spinofflive
Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

MediaNovember 8, 2023

What’s behind the flow of some of Stuff’s biggest names to RNZ?

Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

It received the largest funding increase in its history earlier this year. So far, the most obvious thing RNZ has spent it on is journalists from a cross-town rival.

It’s become a regular feature of the Aotearoa Media Alert, a weekly email newsletter covering comings and goings from our news organisations. In late October it reported that Katie Kenny and Boris Jančić were leaving Stuff to take up new roles with RNZ. 

In isolation, this is not news. “Person leaves job for another job” happens thousands of times each day. What drives that move can be many things – place or nature of work, financial considerations, wanting a change of scene. It also doesn’t explain whether the candidate was approached for the role, applied for it, or was facing redundancy or restructure. 

Still, when it starts to happen at greater frequency, and at senior levels, it can feel like more than randomness at play. RNZ and Stuff are two of the most important news organisations in New Zealand, and have seen an unusually significant and one-way flow of staff in 2023. 

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder

At RNZ, Kenny will join Kirsty Johnston and Dana Johannsen – all award-winning members of Stuff’s prestigious National Correspondents team. Eloise Gibson, Stuff’s (now former) climate change editor, has gone to an equivalent role at RNZ; homepage editor Jančić will soon follow to do the same job there too. Emile Donovan, who had months earlier been a launch host of Stuff’s highly publicised Newsable podcast targeting younger audiences, will soon face a somewhat different demographic when he takes over as host of RNZ’s Nights.

July saw the biggest appointment of all: Mark Stevens, the head of news at Stuff, left to become chief news officer, a newly-created executive role at RNZ. Stevens had been with Stuff and its predecessor Fairfax media since the 1990s, has represented it on media industry boards and generally been central to its news coverage for many years. 

They go to an organisation which is run by Paul Thompson, the former executive editor of Fairfax Media, now known as Stuff. He is supported by former Stuff editor Glen Scanlon, who now works at RNZ as head of transition. It’s the nature of industries for people to move around, and of former colleagues to reassemble in new organisations. But there is no other local news organisation which has seen so many senior staff move across to RNZ this year. 

RNZ CEO and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson. (Photo: Supplied)

There’s a superficial read on this which is troubling for those who believe in a pluralist media with meaningful roles for both state and private sector organisations. Is RNZ using its relative stability to undermine one of its biggest competitors for news audiences? That’s a seductive narrative, but not a complete one. Sources at Stuff suggest that some of those leaving did so due to a major and necessary restructuring which has echoed throughout the organisation since new CEO Laura Maxwell took over earlier this year. Others likely looked at RNZ’s budget increase against a tough market for commercial media and saw a safe haven.  

Still, it’s not solely those factors driving the movements. There are a number of staff Stuff would have loved to keep, and had planned around. The sheer volume of experienced and talented journalists leaving cannot help but hurt Stuff, which has had a busy year, launching three paywalls and completely reconceiving its business structure. RNZ issued a recent press release which talked of its role in part as “to ensure the broader media sector that underpins a healthy democracy flourishes”. Hiring so many important staff from the only other major media organisation headquartered in Wellington could be seen as contradicting that intention.

That said, motion within an industry is never uncomplicated. A spokesperson for RNZ pointed out that of 51 roles advertised this year, only seven have gone to Stuff journalists. It also has played an important role in modulating some of the chaos in private sector media, in providing jobs to a number of Today FM staff after it was abruptly shut down, including four in a single week. Also, because it has content sharing deals with most major news organisations, including Stuff, the work of the journalists it has recruited is still technically available to other platforms.

It’s not the hiring, it’s who they’re hiring

While the Stuff hires are not uncomplicated, they do open up a bigger, knottier question for RNZ. In the aftermath of the failure of the planned merger with TVNZ, RNZ secured a $25m funding boost under broadcasting minister Willie Jackson. It’s the biggest increase in the organisation’s history, intended to help it more vigorously transition to the digital environment, but also “ensure it could reach more diverse audiences which aren’t well served now”, according to a press release. 

Specifically younger, pan-Asian, Pacific and Māori audiences. The lack of Māori in prominent roles within the organisation is a longstanding sore spot, and formed the heart of former senior minister Kiri Allan’s controversial critique of the organisation at an event to farewell her then-partner, Māni Dunlop. Dunlop’s departure left Nathan Rarere as the sole Māori hosting a prominent show – albeit one which finishes its broadcast at 6am. 

Former broadcasting minister Jackson, who oversaw the funding increase, said he did so in part believing that it would help RNZ recruit Māori and Pacific journalists and create new products to reach those communities. He has been watching the organisation and its recruiting, and is not impressed. “I think it’s too slow,” he says. “We’ve shown some faith in them, but six months on and nothing’s changed.”

Willie Jackson on Q+A last year (Photo: TVNZ)

To be fair to RNZ, it’s not accurate to say that nothing’s changed. It hired Gaurav Sharma (the journalist, not the former MP) to head IndoNZ, a new vertical targeting New Zealand’s Indian communities. This will be joined by another vertical targeting Chinese New Zealanders. It also points to its Rautaki Māori strategy and fresh shows like Māpuna with Julian Wilcox and Mata with Mihingarangi Forbes. It has more than doubled the Māori content it broadcasts in two years. But it has also had three major on air vacancies this year, and filled each with a Pākehā host. The Stuff staff are uniformly outstanding, amongst the country’s best – but all are Pākehā too. 

This is challenging for RNZ in that a recent annual report revealed its diversity significantly lags the general population. Its proportion of Māori staff is less than half that of the general population (8.2% at RNZ versus 16.5% of the general population, per the 2018 census). The same is true for Pacific peoples (3.8% versus 8.1%) and markedly so for Asian New Zealanders (4.5% versus 15.1%). While it’s true that this is an acknowledged issue for most large media organisations, RNZ’s charter and public funding give it a more pressing obligation to reflect this country’s population – and make its 2023 recruiting more open to challenge.

It’s not uncomplicated. Were RNZ to have recruited a large number of hosts from Whakaata Māori, Iwi radio or Tagata Pasifika it would be accused of kneecapping those organisations. The more trenchant critique is the way prominent Māori staff like Forbes, Dunlop and former head of commissioning Kay Ellmers have left without a solid pipeline to replace them. 

Allan’s speech crystallised a critique I’ve heard from other Māori in the media when she said “there’s something within the organisation that will not and has not been able to keep Māori talent.” With Māori broadcasting icon Jim Mather as chair of its board, RNZ will hardly be unaware of this. Improving is not optional though, particularly for the only major media brand which is growing in a very subdued local market. 

The scrutiny will not go away. Chief executive Thompson announced a very ambitious goal to reach 80% of New Zealanders each month by 2027, ironically in an interview with Stuff’s The Post. That is an admirably large target, one which it’s unlikely any news organisation currently hits. To achieve it will require a true transformation in what it creates and who creates it. With a new government likely to be less interested in media, and a difficult environment for commercial players, scrutiny of RNZ is unlikely to decrease in coming months. Who, and how, it recruits will inevitably be central to that.

Follow Duncan Greive’s NZ media podcast The Fold on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.

All Black captain Sam Cane, incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon, and Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt (Image: Archi Banal)
All Black captain Sam Cane, incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon, and Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt (Image: Archi Banal)

OPINIONMediaOctober 27, 2023

From the All Blacks to Pharmac, big organisations have got media all wrong

All Black captain Sam Cane, incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon, and Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt (Image: Archi Banal)
All Black captain Sam Cane, incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon, and Pharmac CEO Sarah Fitt (Image: Archi Banal)

The Rachel Smalley-Pharmac saga has exposed the strange relationship that many large organisations, both public and private, have with journalists. It doesn’t have to be this way, argues Leni Ma’ia’i.

When journalist Rachel Smalley sent out an Official Information Act request to Pharmac for any mentions of her own name, I doubt she was expecting gold stars and glowing endorsements.

Over the last year, Smalley has demanded better answers from the government agency on some questionable decision-making around which drugs it did and didn’t fund, including some life-saving cancer medications. This reporting included long interviews with patients, impacted families, as well as plenty of critical columns and interviews with Pharmac representatives themselves.

Ordinarily, any ill will these bureaucrats might harbour for Smalley for doing her job would have lived safely behind closed doors, but the OIA cleared up any mystery.

Rachel Smalley

Over the course of the 273-page reveal, their true colours were displayed to the public eye in a way only the OIA can do. One devilish employee even celebrated “making Rachel cry”, while another drafted a short limerick on her difficult relationship with Pharmac.

Readers will rightly baulk at the hostility shown by these hyped up public sector workers, but unfortunately their anti-media stance is nothing new or original.

Incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon has wasted no time icing media out from National’s negotiations with its potential coalition partners. Meanwhile, Winston Peters, the man who may share the halls of power with him, has recently made calls for a royal commission of inquiry on independence in the media.

But again, this is nothing new. The flagrant dislike for the fourth estate isn’t just seen within the public sector, I’d argue it’s become endemic to many of New Zealand’s large public-facing institutions.

Take the All Blacks, for example.

After their quarterfinal blinder over Ireland, coach Ian Foster was more than happy to wax lyrical to the media scrum about his side’s masterful performance. On the other hand, after a series loss to that same team last year, Foster was notably missing from the post-game press briefing (I believe he was later sighted at the back of the bus with his hood up, listening to Slim Shady).

New Zealand’s pride-and-joy sports team has a general reputation among media as overly PR trained, with a team of “media preventioners” who drip-feed time with players as they see fit.

New All Blacks coach Ian Foster
All Blacks coach Ian Foster (Photo: Getty Images)

The sum of all these parts is a fourth estate being degraded by institutional self-interest.

Even if the All Blacks don’t have anything to do with the cost of living crisis, or who is going to be leading the country, Joe Public still deserves a clear answer from our national team after a tough loss.

Or we want our banks to be able to tell us why we’re paying so much in fees, or why our supermarkets are ripping us off, without getting lost in the sauce of PR speak.

From Fonterra to the All Blacks, many New Zealand institutions have reached a point where news gatherers are either seen as a tool to advance their ambitions, or people to avoid when the going gets tough.

There’ll never be any shortage of spokespeople to talk about the wonderful initiatives happening at a business, or a handsome end of financial year result. But when the shit hits that fan, those same spokespeople shrink into the back of the bus, or become available to comment only by email.

What they’re missing, though, is that all this stuff is a two-way street.

When a crisis breaks, the news cycle may eventually move on, but we remember the people who refuse to front up. Similarly, we remember those who embrace accountability for mistakes.

It’s my job to advise companies on their communications, but I would argue that many of our largest organisations are over-advised. In fact, the communications departments at our biggest listed companies are probably double the size of The Spinoff newsroom.

In the same way that a high-powered legal team can impose their will on an under-resourced group of activists, many internal communication teams have grown so large that they can comfortably out-muscle reporters by reducing access, or just failing to answer questions.

Sometimes that’s from having too many voices in the room. A nervous comms person in a room of nervous comms people might try to justify their job by saying “no” to a nosy reporter.

Other times its simple risk aversion, where the risk of fronting up and making a mistake isn’t worth all the hassle. Far easier to keep the reporters at bay with holding statements and media releases.

But fundamentally, the better our institutions get at avoiding public scrutiny, or stiff-arming journalists who ask difficult questions, the worse off we all are.

When a comms department stonewalls a business by refusing to front up a quote, it’s not the journalist who loses out, it’s the public that fails to get an understanding of what is going on.

In a world of global politicians turning the media into a straw-man villain, it’s easy to forget that a journalist’s job is pretty simple. Investigate an issue, ask intelligent questions, and put the answers in context. This has been the well-oiled machine of media that has kept communities and countries informed for years.

But a business communications team also has a relatively simple job – to tell the story of their business in a way that the general public can understand. And while part of this storytelling comes in the form of brand identity powerpoints and logo design, it also comes from answering clear questions raised by a journalist.

As comms departments make their inevitable trudge towards behemoth status, they should do well to remember this: journalists are not your friend, but neither are they your enemy. A question from a journalist is a question from the public, and should be answered as such.

The negative risk of treating journos as evil-doers is not just to a brand’s reputation, or public transparency, it’s also that your terrible limericks may see the light of day from a savvy reporter’s OIA.

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder