But we can hardly blame journalists for this sad statistic.
There are only around 1600 full-time journalists in New Zealand.
According to the World of Journalism study released recently, these journalists are paid on average around $75,000. Fifty-eight percent are female and close to 10% describe themselves as Maori, and 68% as NZ European. Seven percent describe themselves as European, and another 9.5% as other including American Australian and African.
These journalists are expected to find and share the information we need as a democracy.
According to Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, the role of the media in a democracy is described as "to provide the public with in-depth, factual information to inform their political decision-making, act against abuse of power and offer a forum for the exchange of opinions, experiences and perspectives".
Journalists also interpret their role as to provide fair and balanced information and views.
Some have interpreted the requirement of balance to mean equal airtime for differing views, however dangerous and nutty the views may be. Finessing providing balance is a difficult task made more difficult with the explosion of social media.
It is little wonder many leave for greener, easier pastures.
Pastures which allow journalists to use the skills they have developed often lead to journalists becoming public relations and communications people.
Collectively, these salespeople outnumber journalists by somewhere around eight to one.
The numbers in Crown agencies and government departments are over 800, an increase of 45% since 2017.
There are over 300 in local government. The Dunedin City Council increased its PR staff between 20014 and 2018-19 by 133%. The University of Otago now has 24 and spends twice as much on its communications department than it did in 2018.
Their roles cover diverse areas, including explaining government policy, sometimes being involved in consultation procedures and defending whatever the organisation they work for is doing. In general, they sell ideas and policies of government and others wanting the story we hear to be controlled and mediated.
They have no need to be fair or balanced, or answer the hard questions. In fact, their role seems to include attempting to avoid answering questions in some instances.
For example, PR for Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency does not have to justify or talk about its Road to Zero policy, or explain what it costs and what effect it has actually had on the road toll. That is a journalist’s job to get to the bottom of.
The Otago Regional Council is consulting about water; the location of the person providing the feedback is optional. The council, therefore, has no idea whether it is someone in the Ukraine looking for a distraction or someone in Otago who has a personal interest in the provision, quality and cost of water locally. Only if a journalist asks questions will we understand whether this consultation gives a good idea of what the community actually is thinking and why.
The Government has been concerned that the number of journalists has been falling, and with it the ability for the media to provide a proper role for democracy.
But its answer to this dilemma, the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF), has itself been the subject of major criticism.
One hundred and twenty-two journalists nationwide have been funded, watched over by NZ on Air.
The critical voices have been strong around the general eligibility criteria to access the fund.
The first criteria is that applicants show a clear and obvious commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Maori.
Head of journalism for NZ On Air Raewyn Rasch says that this means "we don’t ask for anything specific. We’re not telling them how to do that; we’re just asking them to consider it". She goes on to say that you could be critical of Te Tiriti so long as you maintain fairness, balance and accuracy.
However, the goals of the fund include as a requirement that it "actively promotes the principles of partnership, participation and active protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner".
It is difficult to imagine how any journalist could fulfil the criteria and still remain fair, balanced and impartial and to hold the government to account for anything related to Maori-Crown relationships.
For example, if Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta says the Three Waters legislation was about honouring Te Tiriti, what would a journalist employed under funding from the PIJF be able to say?
Our expectations for journalists are out of kilter with what is possible in New Zealand.
We have something like half the number of journalists we had 10 years ago.
We expect them to be fair, impartial and to hold the government to account.
We hope they will ask the hard questions and help us play a proper role in our democracy.
And we hope they consider journalism fundamentally important.
Pulling against their belief in the importance of their role is their low pay, and the enticement of moving into PR with a marketing role and that they will be appreciated for protecting employers from being held accountable directly.
And with better hours.
And less stress.
And no expectation to be even accurate.
And that they may have been employed under the PIJF and be obliged to be impartial while favouring a particular world view. We are lucky we still have journalists asking many of the hard questions.
The reason we can find out what the people in power are doing is because we can google articles written and researched by journalists.
- Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and DCC councillor.
