The controversy surrounding the Public Interest Journalism Fund reignites arguments over the merits of government-funded media.
Winston Peters, the newly sworn-in deputy prime minister of New Zealand, has stirred up a storm of controversy with his recent accusation against the news media. Peters, leader of the NZ First party, claimed that the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF), established by the previous Labour government, amounted to “bribery.” These remarks have not only reignited the debate over publicly subsidized news media but have also raised questions about the independence of publicly owned media operators TVNZ and RNZ. This incident reflects a broader and growing mistrust of mainstream media among certain sections of the public.
Perceptions of bribery:
The PIJF was created in response to the decline in advertising spend during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administered by NZ On Air, the fund provided NZ$55 million between 2021 and 2023 to support local news initiatives, including journalist roles, specific projects, and industry development and training. Its aim was to extend news reporting into areas that were not commercially viable, such as local democracy, courts, regional and farming issues, and Māori and Pasifika affairs. Peters’ accusation of “bribery” may stem from his personal unease with the media or his long-standing misgivings about publicly funded media mechanisms like the PIJF.
Misinformation and funding:
While skepticism towards the news is healthy, wholesale cynicism can be detrimental to democracy and social cohesion, especially in an era of rampant disinformation on unregulated platforms. The PIJF faced disinformation and conspiracy theories that were challenging to counter with factual evidence. Opposition politicians seized on perceptions of bias or government influence to attack the fund. One common misinformation theme was that all funding bids had to conform to an ideologically motivated commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. However, this was not a requirement for all applications. NZ On Air commissioned an external report on a Treaty-informed reporting framework, but it was not used to administer actual funding decisions.
Public policy already affected:
NZ On Air, which has been transparently and independently disbursing contestable public funds since 1989, has a track record of funding factual content and current affairs since 2009. If the mechanism was prone to government interference, why has it only become a concern now? Conflating a contestable funding mechanism with direct government control reveals a fundamental misunderstanding or ideological motivation. The PIJF supported over 200 journalist roles, projects, and training programs, making it unlikely that government interference would have gone unnoticed. An alternative funding mechanism could involve imposing a levy on commercial media revenues, particularly digital platforms, which have captured a significant share of the advertising market.
Conclusion:
Winston Peters’ accusation against the Public Interest Journalism Fund has sparked a heated debate about the merits of publicly subsidized news media. While skepticism towards the media is warranted, it is crucial to distinguish between healthy skepticism and wholesale cynicism that can erode democracy and social cohesion. The PIJF faced disinformation and conspiracy theories, but evidence shows that the funding decisions were not influenced by government bias. The real threat to democracy lies in the weaponized dissemination of political disinformation. As the debate continues, it is essential to find alternative funding mechanisms that ensure the independence and sustainability of public-interest journalism.
Leave a Reply