We learned a lot from last week’s reader survey. Mostly we were reminded that the things that are important to us are important to our readers as well.
We asked a number of pointed questions around how, for instance, we cover controversial subjects, or subjects that engage with policy, and therefore ‘politics’.
We have a bulletproof commitment to facts, but how far do we go when expressing values—the underlying hopes and concerns that frame the way we think about the world and act within it.
What do we report on? What do we value? What assumptions can we or should we make about what is important to our audience?
NZGeo is a reassuring haven of commitment and scientific sensibility in a world where misinformation and lack of knowledge seems to be increasingly prevalent. MH
Almost every comment in the 130 pages of open text fields from readers boil down to values—how we present information, whether we comment on policy, how much context we add before pulling back to allow the reader to make their own assessment.
Throughout this piece I will drop in some of the direct quotes from readers—both supportive and critical—to show the range of opinion. No matter where readers are on the political spectrum, they all care deeply about which stories we tell and how we tell them. And for that we’re very grateful.
We need evidence for issues we may not have thought deeply about. Evidence is not political. HC
These are reader statements we can agree with. But in practice it’s rarely this clear. Policy is often owned by a party or MP or associated with the sitting government. We very rarely single out parties or politicians, but after 35 years of reporting on subjects over and over and over again we have a well-developed radar for high-quality environmental policy, and political greenwash. Governments in both the left and right make it up as they go along and offer politically expedient policy.
I was a foundation subscriber because I am interested in the natural world. I am now losing interest in your stories because of the deviation into ’causes’ rather than facts. DJ
We have been accused of being woke greenie lefties, but we have only taken the government to the High Court once, and it was the Labour government. (We were involved in and wrote an affidavit in support of litigation with the Environmental Law Initiative to oppose an increase in the crayfish quota in Northland, where our reporting strongly suggested that further exploitation would lead to ecosystem collapse. Our case hinged on the premise that then Minister of Conservation, David Parker, needed to consider best available evidence when making a decision, and take into account the interdependency of species. He did neither. We won. And yet we still get called apologists for the left.)
If one cares about the environment and respects science, the only logical stance is one that some people will regard as ‘leftie or green’. If someone accuses me of being a greenie, I ask them, ‘What possible excuse is there for being anything else?’ Some values will save the world, others won’t. KM
The number of readers who referenced the political left or right demonstrates how polarised these environmental issues have become. I can’t figure out why.
We live in the environment. We work in the environment. So will our grandchildren. It is the foundation of our society and our economy. There is a fundamental dependency between all human life and the integrity of our atmosphere, forests, waterways, seas. If we are human, the state of the environment should be among our top priorities. Sure, there may be short-term considerations that rise to the surface more immediately. But when scientists are sounding the alarm in a way that scientists rarely do, why should only the lefties respond? Surely the political right has more to lose?
It was a National government that kicked off our most ambitious environmental project, Predator Free 2050. It was National that proposed the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. Yes, there were problems with both of those projects, but they were moonshots, they were always going to be hard. Why has environmental policy become dominated by the left, and seen as a tradable commodity for the right? Or is there a whopping disconnect between political parties and their constituency?
I think anything science based is considered ‘left’ and ‘green’ these days and I don’t know how that has happened. MV
What is a media outlet to do? We could start by consulting our readers. Staking out our position, then explaining it. It’s practically impossible to avoid being critical of authorities when covering the environment today, and as I have already noted, to do so would mean our stories were incomplete, or at another level, untrue.
Not reporting how legislation/policy affects issues you are covering would be dishonest—we need to know the consequences of our voting decisions. KC
There are few subject areas in New Zealand that don’t rub up against human values, human impact and public policy. It is clear to us, and evidently to you as well, that being a media outlet in 2024 involves engaging more deeply in our journalistic role than simply reporting facts.
We also have a duty to consider the consequences of our personal, public and political settings. And then the consequences of those consequences.
Climate change, for instance, requires a response far larger than the individual, indeed larger than a single nation state. So we engage. We do so honestly. If one political party invites criticism more than another, well, not our problem I guess.
You aren’t necessarily political, but you should ensure that impartiality is a fundamental value of the magazine, so you always maintain your mana. MF
Can we come together here? Can we acknowledge that we want the same outcomes? That we want a New Zealand that is fair and thriving and yet also has an abundant, diverse and rich natural environment.
We need to get out of our corners and move to the centre to figure this out, together. We live on a small archipelago at the end of the world. There’s room enough for all of us, and our industry, and a resurgent environment.
*
What about New Zealand Geographic’s commercial responsibility?
A few months ago we collided headlong with our own value set, and the story of how we grappled with the problem illustrates how difficult these conflicts are to negotiate.
The cancellation of the electric vehicle subsidy (coined the ‘ute tax’) saw a sudden rush of advertising for heavy SUVs and utility vehicles as automotive manufacturers scrambled to make up lost ground. We had sold a page to one such manufacturer without knowing what vehicle they intended to promote. The art eventually came in the day before press deadline, featuring a huge black ute on a mountain peak and invited readers to “unlock Beast mode”. In the context of the issue, which also included stories on red-billed gulls being driven to extinction by climate change and a new effort to collect ocean data to understand the effect of emissions, it was a huge clanger.
It is not being political to state positions and observe differences. JB
We went back to the advertiser and asked for alternative art, suggesting it would be a poor fit. The disagreed, we were hard against the deadline, and the ad ran.
We fielded complaints from subscribers who said that the image of a gas-guzzling ute didn’t square with the values of the magazine, especially in a climate crisis.
We agreed. But as we had discovered, disagreeing with the art when it turned up was too late, we would have to come up with a clear advertising policy that covered the products and services we would reject, and turn them away at the door.
Yet these are strident economic times, and as publisher, I also have a responsibility to keep the lights on, to employ my staff, to deliver promised value to subscribers. A quick tally suggested that the package of advertising for the ute was worth 25% of the entire advertising revenue of that issue. This policy was going to have commercial consequences, but the reputational costs of aligning with products or services that didn’t reflect our values would also be costly in the long-term.
I’m not a leftie. I think you have your work cut out to avoid being the house magazine of a utopian socialist Green Party. But even on the ‘right’ of the political/economic spectrum there is a strong belief in recognising and regulating/internalising externalities. I really like your science forward approach. I think it allows you to provide perspective that might not otherwise make it in to the broader discourse in this increasingly polarised world. NL
This tension between journalism and advertising is centuries old, and has always been resolved through a church-and-state relationship between the commercial arm of a publishing business which sells ads, and its editorial arm which should be independent. We have witnessed those boundaries erode in recent years with sponsored content sometimes dressed up as editorial. We have also seen consumers question whether that separation is enough. Think of the furore that erupted when the New Zealand Herald ran a full page cover ad for Hobson’s Pledge. Think of the criticism Facebook faces for criminal activity on their platform, even live videos of mass shootings.
We decided to side with the readers. We were going to start rejecting ads based on content. You will no longer see ads from the fossil fuel sector in this magazine. Nor airlines. We will even begin marking up ads for international tourism with advice on how to offset emissions.
For the automotive sector, we want to support the electrification of our transport fleet, so the policy is more nuanced: We will accept ads for electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids which can be used to a significant degree in electric mode. We decided that hybrids—though more efficient—were nonetheless substantially powered by fossil fuels. To be clear, we don’t have a problem with a practical calculation to drive an existing internal combustion engine vehicle rather than buyer a new EV, we just don’t think we should be promoting combustion engines to our 387,000 readers.
In an ongoing climate disaster that there should be more forceful, scientific opinions expressed. NP
Any ideological warm fuzzy we allowed ourselves from taking this stand was replaced by immediate, searing financial pain. Within 24 hours we had to turn down $11,500 for a heavy “hybrid” SUV advertisement—the hybrid drive train didn’t forgive the fact it was a petrol-powered tank. A week later we turned down more advertising from a natural gas supplier. It was a robust lesson in morality: sometimes it’s going to really hurt.
Later, however, the ute advertiser told us they respected our position and would run an advertisement for their new plug-in hybrid in the following issue. It was then that we realised this was not just about perception and morality—387,000 people would have their buying decision influenced by an ad for an electric vehicle rather than a petrol one. It was a double benefit in terms of social change.
It may even be beneficial for other advertisers. While they are ‘renting’ our audience to meet their own objectives, they also rely on our reputation and integrity, and want to see that enhanced rather than diminished. Today you can look at the advertisers in this magazine and know their products and services have met a higher bar.
We’re proud of our advertising policy. It may turn out to be costly, but all choices have costs. And if we don’t meet the costs of our values, we’re asking our readers to meet them, and that doesn’t appear to be fair.
*
I can’t write this piece and gloss over the very deep feelings readers have around coverage of Te Tiriti in the magazine, or indeed in wider public conversation. This is a subject of discontent centuries old, and inflamed by controversial legislation on both sides of government—Labour’s Seabed and Foreshore Act and more recently Act’s Treaty Principles Bill. It is simplistic to frame this as left versus right politics. It comes down to what the treaty is and isn’t.
Founding editor Kennedy Warne’s opinion piece this month laid out the historical context of the treaty and made two observations that have not been covered well in daily media: The Treaty is not about race, it is an agreement between two peoples; and, Pākehā are not a party to the Treaty, it is a contract between the Crown and Māori.
While the piece was framed as opinion, it relied on the facts. The story received both enthusiastic support and bitter vitriol. Tens of subscribers cancelled, suggesting we had crossed a line.
Cut the leftist woke divisive BS and you will attract more readers. SB
But is it not New Zealand Geographic’s role to peel away the controversary and resentment and carefully examine the historical context and the deeper values at play? Most readers agreed.
I like the way you include Māori features and issues—like Māori are part of our society. You don’t have the tone of many other media who write about Māori as ‘them’. MW
A number of readers noted that while they would like us to take a more principled political position, they also recognise that it could turn other readers off, that there was greater value in being the reasonable commentator. That our role was in speaking to a general audience rather than being a niche publication with an agreeing audience.
This is the opposite of the ‘filter bubble’ of social media, and many of you appear to seek out NZGeo because of this.
I read NZGeo to broaden my scope. Even the topics I normally wouldn’t pick, when they’re in the print I give them a lot more time of day and, 9 times out of 10, I’m stoked I read it. KW
This is the value of values. You need to know when to stand up and talk, and when to sit down and listen. Your guidance on this has been instructive and encouraging and we look forward to playing our role for some time yet.
