New Zealand media currently operate under a free press theory and this is the best possible system for the country. In 1861 the Otago Daily times became New Zealand's first newspaper. The media industry is largely owned by 2 Australian based companies; Fairfax Media (The Dominion Post and Stuff.co.nz) and APN (The NZ Herald and the NZ Women's Weekly). Our news teams are free to cover what they wish and criticise as they see fit allowing them to fulfil their potential as society's watchdog. There is no explicit connection between the media and the government and so when there is a political controversy, such as Pita Sharples meeting known gang leaders at taxpayer expense or the increasing ACC levies on motorcyclists, the public are in a position to learn what is happening from the media and then have their say through that same medium. The free press system allows the media to be accessible to all, as openly and evenly as possible depending on staff and time limitations, and this in turn builds the nation's trust in it. As a multi cultural nation it is essential that all ethnicities are given equal standing in the media's eyes to help build and ease the relationships that exist among people with various backgrounds. The free media theory is "a reflection of the diversity of society as well as access to various points of view"1 but this is easier said than done. Elements of the Social Responsibility theory where the media and the government are on the same level do tend to pop up during times of increased pressure, such as government elections or minister scandals, and we see the government defending itself against the media directly. It is a functioning democracy with an adherence to ethical principles unseen in a lot of this world. New Zealander's pride themselves on a good standard of living in a peaceful and friendly environment so for the media to be anything but self-controlled would leave it at odds with the society around it.
New Zealand, like the United States, has aligned itself with a free media ideal. Government policies are examined and critiqued and this behaviour is encouraged by the population. However the potential exists for private factors to influence the media. DellaVigna and Kaplan's study of Fox news and it's bias towards republican coverage found that media bias did indeed exist and that it was effectively swaying the viewer voting outcome. "Exposure to Fox News induced 3 to 8 percent of the non-Republican viewers to vote for the Republican party"2. Information coming into and out of the country remains unrestricted and various news channels (SKY News, Fox, BBC, etc.) are readily available for viewing within New Zealand. News websites are not censored, unlike in China in the build-up to the 2008 Olympics, and people are left to their own accord to seek the truth. Journalists and those within the industry have the freedom to create their mediums to the public, free from government interference, and are motivated by a free competitive market. If they are not the first to cover a story or fail to provide decent coverage they lose funding, be it private or from the state, and will cease to exist. Bias within a free press can unfortunately become a necessity to survival right down to the language they print in. This is of course a negative after effect of colonisation which is a deep seated problem across the African continent. "It is abundantly obvious that most print and electronic media output is consumed by urbanites"3. There is a televised Maori language option but the market demand is simply too low to fund a mainstream publication and it is no coincidence that Maori make up the lower end of national earnings. The amount of time allocated for their coverage appears reasonable but it is coverage from a European eye. This lack of control is in stark contrast to the Authoritarian or Soviet Media theory which is set-up with the sole intention of supporting the government and is publicly funded which may allow for a stronger minority presence in the market or push it out completely.
The Libertarian or Free Press theory is based on the belief that, if left to their own accord, human beings will naturally choose to do what's considered right for each other. However if people are left unaccountable for their actions there is the risk of a communal breakdown. If this theory was completely realised the media would be abandoned as there would be no way to justify their words, or examine their credentials effectively, without jeopardising the free media policy. A medium is provided by borrowing elements of the Social Responsibility theory. This theory states that the media must adhere to journalistic principles ("informativeness, truth, accuracy, objectivity, and balance"4 ) if they are to be allowed their choice of coverage. The Broadcasting Act of 1989 established the Broadcasting Standards Authority and is backed by the New Zealand Press Council funded entirely by publishers to aid it's enforcement.
The key difference between Social Responsibility and a Libertarian theory is that while a free press is expected to report on the government a socially responsible one is expected to raise debate. It adds an aggressive element. It is then up to the media to allocate it's time between national and local issues. Some, like British journalist Stephen Kingston believe that "the mainstream media are never going to touch real community stories because there are a million value judgements going on..."5. A free media can not only choose to steer clear of messy issues and not risk losing a percentage of their audience. An Authoritarian approach could force them to cover these issues, like the recent debate over the legalisation of abortion in Spain, and hence control the media storm and give it direction rather than growing Western sensationalism.
The compromise between the media systems is particularly prevalent during the current economic recession. To avoid threatening our democratic principles the government is allowing the media to criticise it's budget forecast while also defending itself in turn. The proposed rises in ACC levies for motorcyclists and cuts in injury physiotherapy subsidies and workplace accident compensation is drawing a lot of flack from the public. The government is being forced to balance itself between ensuring our nation's debt remains under control while ensuring it still provides for the needs of it's citizens. It has not banned protesting, it has not banned media coverage and it holds itself accountable when necessary such as with the recent MP housing scandals. The public may be upset about the proposed changes but they are being kept informed and a sense of control is established in the country thanks to this open policy. The concern is generally more directed at the broadness of information presented rather than it's validity. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act section 14 states that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information of any kind in any form"6. An Authoritarian approach would have been to silence all criticism and push ahead with revenue boosters such as increased taxation and local market protection. The Soviet-Totalitarian theory work because the government doesn't have the finances to fund the media itself without cutting money from areas most New Zealander's take for granted like the public health system and free education.
To further look at the quality of New Zealand's current media system, which I believe is our best possible option, it must be emphasized that there is no perfect mould from any of the theories that would fit a living, changing, society. There is often a lack of flexibility shown between the theories. I have used the ruling government as the main catalyst of media function but true politics always lie in the hands of the people. Particularly in a democracy it is their own beliefs and feelings which dictate the who is in government and how the nation's ideology is presented in the media. As circumstances change within the nation the media must change itself accordingly to maintain progression and development. To attempt to pigeon-hole the New Zealand media into a study book definition is impossible from the moment the words are published the world around them has changed. There are pros and cons for every media theory in one's imagination but in reality the best media theory for New Zealand is whatever the country needs most. In times of recession a heavier sway is needed towards social responsibility as the citizens demand more help from those with more power. In times of stability citizens demand a liberal media to go along with their own increased freedom. Lastly, in times of public conflict be it internal or international, the government must be expected to step in and lead the nation. It is from this broad perspective that the conclusion can be reached that New Zealand's media system is best described as a compromise between the Libertarian and Social Responsibility theories just as it should be.
Bibliography
De Beer, Arnold S. and Merril, John C. Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media Systems. Fourth Ed. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon. 2004
El-Bendary, Mohamed. Study Guide: 219.337 Contemporary Issues in Global Journalism, (Revised James Hollings 2009), Massey University Press 2009.
Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, Wilbur Schramm, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1963)
Skjerdal, Terje S, Siebert's Four Theories of the Press: A Critique, (St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993)
Article by Jared Nicoll
[http://www.alongthelion.co.nz]
"New Zealand's pioneer satirical news source."
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
