E tū journalists at NZME have responded to Jim Grenon’s recent letter, again calling on him to give a clear, public commitment to editorial independence.

The follow-up message from union members reaffirms their deep concern about Grenon’s proposals for board involvement in editorial matters, and about the lack of media experience among his board nominees.

Isaac Davison, NZME journalist and E tū delegate, says members are alarmed that Grenon is still unwilling to give a simple assurance.

“Despite saying he supports NZME’s editorial policy, many of Grenon’s proposals would clearly breach those standards by requiring direct interference by the board in editorial direction and decision-making,” Isaac says.

“Grenon has suggested that the union is simply opposed to his political agenda. This has nothing to do with politics. It is about preserving a long tradition of editorial independence, which his plans would upend.”

Isaac says members also object to Grenon’s proposed chair of a new editorial board.

“Having worked in the same newsroom as Philip Crump, we do not believe he has the experience, ability, or mana to take on what would be an influential role.

“Crump’s only experience is in blogging and a stint in charge of the short-lived ZB Plus venture. This does not qualify him for a mid-level media role, let alone overseeing the editorial direction of the country’s largest newspaper.”

While E tū members disagree with many of Grenon’s proposals, the response letter also notes some shared concerns about NZME’s direction – particularly the company’s stated focus on “positive stories” to support economic recovery, which appears to conflict with its own editorial policy.

Journalists propose an editorial committee modelled on similar bodies in public media – to uphold standards, respond to complaints, and protect newsroom independence – without giving control to the board.

E tū National Secretary Rachel Mackintosh says editorial independence is not a vague principle, but a well-established foundation of journalism in Aotearoa.

“Our members are simply asking for a basic assurance: that the board will stay out of editorial decisions,” Rachel says.

“If Mr Grenon truly supports NZME’s editorial values, this should be an easy commitment to make. The public needs to know that our newsrooms remain free from interference – now and in the future.”

Note: 

E tū members’ response to Jim Grenon:

Kia ora Jim

We hope this message finds you well.

On 13 March we sent you and the current board of NZME an open letter, on behalf of all our members in journalism and particularly those employed by NZME, seeking an assurance that you would preserve editorial independence at NZME’s broadcast, digital and masthead outlets should you gain any position of greater influence over the NZME board.

We were concerned by your statement that you envisage an NZME board that is active in operational matters at the company, including matters of editorial direction and the quality of journalism. We appended our union’s E tū Journalists’ Code of Ethics, and the Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists to our letter, both of which bind our members and their union itself.

We can add now that our concern has only been heightened by the further information that has emerged about your nominees to the NZME board, due to their lack of appropriate experience and expertise in either journalism or the business of journalism.

In your open response to our letter, dated 22 March, you invited us to be more specific about what ‘editorial independence’ means in this context, as a first step to further dialogue with you. You also asked a number of other of questions about this issue and made some additional comments about your broader vision for NZME and its journalism.

As we said at that time, we are surprised that you are not willing to provide a simple assurance that editorial independence will be maintained, whatever changes you may effect at NZME.

You have stated in your letter that you agree entirely with NZME’s editorial policy. That policy talks about an editorial team which ‘guards its independence zealously’. It also states that ‘We will be independent and impartial and not bow to imroper internal or external influences.’

We can state plainly that, from our point of view, board members being active in editorial decision making counts as ‘improper internal influence’. It also dramatically increases the risk of improper external influence, since the interests of board members are not limited to their role at NZME. Simply, we seek an assurance that board members being active in editorial decision making will never happen.

Arguably, this is enough to say about editorial independence. However, you have asked for our more detailed views on this issue and we are happy to accept this invitation.

That is because we agree with you that more must be done to retain and improve public trust in the media. Improving trust, in turn, requires making the editorial values of organisations like NZME more visible and accessible to the public and providing more assurances to the public that those values are being upheld and put into practice every day. Taking your questions in order, then, we respond as follows:

Question 1. Editorial Independence: There are a number of useful definitions of independence available through the policies of various media organisations. It is also true that this principle of independence is inseparable from other editorial values such as accuracy, fairness, balance and diversity, critical thinking, integrity and respect, as well as journalist’s own codes of ethics. We fully support NZME’s policy on independence, the first part of which is quoted below:

We will be independent and impartial and not bow to improper internal or external influences.

Our editorial team guards it independence zealously – it is a critical component in ensuring high quality, trusted journalism and the foundation for our editorial and business success. Our editors make independent editorial decisions which are based on one absolute – the truth and our duty to our audience and communities. We are not swayed by parties.

To reinforce this we would add, (from the Radio New Zealand Policy):

Staff [must] not be influenced by pressures from political, commercial or other sectional interests or by their own personal views or activities. There must be no external influence in the presentation or content of our work or any improper influence brought to bear internally.

Questions 2. & 3.

The editorial direction of the Herald aired recently – which, briefly, was to ‘focus on taking a leadership position to help New Zealand thrive ... [through supporting] the reboot and acceleration of New Zealand’s economic recovery, sharing stories of success and building positive momentum ’ - certainly raised some concerns for our members. While the language is very broad and we have not yet experienced any impact on editorial decision making, this statement does not appear to conform to the NZME standards we have just quoted above or NZME’s policy more generally.

We believe that a carefully constituted editorial committee, accountable to the board, comprising, for example, one board member (not the chair), one senior editorial staff member (not the head of content), one elected staff member and specialist expertise (internal or external) co-opted as necessary could provide useful oversight, with the following functions:

• Oversee the development of, and compliance with, the editorial policy.
• Ensure NZME’s complaints processes are robust, transparent, and effective and that key themes arising from complaints are addressed.
• Review Media Council and Broadcasting Standard Authority rulings and oversee NZME’s compliance with the respective codes.
• Monitor the management of editorial risk.
• Monitor the delivery and effectiveness of editorial training

(These terms of reference for an editorial board are taken in part from RNZ’s policy)

Questions 4 & 5 – These questions concern journalistic autonomy and the setting of editorial directions. Further to what we have said on editorial independence we would add that editors must have extensive experience and proven ability as journalists as well as a proven adherence to journalistic ethics and editorial values. This is the current, very strong tradition in newsrooms. It fosters respect from journalists for the direction they receive and for the complex and subtle editorial decisions that must be made every day, as well as in the longer term.

This tradition is another reason why any board member activism at the level of editorial decision making is to be avoided at all costs. An example in this case is your nominee for the board Phillip Crump, whom members have worked alongside at NZME in the past. Without reflecting in any way on Phillip personally, he is nowhere near having the training, experience or proven expertise to be involved in higher level editorial decisions.

6. Thank you for raising the question of the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) – that is, public funding, on a contestable basis, for all media outlets that comply with the values we have discussed above. E tū believes that this funding is vital to maintain the kind of healthy media ecosystem a functioning democratic society needs. We believe the PIJF achieved its objectives around informing the public, and it did so because the organisations which received its funding substantially complied with the editorial values we are discussing here.

However, we accept that the public perception developed that the PIJF was not fully independent from Government.

We continue to advocate for this kind of support for the media in New Zealand but are considering proposals that will provide stronger assurances of the fund’s independence. A contestable fund could, for example, be made the responsibility of an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner – the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is an existing example of this type of role. This structure would also ensure that the standards the fund sets in terms of editorial values, and the enforcement of those values, is made more visible to, and accessible by, the public.

© Scoop Media