Chantelle Baker, Rodney Hide, Paul Brennan and Peter Williams are among the names headlining Reality Check Radio (Image: Tina Tiller)
Chantelle Baker, Rodney Hide, Paul Brennan and Peter Williams are among the names headlining Reality Check Radio (Image: Tina Tiller)

OPINIONMediaApril 30, 2024

Reality Check Radio is still ‘off-air’. But was it ever really at risk?

Chantelle Baker, Rodney Hide, Paul Brennan and Peter Williams are among the names headlining Reality Check Radio (Image: Tina Tiller)
Chantelle Baker, Rodney Hide, Paul Brennan and Peter Williams are among the names headlining Reality Check Radio (Image: Tina Tiller)

Is the fringe radio station really in a financial crisis, or is it just running a hyped-up donation drive?

Fringe internet radio station Reality Check Radio was launched by the anti-vaccine mandates group Voices for Freedom in March 2023. For the next year, it undertook probably the most aggressive promotional campaign ever seen from a media startup in New Zealand. In every corner of the country, its posters and billboards were inescapable – including this one from Wellington, which spent about two weeks frozen halfway between host Peter Williams and a strip club. 

Dare to indulge with Peter Williams

Then, on April 8, the station went “off air”. Listeners who tried to tune in on the app were greeted with the distorted sound of a dial-up modem, and told the station desperately needed their donations to keep it going. The announcement couldn’t have been timed better for maximum attention – that week, cuts at Newshub and TVNZ were dominating headlines.

Reality Check Radio’s decision to go off-air was covered by the NZ Herald, BusinessDesk, TVNZ and others. At the time, those sites would have believed they were covering the potential closure of media business. But as the weeks have passed it’s starting to look more and more like Reality Check Radio was running an orchestrated donations drive, and using mainstream news outlets to push their message.

When other radio stations shut down, there was outrage and defiance from on-air talent. In Today FM’s final minutes last year, Tova O’Brien turned to the mic and declared, “They’ve fucked us”. Fellow host Duncan Garner said “This is betrayal”.

Reality Check Radio was a little different. It announced its “closure” with a 14-minute, highly-produced short film by Alistair Harding (director of We Came Here for Freedom, a documentary about the parliament protests). The video starts with several loyal RCR listeners going about their days, driving around or making a cup of tea. Then, their news cuts off. They look confused, lost, abandoned. 

Cut to dramatic, sweeping shots of The Remarkables. Peter Williams is driving through the tussocked plains of Central Otago. He asks viewers to consider what New Zealand would be like without Reality Check Radio. “That’s not a New Zealand I want to contemplate,” he says, about a business that has existed for 13 months. Then, a montage of the vaccine mandate protests, and vox pops of RCR listeners talking about what they love most about the station. “We all know something is wrong. But without Reality Check Radio, there will be no one to do anything about it. Then, all you’ll have is compliance and silence,” Williams warns his listeners. “We need to act now before the fires of tyranny turn into a blaze.”

The video ends with RCR hosts and super-fans pleading for donations. “Hopefully, it’s just a temporary closure,” Williams says. It never specifies why RCR is financially struggling. In fact, it boasts about listener and donor numbers. Rodney Hide claims they have 4,500 donors on their Foundation Members Club. “The truth is, we need a lot more support than that to keep going,” he says. 

It’s not the sort of thing you typically see from a media outlet that is struggling to keep the lights on. It seemed more like a tightly coordinated effort to drum up donations. Sean Plunket, the founder of rival fringe radio station The Platform, certainly thought something was fishy. “I find it weird that an organisation would put so much effort into telling people they’d failed,” he told TVNZ’s Q+A. “I’m not sure if it isn’t some sort of misguided marketing ploy.”

Winston Peters and Reality Check Radio’s Cameron Slater.

RCR co-founder Alia Bland insisted the station really was in trouble. “The situation was dire,” she told reporter Whena Owen. But even then, she seemed to acknowledge the move to go off-air was a stunt. “Everything wants your attention right now, you have to find a way to get your point across to the people.”

Broadcasting on AM or FM airwaves is a major expense for radio stations, but that’s not a cost RCR has to bear. The station broadcasts entirely online, an extremely cheap distribution method. RCR’s most significant ongoing cost would be staff salaries. But going “off-air” didn’t seem to mean RCR staff stopped working. Hosts continued to post videos and interviews on the station’s social media channels. At first, it was mostly discussions between hosts about the state of the fundraiser. But before long, hosts pivoted to podcast-style versions of their shows. Alistair Harding interviewed lawyer Sue Grey about water flouridisation in Hastings. Paul Brennan and Cam Slater analysed the cabinet reshuffle. Maree Buscke hosted special coverage of the UK’s Cass Report on gender identity services, alongside Bob McCoskrie from Family First.

Roving reporter Tane Webster was in Titirangi asking supermarket customers about facial recognition technology, in Devonport interviewing ACT MP Cameron Luxton, and in Remuera with NZ First MPs Shane Jones and Tanya Unkovich. Reality Check Radio was operating as usual, just without radio aspect (which, again, is not a major cost).

On April 17, RCR released “The Plan”, which included graphs showing how it wanted to pivot its business model from being mostly donor-funded to…. still being mostly donor-funded, but with way more donations. It set a goal of growing from 3,500 to 10,000 paying members. But “The Plan” was not just a path to sustainability, it promised rapid expansion, with new features like talkback functionality, documentaries and a press gallery presence.

In a short video update to her fans, Natalie Cutler-Welsh, host of the wellness show Up Your Brave, said she had received several messages from business owners offering to help RCR with its business plan. “We have no shortage of a plan, we just need dollars,” she said. 

In a video on April 26, Buscke gave another update on the station’s return. “We’re not quite out of the woods, but we’re so close.. I can almost touch it.” Two days later, the station announced it needed $480,000 in donations before it would return to air, and some “gracious supporters” had offered to match every donation dollar-for-dollar. The RCR website homepage now shows a loading bar, slowly filling up as donations creep towards its $480,000 goal. Above the bar, a confident headline: The Return Is Near. 

Reality Check Radio understands its audience intimately. Like most fringe media, it thrives on paranoia and fear. It repeatedly ingrains its listeners with the idea that powerful forces are trying to control them, and that government and mainstream media can’t be trusted. Its fundraising page says this explicitly: “Censorship will control what you can say…15 minute cities will control where you can live…. Mass migration will devalue your place in society.” Then, it asks: Are you prepared to face those challenges alone?

Two weeks after the announcement, an unbylined article ran on NZ Herald outlining how much money RCR was asking for, quoting heavily from a press release. You’d be hard pressed to find another instance of a media company promoting (inadvertently or not) another media outlet’s donation drive.

It now seems almost certain Reality Check Radio will be back on-air within weeks, if not days, with its coffers fattened by donations from fans who were genuinely afraid their favourite media outlet was at risk of collapse, and thanks to a helping hand from the mainstream outlets they so heavily criticise. Has Reality Check Radio really served its listeners, or just taken advantage of them?

Keep going!
Senior vice president of WBD, Glen Kyne, and Stuff owner Sinead Boucher (Image design: Tina Tiller)
Senior vice president of WBD, Glen Kyne, and Stuff owner Sinead Boucher (Image design: Tina Tiller)

BusinessApril 17, 2024

14 (!) crucial questions about Stuff replacing Newshub, asked and (mostly) answered

Senior vice president of WBD, Glen Kyne, and Stuff owner Sinead Boucher (Image design: Tina Tiller)
Senior vice president of WBD, Glen Kyne, and Stuff owner Sinead Boucher (Image design: Tina Tiller)

Based on interviews with the heads of Stuff and Warner Bros Discovery, along with staff across both organisations, Duncan Greive presents an in-depth primer on the biggest news media deal in years.

With additional reporting by Stewart Sowman-Lund and Alice Neville

Why did Stuff win out over NZME?

This is in many ways the big question: NZME has far more broadcast experience, and in-house broadcast talent – so how did Stuff win the pitch? Commercial terms have not been made public, so there’s no way to know to what extent price came into it – but Three owners Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) leadership are saying that it was innovation when it came down to it.

“It’s the way Stuff are thinking about producing the bulletin – it’s very different from a very traditional studio newsroom broadcast setup,” says WBD’s Glen Kyne. Stuff owner Sinead Boucher says this leans heavily on its new platform and structure. “A year ago we wouldn’t have put ourselves forward.” She is also adamant that the product will not be a traditional news hour. “We’re not going into linear television. We’re not even going into broadcasting – that’s for Warner Bros Discovery – we are producing the news.” 

How many jobs will this save?

Very few. While Newshub is laying off around 200 staff, it was confirmed at a joint press conference that the number of jobs created will be “less than 40”, a number put forward through a Newshub staff proposition to WBD. To be profitable for Stuff, it’s likely to be a bit lower again, and rely heavily on Stuff’s journalists.

Glen Kyne and Sinead Boucher at yesterday’s press conference (Photo: Stewart Sowman-Lund)

Does the Stuff-WBD deal maintain plurality in the news?

Not really. It maintains competitive tension within TV news, and will create a small number of jobs – but the function of this is largely to reskin existing news produced for Stuff into a video format. That is good for audiences, and for both companies – but is unlikely to have a significant impact on the number of journalists employed or the amount of fresh stories created. And on the plurality front, the brutal blow that is the loss of Newshub’s newsroom and news culture remains.

What’s in it for Stuff and WBD?

Stuff is “producing this on a fee basis”, says Boucher. “We’re producing it as a supplied product.” This means that, provided it has got the deal structure right, Stuff should be able to make a profit on the 6pm news product it supplies to WBD (and potentially Sky too, which needs a new news provider: “we remain interested in delivering strong local news, where it makes commercial sense, and are considering our options,” a spokesperson told The Spinoff) – but that’s not where the revenue story ends.

“This definitely unlocks a lot of fresh monetisation options on Stuff,” says Boucher. Currently Stuff has a carousel of vertical video on its homepage under the name Stuff Shorts, but this deal should allow it to step-change the volume and quality of its video. In an ad market that leans ever more into video, that could give Stuff a rare clear edge over rivals at NZME.

As for the money, video stories must debut at 6pm, but thereafter the news clips are fair game for both organisations. “We wanted to keep that really simple and clear,” says Kyne. “So revenues on Three and ThreeNow will stay with Warner Bros Discovery and revenues on Stuff will stay with Stuff.” The other thing big thing it does for WBD is retain as much of the 6pm news audience as possible for Three to take into its evening schedule, when the vast bulk of linear revenue sits. However, the most recent Nielsen figures showed Newshub at 6pm having lost 18% of its 25-54 audience year-on-year, with under 60,000 of that coveted demographic tuning in – making the digital side ever more crucial.

Is the government helping out here?

Not yet – but that might change. An intriguing element of this story was reported by Tom Pullar-Strecker for The Post yesterday morning. He wrote that “it is understood that the government has been considering offering Warner Bros Discovery and other broadcasters a break on television transmission fees that would normally be paid to state-owned enterprise Kordia, on the condition that they continued to offer television news bulletins”.

Pullar-Strecker suggested that this would be worth around $5.2m per year to WBD, and Kyne confirmed to The Spinoff that as it would still be broadcasting the news (though not creating it), any Kordia savings would drop straight to WBD’s bottom line. This effectively means that despite WBD laying off hundreds of staff, and closing one of the most significant newsrooms in the country, it would effectively be rewarded by the government with a cancelling of Kordia fees – and use that to fund a very large proportion of the fee it’s paying to Stuff to create the new 6pm bulletin.

How will other newsrooms feel about that?

Kordia relief is likely to be welcomed by many, while proving somewhat controversial for other parts of the news media. Kordia is a state-owned enterprise, and its fees are only paid by broadcasters across radio and TV, so any relief would give millions of dollars in benefits to TVNZ, NZME, Whakaata Māori, MediaWorks and WBD, while giving no relief to news organisations in digital or print mediums.

What’s happening to Newshub’s archive?

Newshub’s work functionally stretches back to the dawn of TV3 News 35 years ago. There has been huge concern about its retention as an archive of enormous cultural and historic significance. However, it will also be crucial to the success of Stuff’s project. 

Kyne confirmed that WBD is in talks with audiovisual archive Ngā Taonga about preserving as much as it can, while also wanting to make sure that Stuff can use it to create its product. A large chunk of news requires near-instant access to archive – any package covering comments from John Key or Helen Clark will often use footage from their time as prime minister, for example. A WBD spokesperson confirmed that Stuff would have access to the archive, but not ownership of it – how that is managed is complex and potentially fraught.

Three’s 6pm news bulletins through the years (Image: Tina Tiller)

How about the brand and website?

“The brand newshub.co.nz will pass over as part of the website,” Kyne told The Spinoff. This means that, despite assurances to the contrary, it’s not impossible that the Newshub name will live on, as the site remains highly viewed – and could plausibly be kept alive with a syndication of Stuff stories and video. 

Could the Newshub name be retained for the 6pm bulletin?

Stuff has reported that it will “leave the Newshub name and brand behind”, but that was contradicted to an extent by WBD’s Kyne. “It’s not out of the question,” Kyne told The Spinoff. “Lawyers at the moment, just in the background, are working through the machinations of that.” 

The retention of the name might prove emotive and controversial among Newshub staff, who would lose their jobs only to see the name branded across a fundamentally different product. “One of the main things for Newshubbers is that it’s not going to be called Newshub,” said one current Newshub journalist. 

Will Stuff staff now have to front stories on the 6pm news?

While Stuff will almost certainly hire some presenters from Newshub, it’s hard to see a way this can be completed without Stuff’s journalists creating stories for the new 6pm bulletin. Yet this brings with it a number of difficulties, as many Stuff staff were hired on the basis that it was a largely text-based website producing written stories. 

All news organisations have asked staff to do more in recent years. A single story might appear on Stuff, while the reporter might also break it down for TikTok and appear on a podcast like Newsable. However, one Stuff journalist asked whether they would “get a wardrobe allowance now?” 

This has historically been on the cards in TV, but not in print, and it’s also common for TV journalists to have consideration for hair and makeup. This points to a key difference between a short piece of vertical video designed to be consumed on a phone, and a news production running on a 55-inch screen in HD. Boucher told The Spinoff that “our journalists are already expected to come to work, dressed and ready to fit in with any situation from going to court or interviewing the prime minister or hitting out or breaking news story or whatever. So no worries on that.” 

That might not be the attitude of staff. A Stuff source told The Spinoff that “someone asked today whether this meant pay increases for journalist staff (given it means more responsibility, more work etc) – we got a resounding no”. Instead, Boucher talked about training and career development opportunities. In a subdued employment market for journalists, many might feel they have little choice but to try the new medium – but ultimately the success or failure of this project will in large part rest on whether Stuff staff as a whole embrace it or reject it. 

What is the fate of Newshub’s Google News Showcase deal?

Neither Boucher nor Kyne could confidently say what might happen to Newshub’s financial contract with the tech giant. The deals are typically predicated on a mix of head count, revenue and audience size, all of which are likely to drastically change. Google did not respond to The Spinoff’s request for comment by publication time.

How do Newshub staff feel about this?

“It’s better than nothing, and it’ll be good for some people,” said one Newshub staffer characterising the mood. “But it’s not going to save Newshub, and it’s not going to save many jobs. The vibe is quite deflated.” They went on to say that “Newshub people are thinking, how can they do the bulletin in any way like what we had?”

Another told The Spinoff they were pleased there would be something at 6pm. “Good on Stuff for stepping up,” said another longtime Newshub staffer. “Details so far are light though. [We’re] not expecting a lifeline for many staff, and getting tired of the rollercoaster.” 

How do current and former Stuff staff feel about it?

Multiple current Stuff staffers expressed enthusiasm about it, in terms of an opportunity to become a more rounded and scaled video player. “It seems pretty exciting – good to see us showing ambition.” Another believed it represented a huge opportunity for Stuff, and believed it capable of delivering a strong product. They said even limited employment opportunities were welcome at a time like this. “No one begrudges anyone going to get work,” they said. Another described the general feeling as “cautiously optimistic”, while saying there was concern that it might mean “more work for a newsroom already stretched to breaking point”.

Former staff were less hot on the idea, however. “Stuff is very good at getting distracted by pet projects which they sink a lot of money into, for minimal return, while ignoring the core business and the fact staff morale sinks lower and lower,” said one.

Another told The Spinoff that “I wish them well but I truly have no idea how they’re going to pull it off, and using what money. The ‘transformation’ of the Stuff business has meant widespread confusion and the loss of jobs and support to do meaningful reporting for many Stuff journalists.” A third ex-Stuff staffer said “it strikes me as another adventure Stuff will embark on. If the past tells us anything about the future, this move will result in the company once again ‘flailing around’ instead of focusing on its core business.”

Where do Stuff and WBD leadership see this going?

Change is often greeted with trepidation within organisations, especially those that have been managing decline. But both Boucher and Kyne are at pains to underline that while this partnership begins with a 6pm bulletin, that does not have to be where it ends. 

“We’re helping Stuff, to some degree, build capability in this area,” says Kyne. “The partnership allows us to innovate even further into the future. And so when we think about declining linear audiences, but growing digital audiences, it’s the art of the possible now that we have created a partnership.” 

Kyne’s point is that in an imagined post-recessionary future, with more digital audiences, Stuff could plausibly pitch more news and current affairs products in years to come, once it has proved the ability to economically deliver a video news product. This is something Boucher too is keen to hammer home. 

“The audience on ThreeNow for news is growing. The digital audience is growing,” she says. “I think what we both like is – what’s the next product after this? How do we keep evolving?”

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