Summarised by Centrist
David Harvey, writing for A Halfling’s View examines how media insiders like Duncan Greive (The Spinoff) and David Cormack (Draper Cormack) believe government intervention is the key to saving legacy media from collapse.
Their solutions? Stricter regulation of digital platforms, increased state control, and, in Cormack’s case, outright collectivisation.
But Harvey questions whether these proposals protect press freedom—or threaten it?
Greive argues that local media is in freefall due to competition from Big Tech. He warns that the media industry will continue to decay without a “major regulatory change” to put platforms like YouTube and Facebook under the same legal framework as mainstream outlets.
His proposed solution mirrors Australia’s heavy-handed model, advocating for Commerce Commission oversight and new laws to “keep them in check.” But as Harvey points out, this overlooks media regulation in New Zealand already exists through the Broadcasting Standards Authority and Media Council. More government control could erode press independence rather than save it.
Cormack, a self-proclaimed “lefty,” goes even further, suggesting that collectivisation is “nearly always good.”
“Be careful what you wish for,” Harvey warns. He questions whether Cormack would want his PR firm to be swallowed by a state-led media collective.
“The relatively light-handed regulatory models applicable to MSM and broadcast media are important and maintain the balance between the public interest and the freedom of the press and freedom of expression,” he writes.