgments?

Again another anecdote. A provincial newspaper did a story on three large electronic retailers using easy credit to promote sales. The story came on the back of concerns from budget advisory services that people were getting deep in debt buying new televisions, stereos and the like.

Before the story went to print one of the retailers approached the advertising manager of the newspaper company complaining about the article. It demanded its name be withdrawn from the story or it would remove its advertising.

The advertising manager spoke to the paper's editor, who then had the story doctored to remove the name of the retailer. Is this just an isolated instance or is it now happening more often?

In the context of newspaper companies and other media companies simply seeing themselves as commercial entities is there still a place for public interest journalism? We believe there is.  Or do stories about Paris Hilton really deserve to dominate the news agenda?

What news is in the public interest? Surely it is more than celebrity gossip; stories about the rugby, cricket or soccer and what’s happening in the nation's capital.

TVNZ is a mixture of public and commercial broadcaster, with much more emphasis on its commercial operation. If we want a public service television company, is the current form of TVNZ appropriate?
It appears to face the same commercial pressures which have driven down news values in other media organisations. Its reliance on advertising has led almost to a race to the bottom. Serious current affairs and documentaries are almost a lost form.

Should TVNZ be funded more substantially by the Government and its reliance on advertising cut?

Or is there an option that it could be the model to prove a commercially-orientated station can still produce credible, quality programming and not just survive but prosper?

What about the state of Maori Television, particularly given the earlier comments about the reporting of Maori and other ethnic minorities in New Zealand? Is it funded properly to do its job? What about concerns it might attract a disproportionate number of Maori journalists, leaving too few working in the mainstream media?

Radio New Zealand is a fully public service broadcaster. It has no advertisements and works to meet its charter obligations. But it has continued to face funding difficulties, following big budget cutbacks during the 1990s. What support should Radio New Zealand get? How should funding be determined?

Many newspapers and radio stations have focused on telling readers and listeners about what-s happening at the end of their street. But do the public need more than that if they are to be fully functioning citizens in a democracy?

Shouldn’t they know about what’s happening nationally, including politically? And what about international news? Are New Zealanders kept well enough informed about what’s happening outside their borders?

By not being kept well informed about international events do New Zealanders face the danger of  becoming more insular? As globalisation in the economy brings New Zealand closer to the rest of the world in many ways, what happens to distinctly New Zealand viewpoints? The international pages of most daily newspapers in New Zealand tend to rely on agency copy or stories acquired through deals with large UK and American newspapers. In television and radio there is an increasing trend towards using stringers and closing overseas bureaus. Is New Zealand’s interest, and that of its people, best served by this move?    

In this context the EPMU - which is the union which represents journalists - is reviewing its journalists' code of ethics. Here is the code:

Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are over-riding principles for all journalists. In pursuance of these principles, journalists commit themselves to ethical and professional standards. All members of the Union engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information shall observe the following Code of Ethics in their professional activities:

(a) They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.
(b) They shall not place unnecessary emphasis on gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability.
(c) In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their occupation.
(d) They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in their professional duties.
(e) They shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall disclose any such offer.
(f) They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence them in their professional duties.
(g) They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures, films, tapes and documents.
(h) They shall identify themselves and their employers before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.
(i) They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them.
(j) They shall do their utmost to correct any published or broadcast information found to be harmfully inaccurate.

How relevant is the code in today's environment? What references need to be made to new media? Another key aspect of New Zealand society, the Treaty of Waitangi is also not reflected in the code. If such a reference were to be included, would it help Maori and assist reporters to cover Maoridom in a more even-handed way?

How do pay rates compare with other comparable jobs? Are relatively low rates of pay - particularly when compared with the rates paid to public relations practitioners – a reflection of a lack of recognition of the importance of journalism?

How is this reflected in the failure of news media outlets to retain experienced staff?