OPINION
Much has been written on the subject of Newshub joining Today FM in the media graveyard. A suitable epitaph might be something along the lines of…
In memory of an organisation renowned for leftist spin ultimately leading to its death.
Here lie journos who decided their opinion was the story rather than the story itself.
Many of the articles, particularly on this site, have been informative and a good read. I thought I would let the dust settle before adding my two pennies worth.
It was interesting, if a little surprising, to see the pearl-clutching going on at Newshub, and the news media in general, at the ‘shock’ announcement that Newshub was to close. This was a larger and perhaps more important repeat of the ‘shock’ announcement regarding the closure of Today FM. Those affected, while obviously upset, appeared to display a little more decorum than previously shown by Tova O’Brien. Before appearing too harsh, people will lose their jobs and there will be others in the media who will know some of those involved. Some expressions of concern in this regard are understandable and to be expected.
I was involved with the media through radio most of my working life (60s through the 90s) and have been close enough to newsrooms to know how they operated in those decades. Journalists in my time were expected to produce and stick to the facts of a story rather than pontificate on it themselves. For quite some years news companies have decided to take a political stance, either left or right. Most, it would seem, have taken a left political viewpoint.
Being private entities they are perfectly at liberty to do so even at the expense of objective journalism. In America, there is Fox News and Newsmax on the right and CNN and MSNBC on the left, while in the UK Sky News has a left slant with GB News on the right. Those with higher ratings tend to be right-leaning. These companies rely on advertising revenue for their survival; consequently those on the right are more profitable than those on the left. Why is it that right-leaning media outlets have a bigger audience?
There are a number of reasons, but largely it’s because their views are more in tune with the majority of people, a country’s middle class. On the whole, they take a more considered view of events and reporting is presented accordingly. This might seem at odds with recent elections here resulting in six years of Labour but in 2017 they didn’t win the popular vote, Winston put them there, and if it weren’t for Covid they wouldn’t have won in 2020 either. In radio terms, both Mike Hosking’s and Heather du Plessis-Allan’s popularity are testament to the above prophecy, which also illustrates why Today FM had such a short lifespan.
Which brings me back to Newshub. Newshub is privately owned. They rely on revenue for their survival. As with Today FM, I’m not sure many journalists have a good understanding or appreciation of this fact. They appear more to live in a self-opinionated bubble believing the audience is hanging on their every word and their existence is non-negotiable. This is where they get into trouble. There appears to be an almost deliberate disconnect with who their audience is. In other words, it’s a case of I don’t care who you are but you will listen to what ‘I’ have to say.
To make matters worse for themselves they present opinions which are heavily biased to the left. That is a turnoff for middle-class people who in this country, history shows, are basically centre-right. Presenting opinions in such a biased way also distorts the facts of a story. Their audience is mainly in the upper demographic and do not want news presented in this fashion; the answer for them is the ‘Off’ button. If you don’t have a large audience you won’t attract sufficient advertising to pay your way. A company like Discovery, now owned by Warner Bros, is not going to treat Newshub like a bottomless pit. Newshub’s finances, like the news they present, are in the toilet.
For journalists who might still be clutching at pearls these are the cold hard facts of business life and this is the reason for their demise. In my view, they are largely the authors of their own misfortune by presenting news in the way they wanted with no regard to their audience who, along with the Maori language nonsense, have no doubt been switching off in ever-increasing numbers. Their bias for supporting one political side and their obvious disdain for the other in a country this size is journalism of the worst kind. Parading as a big fish in a small pond is a recipe for disaster.
This country is too small for this sort of journalistic behaviour. The minister has been criticised for not doing enough to ensure Newshub’s survival. It might not have occurred to those involved but the current minister has had barely enough time to warm her seat. Any criticism on that score should be aimed at the previous minister, Willie Jackson. His interest didn’t extend beyond expediting a certain language that the majority of viewers are antagonised by having as part of the news broadcasts.
In conclusion, it is hard to believe it was such a shock. The outlet, under a variety of owners, has never been considered a viable concern. The writing has been on the wall for some years if not decades. Maybe those living in a non-business bubble, spouting biased rhetoric, shouldn’t be expected to understand that. By putting their own spin on events perhaps they are denying themselves an appreciation of how the real world works. To your average viewer, that’s how it would no doubt appear.
As a postscript, the channel we are left with is even worse. The Cheerios one might eat at breakfast time serve equally as a reminder to say cheerio to their indigestible morning programme. TV One is similar to the famous leaning Tower of Pisa which is somewhat ironic as few want to view the former but many want to view the latter. The lean is south and I make the comparison because if it weren’t for large dollops of taxpayer money, that’s where TV One would be headed. The Government should not be wasting taxpayers’ money on them, at least without a new direction.