spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

MediaSeptember 7, 2020

Discovery has bought Three. What happens now?

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

After years of losses and months of speculation, Three has finally been sold. We speak to the MediaWorks CEO, and its broadcast operations’ new owner Discovery, about their plans for the channel.

This morning, the long-rumoured acquisition of MediaWorks’ broadcast operations (mainly Three, along with some extras) was formally announced, with US cable TV monster Discovery winning the rights to New Zealand’s biggest non-state-owned free-to-air channel. According to outgoing MediaWorks CEO Michael Anderson, the deal was in a due diligence phase before Covid-19 hit, which then scrambled it and forced a restart from scratch. 

It brings to an end a saga that has run for nearly a year, since news broke the channel was for sale, and in some ways since at least the Mark Weldon era – when TV3 (as it was then known) began a period of rapid transformation that saw some of its most popular stars leave and its public-facing emphasis shift from news, local drama and comedy towards multi-night locally made reality TV. That created content that could run in cross-promotion across radio, digital and outdoor, synergies that were a big part of the proposition to advertisers. 

The new owners are big (over US$11bn in revenue), successful (over US$1bn in profit) and multinational (present in all major TV markets around the world). 

Yet for all their scale and financial security, there remain a number of questions about what the new Three will look like. I’ve spoken to Anderson, company chair Jack Matthews (representing Oaktree, the longtime private equity owners) and Discovery APAC president Simon Robinson to try to make sense of what this means for its staff and audience.

MediaWorks CEO Michael Anderson (Photo: supplied)

What is Discovery, and what’s its plan here?

Discovery is a multinational media company, one which grew out of the channel of the same name, but now encompasses dozens of brands and hundreds of channels all over the world, including Animal Planet, Food Network, HGTV, TLC and the Oprah Winfrey Network. It has been in New Zealand for 26 years, operating six channels on Sky, and also has dozens of other channels internationally. Most are carried by pay TV and operate in some kind of niche, though it does own some more general interest and free-to-air channels in Europe. 

Discovery is essentially backing itself to take the long-term loss-making TV business and turn it around, presumably by filling out much of the schedule with content it already owns and creates elsewhere, and is therefore low-to-no cost. 

What it has said it will not do is abandon its commitment to news, or to local productions. The new operation will be overseen by Glen Kyne, who had been in the commercial director role – a well-liked staff member who provides leadership continuity in an executive that has seen a string of high-profile departures, including CEO Anderson and head of content Andrew Szusterman. 

What happens to Newshub?

This is perhaps the most pressing question – the fusing of all the company’s digital, TV and radio news services into one operation was the biggest project of Hal Crawford, the head of news who left earlier this year. Yet it remains a large and costly area of the business, and the single-biggest line item that could plausibly be shut down. 

According to Anderson, Discovery “has been very clear about the value of news” throughout the process, and Robinson said news was core to the brand’s value. It’s also instructive that MediaWorks – the name the remaining radio and outdoor advertising assets will still trade under – intends to contract with Newshub to continue supplying news bulletins for its radio stations. This includes its flagship AM Show, which will still run on both Three and Magic Talk. 

For all that, there is no guarantee that these words will translate into a long-term commitment to news in its current form. Newshub costs tens of millions a year to run, and while it has lost high-profile (and expensive) stars like John Campbell, Hilary Barry and Paul Henry in recent years, it remains an area that can find itself subject to the scrutiny of those trying to return a media business to profitability.

Three’s The Project (Photo: Three)

What will happen to Three’s local strategy?

When we spoke, Discovery’s Robinson noted that it operates in over 200 countries and spends US$4bn on content each year, with US$3bn outside of the company’s United States home base. 

The point being that it’s a global company and makes local content for local markets. This will be some comfort to both the local production sector, and to New Zealand on Air – each needs Three to stick around, and the more committed it is to local, the easier it will be to work with. 

That said, Robinson repeatedly emphasised that the priority for now is to “get the deal done” – the one thing that might destabilise it from here would be to make moves that would generate a significant and negative reaction from interested sectors. The upshot being that even if the new owners are intending to make major changes to programming, there is no incentive to reveal their hand now.

What happens to its reality TV shows?

This was the closest Robinson got to tipping his hat about a significant change. Through HGTV, Discovery has access to a large trove of home improvement-type shows – so why would it continue to buy the rights to The Block? This is one of the key ways Discovery can save money as a new owner – by reducing programming costs. Some of this will be by filling its schedule with overseas productions. But some could be by reducing the hefty licence fees paid to create New Zealand versions of formats like Married at First Sight and Dancing With the Stars. 

It’s not reality, but The Project is another format fee that heads to Australia (to Rove McManus, the genial host of 00s talk show Rove). There’s a chance the 7pm slot becomes the target of cost-savings, either by creating a new format around the current talent, or introducing a different product entirely.

Amy and Stu from The Block

How will the uncoupling from radio and outdoor impact the advertising business?

The word board chair Matthews uses to cover the splitting of radio and TV is “desynergise” – but he also says there is interest in the companies continuing to work together. This is obviously already happening across the news operation, but there is a strong incentive for pre-existing sales relationships, where multiple platforms are packaged up and sold together, to continue functioning.

Given that TVNZ and rival NZME have a close working relationship, there’s a good reason to keep close to combat that competition. Equally, Discovery’s six other NZ channels, which run on Sky, give additional inventory to work with. 

All sales are happening against the backdrop of a very difficult business environment. Robinson said that Discovery is entering the arrangement “with eyes wide open – we’re facing the same micro- and macro-economic challenges everywhere”. He also gamely tried to spin the difficulties media businesses are facing as a positive – because they were suffering before the pandemic, they know how to hunker down through crises, a skill he says not all sectors have. Which is certainly one way of framing it.

Keep going!
Image: Getty
Image: Getty

MediaSeptember 7, 2020

Counting and Countering the infodemic: a deep dive into Covid-19 disinformation

Image: Getty
Image: Getty

Together with colleagues on The Disinformation Project, Kate Hannah has been studying the vectors and volume of false stories that wrap around the Covid crisis in New Zealand. Here she explains what they’ve learned, and what we might do to tackle it. 

As people, as communities, we connect to each other through story; it is through story that we make meaning, understand the past, and prepare for the future. Stories are the framework within which we express our selfhood, our relationships with others, and our values. “Stories are data with soul”: they help each of us develop what can be described as “narrative knowing”, where we understand who we are, and how we came to be that person. Stories contribute significantly to the ways in which we understand the world.

In the last months, we’ve all become accustomed to the difference between epidemics and pandemics; and the virus (SARS COV-2) and the illness (Covid-19). Now it’s time for us to become familiar with the infodemic. The World Health Organisation describes an infodemic as the “over-abundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it”.

This novel virus has only been transmitting throughout human communities since November 2019, and so the Covid-19 infodemic has been characterised by scientific uncertainty, debate, and a variety of public health responses. Researchers are rightly concerned about how people find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance as we move to stop the spread of the virus through individual and collective action, as we research cures and treatments, and as we develop vaccinations. We’re interested in the stories that are shaping people’s understanding of the virus.

The Covid-19 infodemic, like the pandemic itself, takes place within communities – communities which have different experiences of past pandemics, different measures of health and wellbeing, and have had different encounters with state services and state interventions. The pandemic and the infodemic are also taking place within different nation-states, with different political systems, worldviews, and approaches to healthcare. These contexts necessarily inform how people respond to the over-abundance of information they’re currently experiencing. Moving from simply understanding the nature of the infodemic, our team is working to assess the impact of unreliable information in Aotearoa New Zealand, interpret the stories or narratives within which this information is presented and distributed, and to understand how these stories link to conspiracy theories and fringe groups.

What we know is that those most marginalised by or disaffected within contemporary society are more likely to have lived experiences that might make them more susceptible to unreliable sources and untrustworthy stories. Tina Ngata’s summary of the reasons why “Make America Great Again” rhetoric and attitudes can have appeal to some within Māori communities, The Rise of Māori MAGA, discusses the very real impact colonisation and ongoing state racism has had on trust in government in Māori spaces and places.

The sentencing of the terrorist responsible for the March 15 2019 Ōtautahi mosque atrocities brought once again into high relief the ways in which white supremacism is enabled and enacted online, within virtual venues that offer alternative narratives to angry white men. The Disinformation Project  seeks to understand if and how Covid-19 disinformation is contributing to the prevalence of exclusionary or polarising rhetoric in New Zealand, and how this is seeping into conversations and stories in the mainstream media, and in political and civil society. Understanding this helps us understand each other, and work together to nurture and protect an open, inclusive society.

When the re-emergence of community transmission was announced on 11 August, the contexts for New Zealanders’ experiences of the pandemic and infodemic had shifted since our previous experience of community transmission between March and May. In February, when New Zealand recorded our first cases, the pandemic’s impacts were still largely being felt in Asia and Europe: in fact, most of the cases recorded during New Zealand’s first wave were seeded from international returnees. By August, when resurgence occurred, the UK, the US and Australia had recorded significant and uncontrolled community outbreaks, with differing public health and political responses.

The infodemic in Aotearoa back in March to May was characterised by the relatively consistent prevalence of stories based in unreliable or misguided information, circulating within social media networks and being reported or referenced by mainstream media. During this time frame, the most prevalent narratives referred to distrust in government or other official health information regarding the virus and its effects; disputed or speculated on the origin of the virus, including denying its existence, and a number of health and wellbeing narratives grounded in the rejection of mainstream medical advice. Since the resurgence in mid-August 2020, the nature of the infodemic, and as such, the narratives we are observing has shifted, with more extreme language and metaphors related not just to distrust in government health responses but a distrust of state authority more generally.

The nature of an infodemic is that perceived reliability and trustworthiness are understood across regional variation, geography, ability to access information, access to healthcare, and community identity. Stories about Covid-19 in Aotearoa New Zealand speak to our communities in different ways. When these kinds of stories arrive on our shores, like the virus itself, they have more traction where there are pre-existing inequities and injustices. Stories which seem to relate Covid-19 to a distrust in the state intersect with existing state and societal racism, or narratives about health and wellbeing, often result in pattern-seeking where stories that best fit with a person’s or community’s experiences and world views are more likely to be embraced.

The size of the infodemic has remained relatively static since March. What has increased, however, is the prevalence of mainstream media mentions of the word “conspiracy”. So what has happened? Firstly, there has been serious and justified critique of state failure to engage with Māori, Pasifika and the disability community during the first wave of the pandemic, making it clear that in this “team of five million”, some are more equal than others. Since the first wave of community transmission of Covid-19, however, Aotearoa New Zealand has adopted a number of internal and external stories about the virus, its management, and the way forward.

While there is increasing and appropriate international scientific discussion of uncertainty about the efficacy of certain policy settings or public health interventions, these discussions have been politicised. Anti-mask rhetoric in the United States, Australia, and now New Zealand in past months reveals how an emerging scientific consensus on the prophylactic properties of mask-wearing to reduce viral spread has been interpreted within other, pre-existing narratives of spiraling state or government control and what is described as the imposition of the state on individual rights. It was inevitable that such conversations would make their way here: however, the discussion of these conspiracy stories in mainstream media, political discussion, and on social media helps develop false consensus – the idea that these stories, because they are so prevalent or familiar must therefore have an element of truth.

The emergence – and popularity – of Covid-19 disinformation stories in New Zealand that can be easily and readily incorporated into organised and global conspiracy overarching narratives indicates some level of success for key international and national conspiracy theorists in manipulating people’s uncertainty and fear about the virus as a recruitment tool. Understanding these theories, what or who they target, and the values that underpin them helps us as civil society to identify which of the infodemic’s disinformation stories will be the most persistent, what harm they can cause, and, importantly for the media, the coded ways in which they are discussed within mainstream conversations.

The Covid-19-specific conspiracy theories observed in New Zealand, especially since August 13 2020, are largely linked to established conspiratorial narratives about the presumed intent and motivation of scientists and science. These are conspiracies related to the virus’s origins and to speculative cures. The other key group of stories which are amplified now relate to the behavior and motivations of governments, nation-states, leaders, and organisations like the United Nations or the World Health Organisation.

These reflect the increased presence of US-based disinformation, or conspiracy re-worked for a New Zealand context, and present significant challenges to Aotearoa New Zealand’s civil society, political discourse and communities. Fear and a sense of isolation or disconnection from the “team of five million” have given these ideas credence; commentators, academics, and politicians have dogwhistled in their direction. As communities, as families, as individuals, what can we do? Step back into our collective and personal “narrative knowing” of the power of story, and reflect on how our individual and collective experiences attract us to certain narrative frameworks, and recall how story draws us in.

The Disinformation Project team is a transdisciplinary group of established and emerging scholars with research interests spanning data science, statistical methods, data visualisation, philosophy of conspiracy theory, critical science and technology studies, public understanding of science and technology, and cultural history. They are Max Soar, Te Pūnaha Matatini, Centre for Science in Society, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington; Victoria Louise Smith, Faculty of Science, University of Auckland; M.R.X Dentith (PhD), University of Waikato; Daniel Barnett, Department of Statistics, University of Auckland and iNZight Analytics; Kate Hannah, Te Pūnaha Matatini, Department of Physics, University of Auckland, and Centre for Science in Society, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington; Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury; Andrew Sporle, Department of Statistics, University of Auckland and iNZight Analytics