Davis then claims that Keith gets nothing for that tiny speck of tax he pays towards RNZ. This of course is also incorrect.
Keith gets something back every day of the week because high-quality news and cultural content is good for our country as a whole. RNZ holds the powerful to account and that is a benefit to Keith. If that impacts how much this Government does or doesn’t invest in this country, that certainly affects Keith and the number of swimming pools he installs.
Yes, we have other news media that hold the Government to account too but RNZ is among news media that are more questioning of the Government, even though it is funded directly by the Government. As an example, Winston Peters does not get angry quite so often as he does on RNZ National. RNZ also challenged Labour in Government.
Unlike some news media, RNZ does not play favourites, nor does it skew “left” or “right”. If it skews anything, it skews “thoughtful” rather than “blokey entertainment”.
That may be why Keith doesn’t listen on his way to work each morning. But it is not up to RNZ to create content specifically for Keith just because he pays tax, like most New Zealanders. Keith probably doesn’t go to primary school either, but should primary schools have some special sessions for Keith so he gets personal value out of his taxes?
Davis’ column was no doubt instigated as much by the recent news of RNZ’s audience dropping again – where RNZ National was once the most-listened-to station, it is now further down the rankings.
On the other hand, RNZ’s website and podcast audiences are increasing and RNZ shares its content across many other platforms, so its reach is actually far greater than the ratings on its radio services.
But the whole point of public media is that it is not actually about audience ratings. RNZ should not, does not and cannot appeal to everyone. It is not funded by the Government to be the junk food of the radio world.
Not relying on advertising for funding means RNZ is unafraid to air long interviews that some people are not interested in. It is willing to challenge some listeners’ aversion to hearing te reo Māori on air.
It does not try to hold on to every listener it can for as long as possible. This makes RNZ content so valuable to New Zealand because it is thoughtful, less trashy and more culturally diverse (or at least it tries to be).
Previously, RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson sought to increase RNZ’s audiences, as a sign of value for taxpayer money. This expectation of reaching more Kiwis was echoed by successive broadcasting and media ministers, including Paul Goldsmith, but it really misses the point.
An important part of public media is about filling the gaps left by commercial news media, unless it’s funded properly like the ABC in Australia and the BBC in the UK. It’s interesting that Keith has heard of the hugely resourced BBC but not RNZ. Maybe if RNZ were better funded, it would be different.
And of course, the irony is that if RNZ did start to appeal to a more populist audience, the first to shout about it would be the commercial radio companies who might lose audiences as a result.
There was an outcry from other media when RNZ advertised itself on a few billboards around the country. And there was opposition from commercial media to RNZ’s proposed youth radio channel proposal.
It seems that RNZ is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
