NZME owns the NZ Herald, Newstalk ZB, BusinessDesk, OneRoof and a suite of entertainment radio stations and regional news titles. Photo/Jason Oxenham
A billionaire and the journalists’ union are going head to head over the businessman’s editorial intentions if he is successful in his bid to clean out the board of NZ Herald owner NZME.
The billionaire wanting to overhaul the board of media giant NZME has accused the journalists’ union of wanting to present him as some sort of “extremist” when he says his goal is to ensure “truthful, thoughtful, and unbiased journalism” is available to all New Zealanders.
The union, in turn, is accusing the businessman of PR “deflection”, and says it has made a “simple request” that he and other board members commit to editorial independence by not using “their positions to steer the content of NZME outlets through direction or appointments”.
Auckland businessman Jim Grenon has given an insight into his approach to editorial independence by raising six questions in a new letter to the E tū union at the weekend - those questions are listed in full below.
He also says he has not made any donations to a New Zealand political party.
Grenon told union director Michael Wood, a former Labour Government MP and Cabinet minister, that they’d never spoken “yet you seem to want to present me as some sort of ‘extremist’ based on whatever source you use for information”.
Unlike E tū, he said, “who I presume donates/supports the Labour Party, and you, a former Labour Party Minister, I have had very little involvement with politics”.
“For instance, I have never made any significant political donations in my former country of Canada and none at all in New Zealand. (I registered as a promoter during the 2023 election, out of an abundance of caution, but never actually supported any party.) Is it possible you are looking at this through an overly politicised lens?
“It may surprise you that my passion is not politics, rather a goal that truthful, thoughtful, and unbiased journalism will be available for all New Zealanders.”
Grenon, who owns 9.97% of NZME, is seeking to become chairman of the company at its annual shareholders’ meeting on April 29 and for shareholders to vote for his three other board nominees – lawyer Philip Crump, private equity businessman Des Gittings, and retail industry executive Simon West. His proposal is to retain one of the existing board members as a fifth director.
NZME owns the NZ Herald, Newstalk ZB, BusinessDesk and OneRoof, as well as a suite of entertainment radio stations and regional news brands.
The union has requested a meeting with Grenon, seeking reassurances around editorial independence.
In response to Media Insider questions on Sunday, Wood confirmed Grenon had responded to the union’s letter and request. He said the letter had been sent by E tū‘s NZME delegates, who were working journalists at the company. “They will be meeting early in the coming week and we’ll be able to provide a fuller response after that.”
Wood said a “simple request” had been made to Grenon “to affirm that he would uphold editorial independence at New Zealand’s largest media company”.
“Editorial Independence was clearly defined in the letter and further clarified in our request that Mr Grenon and other board members not use their positions to steer the content of NZME outlets through direction or appointments,” he said.
“Instead of responding to these simple requests, which are largely accepted by other media owners, Mr Grenon deflects and asks E tū for a more detailed definition of editorial independence and for our views about a range of issues; he makes comments about the current board, myself, and several political issues.
“Deflection of this kind is a well-known PR tactic designed to confuse the issue and distract from giving clear answers. E tū will stick to the core issue: upholding editorial independence at NZME.”
In his letter on Saturday, Grenon told Wood he was happy to meet but wanted to first understand what editorial independence meant to the union.
“Like so many idealistic catchphrases, it has wide recognition and a proud legacy, but it is also subject to all sorts of nuances and real-world pressures,” wrote Grenon.
“If you would kindly answer the questions ... it would give me a greater understanding of your perspective and lead to a more productive meeting.”
He asked Wood six questions, quoted in full below:
1. What does “editorial independence” mean to you in the context of NZME, other than the general definition of: free expression of ideas and the unbiased, truthful dissemination of information?
2. Are you happy with the current editorial quality of the Herald? Please explain why you hold that view.
3. In the context of editorial independence, how does the E tū Union feel about the new editorial direction that was disclosed by NZME concurrent with its 2024 financial results? I have reproduced the relevant language here: “NZME will also focus on taking a leadership position to help New Zealand thrive. NZME will use its various platforms, including the New Zealand Herald, to support the reboot and acceleration of New Zealand’s economic recovery, sharing stories of success and building positive momentum.”
4. Who do you believe ultimately sets the editorial direction and the level of control that the journalists will work under? And if it is a person or a committee, are they accountable to anybody? Put another way, isn’t the reputation of the Herald and its financial performance affected by its journalism so that, ultimately, the board has a duty to ensure the editorial process meets their idea of performance?
5. How much autonomy do you believe journalists should have? Can they write anything they want? Where is the line, and who gets to say if they have crossed it? Who decided during the government blitz to promote 3Waters, for example, and to suppress analysis to the extent that the Taxpayers Union used it as an opportunity to increase their subscriber base, quite possibly at the expense of the Herald, by touring the country explaining 3Waters.
6. Do you believe that editorial independence can be impacted by government grants with conditions, advertising, public relations, and interest groups trying to promote their view of the world, including potentially the E tū Union? A classic example of this is the Public Interest Journalism Fund, created under the Labour government when you were a minister, and which required support for a certain interpretation of the Treaty.
Grenon said in the letter that the Herald was a “business in decline”.
“As a shareholder of NZME, living in NZ, I want to ensure that this business survives and thrives. I think that is good for democracy and the country.”
NZME has also been approached for comment about the specific questions and assertions.
In an earlier statement, Michael Wood said Grenon – who has previously been behind smaller, alternative media entities NZ News Essentials and Centrist – had a clear agenda to use NZME “for his own interests”.
“Mr Grenon clearly wants to use his financial clout to steer the editorial direction of one of New Zealand’s largest and most important media networks,” Wood said.
In his statement last night, he said: “It is Mr Grenon who has a track record of using media ownership to push a specific subset of views who is now proposing to take control of New Zealand’s largest media company.
“It is Mr Grenon who has made public comments about editorial independence needing limits. It is Mr Grenon who has stated to shareholders that he will ‘delve into the operational detail’.
“It is therefore Mr Grenon who needs to answer questions about whether editorial independence will be maintained if he is successful in taking control of the NZME board.”
Grenon has previously stated that it was a “leap” to think someone knew what would happen at the Herald based on his earlier media ventures.
“Centrist is a small publication with a specific mandate to make the NZ news concise and curated for those who don’t wish to take a lot of time to keep informed,” Grenon said previously.
“This included some information on the other side of stories that were not being told in the sheltered enclave that is NZ. It mostly aggregated articles, which was part of the inspiration for the name (ie your centre for news). That is not the mandate of the Herald.”
Wood said editorial independence was defined in the union letter as “… the bedrock of professional journalism. It means that journalists can report freely and truthfully without external influence, whether from the state or private interests.
“To be able to exercise this role journalists, cannot be subject to direction from the very interests they are supposed to be monitoring, and where necessary, criticising.”
Wood said questions were not just being asked by union delegates at NZME but others, including former NZ Herald editor Gavin Ellis, and the Shareholders Association, “who have expressed concern about the possible impact on shareholder value.”
NZME chair Barbara Chapman told Media Insider last week that editorial independence was “critical for New Zealand. It’s critical for NZME”.
“This organisation has a broad range of readers and listeners. ZB works with a right bias, but the Herald is seen as the most politically neutral [news outlet] in the country.
“It’s got a two million-plus audience. For us, keeping that editorial independence so that we’re talking to all sides of the political spectrum is in the best interests of NZME.”
Across publishing, audio, and OneRoof, she said, NZME reached nine out of 10 New Zealanders.
Chapman said any change in the Herald’s editorial positioning – “if that were to occur” – would place advertising revenue at risk.
“Advertisers are interested in reach and if we lose reach because we’re narrowing our audience, then we will lose advertising revenue.
“Editorial independence is critical for NZME because having a broad base of people reading our newspapers and listening to our news bulletins is what drives revenue. If we were to narrow that, then revenue would be lost and that’s not in the best interests of the company or shareholders.”
In his letter to Wood on Saturday, Grenon reiterated a point made in his 11-page letter to the NZME board, which outlined a number of operational, governance and financial and performance issues as he saw them.
“My intention is that more quality content should be produced, not less. This is needed to attract new subscribers. Public trust in the NZ Herald has declined by over 25% since 2020, according to a recent report by the Auckland University of Technology Research Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy.
“Furthermore, this report also illustrates a trend forming where individuals are not financially supporting the NZ Herald as much as they previously were and are increasingly more willing to support other news sites.”
Grenon said he had reviewed NZME’s editorial code of conduct and ethics policy and agreed with the principles outlined: accuracy, independence, opinion, editing, diversity and conduct/integrity.
But policies, he said, also needed structure and proper oversight.
“Additionally, the person or group providing the oversight needs to do so to the satisfaction of the board. I believe that if standards are not being met, then action must be taken. The solution is not in lofty phrases that often mean different things to different people.
“The solution is in adding processes, training, and resources for the journalists at NZME so they are better equipped to produce a quality product that aligns with the editorial policies. Likely this will entail an editorial board but that is for the board of directors to decide.”
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
Barbara Chapman will step down as NZME chair; Grenon's three nominees withdrawn.