Hi Friend,

I missed this email last week from the Taxpayers' Union, and I wanted to make sure you had seen it too.

I have seen the way media managers get bullied by their own increasingly more "woke" leftwing newsrooms.

I believe in this idea from the Taxpayers' Union to prevent Government subsidies from turning down paid advertising on political grounds. This Bill would change the conversations in our media companies. It’s crucial that we fight for a more balanced media landscape. <[link removed]>

This Bill will ensure media outlets that are in some part funded by taxpayer dollars to become common carriers. This means they would share advertising without policing or altering it.

I've just chipped in to fund this campaign, and I hope you will too. <[link removed]>


Peter Williams
(Former Broadcaster and long-time supporter of the Taxpayers’ Union)

From: Jordan Williams
Date: Thursday, 15 August 2024 at 4:34PM 
Subject: Media companies now censoring political advertising

Hi Friend,

This note is longer than usual, but a really important issue to do with the Taxpayers' Union's ability to do its job and communicate with the public.

I know a lot of New Zealanders are concerned about media 'bias' or capture. It's become clear that it's now affecting not just newsrooms, but the advertising arms of our large media companies – almost all of whom take taxpayer money. We think the only solution is a Parliamentary Bill to stop editorial preference being applied to paid advocacy or political advertising. We are fundraising so we can instruct our lawyers to draft a bill and to campaign for MPs to pass it. <[link removed]>

They went for Hobson's Pledge, now the Taxpayers' Union is having ads censored



As a result of the brouhaha about the "one law for all" group, Hobson's Pledge, placing an advertisement in the NZ Herald, the ability of the Taxpayers' Union to book advertising with NZ's largest newspaper company – and speak directly to the public on matters the media aren't necessarily covering – is under threat.

In case you missed it, the background to the Hobson's Pledge matter is covered by Radio NZ here. <[link removed]> They placed an advert which caused Te Pāti Māori and some academics to go berserk.

The merits of the advert/policy debate in their ad aren't the purpose of this email. The beach ownership issue isn't in our wheelhouse of taxes, spending, and accountability.

But my heart sunk when the Taxpayers' Union received an email yesterday from NZME (the owners of the NZ Herald) when we asked what spaces were available for tomorrow's NZ Herald and Saturday's Weekend Herald.

We were told:

"we are currently reviewing our policy regarding Advocacy advertising. As such, the previous policy with booking in, and then legal reviewing material etc. is also under review.

In the first instance, if we could please have an indication of content and creative of your advert [...] before we could book anything in."

Basically, what NZME now want to do is screen every advert before they will even tell us what slots are available and/or the price.

The media already cherrypicks who you can hear from in reporting. Now they want to cherrypick what paying advertisers are allowed to say. 

Friend, as you know, newsrooms simply won't cover some issues. The safeguard is the ability to buy advertising space and speak directly to the public. But even that is now under threat.

Recall that in the early days of our Three Waters campaign neither the media (nor the politicians) would touch it with a barge pole. Paid advertising allowed us to force the issue onto the public agenda.

Applying editorial discretion to political/advocacy advertisements seriously undermines the Taxpayers' Union's ability to be effective.

It's also hypocritical of NZME. They don't editorialise the ads for classifieds (including for brothels!) on page 15, but are now demanding to do so for advocacy groups wanting to advertise on page 5.  

Remember, all of our adverts go past lawyers before they are published (to make sure we can justify claims made and that we are complying with advertising standards). Now, NZME want to screen them before they'll even offer bookings.

We do not think it's right to be forced to negotiate with media on what is and isn't appropriate for print – so long as it is based in evidence and fact. If you agree, help us fight back and ensure NZME's management see the error in their ways. <[link removed]>

The real problem is that the media are allowing themselves to be bullied. By announcing that they are now screening adverts, they will make the problem ten times worse!

Instead of rejecting the online outrage mob, NZME are emboldening the censors.

The practical implications for our work fighting for taxpayers

Here at the Taxpayers' Union, we always want to ensure our donors' money goes as far as possible.  We often pick up last minute full page or premium advertising spots going cheap.

You will have seen this in our emails where we need [x] amount to fund a particular advert in a tight deadline. We can do that as, unlike the big corporates, we can (and do!) turn around advertising creative very quickly.

Occasionally, we have to make small changes based on lawyers' feedback – which we seldom complain about – but by then we already have space/placements locked in.

Under this this new policy (which they have implemented, despite just saying it's a 'review'), NZME are no longer willing to tell us what advertising slots are even available.

With no transparency on what these new standards are or how they will be applied, it appears NZME just want discretion on what to offer (and for how much) depending on the content.

The "Public Interest Journalism Fund" strikes again?

NZME were the largest beneficiaries of the so-called "Public Interest Journalism Fund".

Its $6.9 million is more than double what TVNZ and TV3/Discovery took!

We say that if media take funding from the taxpayer, they should be required to run political advocacy ads without selection or bias.

NZME are also set to be big winners under the new " <[link removed]>Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill" which was originally Willie Jackson's bill. It was slammed by National when they were in Opposition, but has now been picked up by Paul Goldsmith and the National-led Government.

We need to push back and ensure that media taking public money can't also pick and choose who can run paid adverts.

Friend, if we cannot make the media change their tune now, imagine how difficult it will be at the next election when there is an empowered Labour/Green/TPM potential coalition!

But we're in a tricky position. The Taxpayers' Union cannot bite the hand that feeds us: our ability to advocate for taxpayers includes being able to reliably get issues into the media.

But on the other hand, if NZME's new approach is left to stand, we will be boxed-in to only being able to advertise on issues the editors (or the online mob) deem acceptable. We cannot let that stand. <[link removed]>

Friend, the team spent this morning strategising about the best way forward. We can't 'go to war' with the media without jeopardising our effectiveness in working with the media to expose government waste and promote transparency.

We've come up with a solution, but we need your backing to pull it off... <[link removed]>

Will you support an Advertising (Anti-Discrimination for Publicly-funded Media) Bill?

I think most would agree that private media companies should be able to accept or reject any advertisement they want. The problem here is that NZME both claims poverty (and takes millions of taxpayer's money) but then rejects other sources of revenue (i.e. advertising) because of editorial or political preference.

And it's not just NZME. Stuff are guilty of the same, and even Allied Press (the publishers of the Otago Daily Times). NZME have tended to be the staunchest in standing up to the outrage mob (until now, that is).

If we can raise the funds, we will have our lawyers draft a Parliamentary bill to require media companies that take taxpayer money not to discriminate or turn down paid advertising on the basis of political or editorial preference. 

The Bill would be suitable for either the Government to adopt, or any backbench MP to sponsor as a member's bill.

Of course advertisements that are dishonest, misleading, or otherwise breach advertising standards wouldn't be protected. But it would mean that editors could not buckle to public pressure (or apply their own newsroom's political preferences) to pick and choose who gets a voice.

In effect, it would require those media outlets operating on the public purse to be "common carriers" for advertisers.

Those companies that don't take taxpayer handouts would be unaffected.

If you agree this law is needed, chip-in to make it happen. <[link removed]>

With your support, we can ensure a Parliamentary Bill is ready to go.

Friend, our Three Waters Bill was bigger than Ben Hur but (so far at least) the Government has adopted all of our key provisions.

We've done it before, and can do it again! Without the Taxpayers' Union to lead this, no one will fix the problem.

>> Click here to sponsor a Bill and campaign to stop media companies censoring adverts. <[link removed]>

Are the Government really going to vote down a Bill that requires media to be fair?

Your support will make it possible. <[link removed]>

<[link removed]>

Thank you for your support, 


Jordan Williams
Executive Director
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

ps. Every dollar donated on this page will be used to fight for a more balanced media landscape. Will you chip in and make this happen? <[link removed]>



-=-=-
New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc. - 117 Lambton Quay, Level 4, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
This email was sent to [email protected]. To stop receiving emails: [link removed]
-=-=-

Created with NationBuilder - [link removed]