Kia ora koutou. Ko Ngāpuhi tōku iwi. Ko Ngāti Manu toku hapu. Ko Karetu tōku marae. Ko Myles Thomas toku ingoa.

I grew up with David Beatson, on the telly. Back in the 1970s, he read the late news which I watched in bed with my parents. Later, David and I worked together to save TVNZ 7 and also regional TV stations.

The Better Public Media (BPM) trust honours David each year with our memorial address, because his fight for non-commercial TV was an honourable one. He wasn’t doing it for himself.

• READ MORE: Other Better Public Media reports
• Better Public Media website

He wasn’t doing it so he could get a job or because it would benefit him. He fought for public media because he knew it was good for Aotearoa NZ.

Like us at Better Public Media, he recognised the benefits to our country from locally produced public media.

David knew, from a long career in media, including as editor of The Listener and as Jim Bolger’s press secretary, that NZ’s media plays an important role in our nation’s culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

NZ culture is very important. NZ culture is so unique and special, yet it has always been at risk of being swamped by content from overseas. The US especially with its crackpot conspiracies, extreme racial tensions, and extreme tensions about everything to be honest.

Local content the antidote
Local content is the antidote to this. It reflects us, it portrays us, it defines New Zealand, and whether we like it or not, it defines us. But it’s important to remember that what we see reflected back to us comes through a filter.

This speech is coming to you through a filter, called Myles Thomas.

Commercial news reflects our world through a filter of sensation and danger to hold our attention. That makes NZ seem more shallow, greedy, fearful and dangerous.

The social media filter makes the world seem more angry, reactive and complaining.
RNZ’s filter is, I don’t know, thoughtful, a bit smug, middle class.

The New Zealand Herald filter makes us think every dairy is being ram-raided every night.

And The Spinoff filter suggests NZ is hip, urban and mildly infatuated with Winston Peters.

These cultural reflections are very important actually because they influence us, how we see NZ and its people.

It is not a commodity
That makes content, cultural content, special. It is not a commodity. It’s not milk powder.

We don’t drink milk and think about flooding in Queenstown, drinking milk doesn’t make us laugh about the Koiwoi accent, we don’t drink milk and identify with a young family living in poverty.

Local content is rich and powerful, and important to our society.

When the government supports the local media production industry it is actually supporting the audiences and our culture. Whether it is Te Mangai Paho, or NZ On Air or the NZ Film Commission, and the screen production rebate, these organisations fund New Zealand’s identity and culture, and success.

Don’t ask Treasury how to fund culture. Accountants don’t understand it, they can’t count it and put it in a spreadsheet, like they can milk solids. Of course they’ll say such subsidies or rebates distort the “market”, that’s the whole point. The market doesn’t work for culture.

Moreover, public funding of films and other content fosters a more stable long-term industry, rather than trashy short-termism that is completely vulnerable to outside pressures, like the US writer’s strike.

We have a celebrated content production industry. Our films, video, audio, games etc. More local content brings stability to this industry, which by the way also brings money into the country and fosters tourism.

We cannot use quota
New Zealand needs more local content.

And what’s more, it needs to be accessible to audiences, on the platforms that they use.

But in NZ we do have one problem. Unlike Australia, we can’t use a quota because our GATT agreement does not include a carve out for local music or media quotas.

In the 1990s when GATT was being negotiated, the Aussies added an exception to their GATT agreement allowing a quota for Aussie cultural content. So they can require radio stations to play a certain amount of local music. Now they’re able to introduce a Netflix quota for up to 20 percent of all revenue generated in Aussie.

We can’t do that. Why? Because back in the 1990s the Bolger government and MFAT decided against putting the same exception into NZ’s GATT agreement.

But there is another way of doing it, if we take a lead from Denmark and many European states. Which I’ll get to in a minute.

The second important benefit of locally produced public media is social cohesion, how society works, the peace and harmony and respect that we show each other in public, depends heavily on the “public sphere”, of which, media is a big part.

Power of media to polarise
Extensive research in Europe and North America shows the power of media to polarise society, which can lead to misunderstanding, mistrust and hatred.

But media can also strengthen social cohesion, particularly for minority communities, and that same research showed that public media, otherwise known as public service media, is widely regarded to be an important contributor to tolerance in society, promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities and generations.

The third benefit is democracy. Very topical at the moment. I’ve already touched on how newsmedia affect our culture. More directly, our newsmedia influences the public dialogue over issues of the day.

It defines that dialogue. It is that dialogue.

So if our newsmedia is shallow and vacuous ignoring policies and focussing on the polls and the horse-race, then politicians who want to be elected, tailor their messages accordingly.

There’s plenty of examples of this such as National’s bootcamp policy, or Labour’s removing GST on food. As policies, neither is effective. But in the simplified 30 seconds of commercial news and headlines, these policies resonate.

Is that a good thing, that policies that are known to fail are nonetheless followed because our newsmedia cater to our base instincts and short attention spans?

Disaster for democracy
In my view, commercial media is actually disaster for democracy. All over the world.

But of course, we can’t control commercial media. No-one’s suggesting that.

The only rational reaction is to provide stronger locally produced public media.

And unfortunately, NZ lacks public media.

Obviously Australia, the UK, Canada have more public media than us, they have more people, they can afford it. But what about countries our size, Ireland? Smaller population, much more public media.

Denmark, Norway, Finland, all with roughly 5 million people, and all have significantly better public media than us. Even after the recent increases from Willie Jackson, NZ still spends just $44 per person on public media. $44 each year.

When we had a licence fee it was $110. Jim Bolger’s government got rid of that and replaced it with funding from general taxation — which means every year the Minister of Finance, working closely with Treasury, decides how much to spend on public media for that year.

This is what I call the curse of annual funding, because it makes funding public media a very political decision.

National, let us be honest, the National Party hates public media, maybe because they get nicer treatment on commercial news. We see this around the world — the Daily Mail, Sky News Australia, Newstalk ZB . . . most commercial media quite openly favours the right.

Systemic bias
This is a systemic bias. Because right-wing newsmedia gets more clicks.

Right-wing politicians are quite happy about that. Why fund public to get in the way? Even if it it benefits our culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

New Zealand is the same, the last National government froze RNZ funding for nine years.

National Party spokesperson on broadcasting Melissa Lee fought against the ANZPM merger, and now she’s fighting the News Bargaining Bill. As minister she could cut RNZ and NZ On Air’s budget.

But it wouldn’t just be cost-cutting. It would actually be political interference in our newsmedia, an attempt to skew the national conversation in favour of the National Party, by favouring commercial media.

So Aotearoa NZ needs two things. More money to be spent on public media, and less control by the politicians. Sustainable funding basically.

The best way to achieve it is a media levy.

Highly targeted tax
For those who don’t know, a levy is a tax that is highly targeted, and we have a lot of them, like the Telecommunications Development Levy (or TDL) which currently gathers $10 million a year from internet service providers like Spark and 2 Degrees to pay for rural broadband.

We’re all paying for better internet for farmers basically. When first introduced by the previous National government it collected $50 million but it’s dropped down a bit lately.

This is one of many levies that we live with and barely notice. Like the levy we pay on our insurance to cover the Earthquake Commission and the Fire and Emergency Levy. There are maritime levies, energy levies to fund EECA and Waka Kotahi, levies on building consents for MBIE, a levy on advertising pays for the ASA, the BSA is funded by a levy.

Lots of levies and they’re very effective.

So who could the media levy, levy?

ISPs like the TDL? Sure, raise the TDL back up to $50 million or perhaps higher, and it only adds a dollar onto everyone’s internet bill. There’s $50 million.

But the real target should be Big Tech, social media and large streaming services. I’m talking about Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and so on. These are the companies that have really profited from the advent of online media, and at the expense of locally produced public media.

Funding content creation
We need a way to get these companies to make, or at least fund, content creation here in Aotearoa. Denmark recently proposed a solution to this problem with an innovative levy of 2 percent on the revenue of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney.

But that 2 percent rises to 5 percent if the streaming company doesn’t spend at least 5 percent of their revenue on making local Danish content. Denmark joins many other European countries already doing this — Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Romania are all about to levy the streamers to fund local production.

Australia is planning to do so as well.

But that’s just online streaming companies. There’s also social media and search engines which contribute nothing and take almost all the commercial revenue. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill will address that to a degree but it’s not open and we won’t know if the amounts are fair.

Another problem is that it’s only for news publishers — not drama or comedy producers, not on-demand video, not documentary makers or podcasters. Social media and search engines frequently feature and put advertising around these forms of content, and hoover up the digital advertising that would otherwise help fund them, so they should also contribute to them.

A Media Levy can best be seen as a levy on those companies that benefit from media on the internet, but don’t contribute to the public benefits of media — culture, social cohesion and democracy. And that’s why the Media Levy can include internet service providers, and large companies that sell digital advertising and subscriptions.

Note, this would target large companies over a certain size and revenue, and exclude smaller platforms, like most levies do.

Separate from annual budget
The huge benefit of a levy is that it is separate from the annual budget, so it’s fiscally neutral, and politicians can’t get their mits on it. It removes the curse of annual funding.

It creates a funding stream derived from the actual commercial media activities which produce the distribution gaps in the first place, for which public media compensates. That’s why the proceeds would go to the non-commercial platform and the funding agencies — Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air and the Film Commission.

One final point. This wouldn’t conflict with the new Digital Services Tax proposed by the government because that’s a replacement for Income Tax. A Media Levy, like all levies, sits over and above income tax.

So there we go. I’ve mentioned Jim Bolger three times! I’ve also outlined some quite straight-forward methods to fund public media sustainably, and to fund a significant increase in local content production, video, film, audio and journalism.

None of it needs to be within the grasp of Melissa Lee or Willie Jackson, or David Seymour.

All of it can be used to create local content that improves democracy, social cohesion and Kiwi culture.

Myles Thomas is a trustee of the Better Public Media Trust (BPM). He is a former television producer and director who in 2012 established the Save TVNZ 7 campaign. Thomas is now studying law. This speech was this year’s David Beatson Memorial Address delivered at a public meeting in Grey Lynn last night on broadcast policy for the NZ election 2023.

Former TVNZ Breakfast host Kamahl Santamaria, who quit following complaints about inappropriate workplace behaviour, has broken his silence and started a podcast he says would “set some records straight”.

The Emmy-nominated broadcaster lasted just 32 days at TVNZ after working at Al Jazeera, where he had also been accused of having sent a lewd email to a female colleague.

Speaking publicly for the first time in more than a year, Santamaria talked about the allegations, the effect they have had and how the reporting of them had led to his new website The Balance.

• READ MORE: Kamahl Santamaria – the official website
• Other Kamahl Santamaria reports

“It is very much informed and directed by my own experience over the past year, and yes I will be using it to set some records straight,” he told listeners in the first episode of his podcast, RE: Balance.

“Because in the end, I trust myself to tell my story.”

Santamaria said he had been a journalist for nearly 25 years, but for the last year had had to live with the label of being “a disgraced journalist”.

“That’s not a pleasant title to live with but that’s how it’s been ever since my departure from TVNZ in May of last year,” he said.

‘Full story yet to be told’
For legal reasons, Santamaria said he had not spoken about his departure from TVNZ — but he told listeners he would when he is able.

“The full story has definitely not been told, yet,” he said.

“The headline doesn’t always match the story, and countering that is a big part of what I’m embarking on with The Balance.

Santamaria said what happened had forced him to stop, look at himself and his behaviour in the past, and acknowledge there were times when he just got it wrong.

“I am deeply sorry for that and for the effect I have now learned that it had on others,” he said.

He said they also prompted him to look at the environments he was working in.

“What I failed to recognise was particularly in a post ‘Me Too’ world, there is just no place for over friendly, over-familiar, flirtatious, tactile behaviour or banter in the workplace no matter how friendly that workplace is or how prevalent that behaviour might be.

Mistakes impacted on health
“I’ve made mistakes but I hope my past doesn’t define who I am in the future.”

Santamaria said the effect on his mental health and that of his family has been “immense, dilapidating and long-lasting” and “it still goes on now”.

He revealed he had been in hiding for a year “growing a beard, always wearing a cap”, afraid to use his own name, and that he is on medication.

Santamaria referred to a report about his visit to the National Business Review, which he said was the “one time” we went out publicly and a journalist turned it into a story.

He said the journalist wrote about how uncomfortable he made people feel by just shaking their hands.

“The whole thing was utterly ridiculous to the point now where I don’t even shake people’s hands anymore.”

Santamaria disclosed that in the early stages, he had been on heavy medication during the day and sedation at night, and the family had him on a round-the-clock suicide watch.

He said he had been in no position, physically or mentally, to speak up for himself at the time.

“The fact that I am still here now is a testament to my family who kept me alive when I didn’t want to go on and they continue to do so,” he said.

First published by The New Zealand Herald and republished here with the author’s permission.

The revelations last week of toxic workplace behaviour and a “boys’ club” culture at MediaWorks raise questions about organisational policies and processes that go well beyond a single company.

The MediaWorks review by Maria Dew QC identified instances of bullying, sexism, harassment, inappropriate relationships and use of illegal drugs. Her report’s 32 recommendations will now inform a culture change plan at the company.

The case provides a warning and an example for other organisations looking to improve their own cultures. But it also underlines how pervasive and resistant to change these problems can be — as our own research has shown.

• READ MORE: Depression, burnout, insomnia, headaches: how a toxic and sexist workplace culture can affect your health
  
• Women don’t speak up over workplace harassment because no one hears them if they do
  
• The real cost of workplace sexual harassment to businesses
  
• Scathing MediaWorks review reveals ‘boys’ club culture’, bullying and racism

We analysed three years of reflections by tertiary human resources (HR) students who had just completed a training session on sexual harassment processes and responses. While all felt they better understood definitions of sexual harassment and bullying after the course, they also felt there was a lack of consequences for the harassers, and that victims often lose everything.

More concerning, the students almost unanimously said they would be unlikely to raise the matter if they witnessed an act of harassment. Many also felt they would find it difficult to speak up about or improve inadequate HR policies or processes they might find at future employers.

They felt to do so would be a “black mark” on their own career development. While many “hoped” they would speak out, they were unsure how they would act in reality. Those who had experienced sexual harassment themselves reflected on how “difficult it is to make a complaint”.

#LATEST: MediaWorks investigation uncovers multiple sexual assault, racism, sexism, drug use allegations, CEO ‘unreservedly apologises’ https://t.co/eU2WWH0Zca

— Newshub ENT (@NewshubENT) August 4, 2021

HR is part of the culture
This last observation is important. Not unlike the findings in the recent Christchurch Girls High School survey, close to half of the HR students reported instances of either experiencing or witnessing an act of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Most reported they would likely “remain silent and just leave” if faced with instances of harassment in their future professional lives. Simply put, as other research has also shown, we found sexual harassment was experienced as a “normal” and complex part of working within a corporate environment.

This is not a criticism of HR students, who will no doubt move on to become ethical, high-performing professionals. In fact, their responses mirror those we see across employee groups.

But our study is unique — most research has focused on managerial or employee experiences of sexual harassment, whereas ours involves practitioners who play a critical role in harassment policy design and implementation, as well as in developing work cultures intolerant of harassment.

To see such responses in a group that is often blamed for organisational failure by high-profile inquiries suggests we first need to acknowledge that HR people themselves are working within a wider culture that can inhibit meaningful change.

TONIGHT: The dark side of one of our largest broadcasting companies. I’ve spoken to current & former Mediaworks radio staff who say they have no faith a current culture review will lead to change, partly because it’s claimed the problems are coming from the top. 6pm tonight. pic.twitter.com/hzX7bJpX13

— Kristin Hall (@kristinhallNZ) May 19, 2021

Why workers don’t speak up
The responses in our research reflect the expectations of a corporate culture these future leaders are already well versed in — that to speak up means potentially sacrificing your own professional progression, or risking being seen as someone who “can’t take a joke”.

Many people will understand this dilemma, which is not limited to speaking up about harassment and bullying. Those who speak up against racism and discrimination based on sexual orientation or disability face similar issues.

If even those charged with developing processes to support positive work cultures are not confident in speaking up, how do organisations do better? This is surely an issue of critical importance to all New Zealand organisations, given recent reports suggesting the problem is widespread and certainly not limited to high-profile cases.

As the Mediaworks report showed, solutions have to go beyond fixing the support processes for employees who have experienced harassment, and involve confronting the largely invisible drivers of toxic organisational culture.

These are not easily captured in a traditional “organisational values” statement. The idea of “culture” extends to the language, behaviours and micro-interactions we have with one another every day.

Our research participants reported their own experiences of needing to “adapt to the crass behaviour” and the difficulty in stepping outside taken-for-granted norms: “You can’t put up a force field.”

Leaders need to be honest
Given this, perhaps recommendations around processes and training programmes specific to sexual harassment are not enough. Instead, the key might lie in seeing this behaviour as part of wider cultural behaviours that, on their own, might not immediately raise alarm bells.

Studies have shown that any form of disrespectful behaviour — such as refusing to help, spreading rumours, subtle undermining, or even leadership behaviour such as “shoulder tapping” for preferential treatment — can lead to a culture that supports toxic power structures and where harassment and bullying become risks.

Many of these behaviours are seen as a “normal” part of office politics, easy to dismiss or difficult to see. More importantly, they can be hard for leaders to admit to — we all want to lead organisations with strong, positive organisational cultures.

But having clear, candid and honest discussions with colleagues around the leadership table about the invisible culture will open a dialogue and create the potential for change.

Importantly, it takes a willingness by leaders to be brave enough to take an honest look in the cultural “mirror” and be open to what is revealed.

Dr Fiona Hurd, head of department, International Business, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Auckland University of Technology, and Suzette Dyer, senior lecturer in human resource management, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.