The instruction is to either reach a deal voluntarily or face binding arbitration.
There are similarities to the application by New Zealand's News Publishers' Association (of which the Herald is a member) seeking permission to collectively bargain with Google and Facebook to seek fair payment for use of members' news.
The Commerce Commission is currently considering the application.
The argument being put forward though is not one of improving the plurality of the New Zealand media, but helping ensure it is sustainable.
Sapere bizarrely argues that compensating media companies will not necessarily lead to an increase in the volume of public interest journalism, rather than simply improving the financial position of the news firms.
Some outside the industry might believe this could be true in theory, but surely even they accept media companies with sustainable finances are the best hope New Zealand has to produce quality journalism in the public interest. New Zealand has lost hundreds of journalists over the past decade as media companies have strived to find sustainable business models.
Google and Facebook operate as virtual monopolies in their markets, making colossal profits from selling advertising despite creating virtually no content of their own.
In the scheme of what they reap from the country - to the detriment of media companies diligently serving the New Zealand public - allowing firms here to seek to negotiate against the giants as a bloc is surely a reasonable step.
The bulk of New Zealand media companies seek to survive to the greatest extent possible on commercial revenues. To have them handicapped in such a fashion by offshore-based giants who pay little or nothing for the content they use is a very long way from a level playing field.
Interestingly, the MCH's own submission to the Commerce Commission is at odds with Sapere.
They support the proposal: "The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has found that Google and Facebook have substantial bargaining power in dealings with news media businesses in Australia.
"We consider that this same bargaining imbalance exists in New Zealand and is evident by the limited number of New Zealand media companies that have been able to enter into commercial discussions. The advent of commercial arrangements in other jurisdictions shows that news content has financial value to digital platforms. New Zealand media companies should therefore be remunerated for the use of news content via commercial arrangements, as is the case in similar markets ...
"Financial compensation through commercial arrangements would provide a sustainable basis for the ongoing viability of news media and journalism in Aotearoa New Zealand."
The report also provided feedback on other attempts to maintain media sustainability.
It was not a review of the Government's $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund - established to cushion the media from the impact of Covid - but nevertheless provided some comment.
Sapere praised aspects of parts of the fund to improve the diversity of New Zealand's newsrooms, but also highlighted warnings picked up in some interviews that "funding decisions had crossed into editorial decision-making".
Allocating funding does put NZ on Air in the position of deciding in some specific cases what are public interest projects, but this is not the same as allowing it to influence coverage. And while the perceived risks are real, any idea that such funding somehow buys influence neglects an important principle.
A free, independent press remains the cornerstone of all well-functioning democracies. Journalists and editors have a very real sense of purpose - holding the powerful to account, uncovering the truth, following the public money, fighting for what's right and fair, and advocating on behalf of their readers, listeners and viewers.
For centuries, newsrooms have operated fiercely independent of their funding sources, including advertisers who value the importance of a free press. The same principle must - and does - apply when it comes to the PIJF.
