Questionable Reporting in the Rush to be First.

Over the last four weeks, we have witnessed the most extraordinary news cycle of our time.  The thirst for real time information – down to the minute – for the latest developments on the global Coronavirus situation has consumed us all while we have passed the time in our bubbles.  There is no doubt that the hunger for this information is real, yet as the situation has unfolded it has highlighted a malignant paradigm in the reporting of that information – what is true and what is not.  Perhaps more importantly we are seeing deep into the chasm of what information warrants further investigation before it is published.  And perhaps we now starting to see the undercurrent that has been eroding our editorial standards at a time when media outlets are under immense financial pressure from the loss of its sole source of revenue at a time we need them the most.

On the whole, the New Zealand Media has provided balanced and informative coverage over the last five weeks. There is no doubt that the single provider of the latest case numbers and updates on scientific developments will ultimately become our go to source to feed this insatiable appetite.  In this environment, every single page click, video view and length of time spent on a page is all being counted – no further metric has been more important to these suppliers of news and their clients.  The drive to maintain momentum in an environment without any other significant story developments has laid bare the dysfunction of our media which is largely provided for free and why serious change is required.

We are bombarded by new information at a time where what we need is truth on what is affecting us, in New Zealand, at this time – not speculation, opinion or theory.  Truth helps us make informed decisions about our own situation.  No story illustrates this more clearly than the ongoing conversation about Personal Protective Equipment or PPE.  At a time where we trying to understand how this virus was spreading, we were also searching for ways to defend ourselves from infection.

At the heart of the story surrounding PPE, is safety - ones own and others.  PPE to many is a tangible thing that we can use to mitigate infecting ourselves or others in a battle against an invisible enemy. The story of New Zealand’s interest in PPE can be broken in two parts – the burgeoning concern around supply and the continued scientific developments about how it is spread that has fed the perceived wider need for it.  However, the role of news media play a significant role in how this story unfolded and shaped our view of its need.   

Once the lockdown began and the health system was readying itself for an anticipated assault of infection, concerns were brewing that front line New Zealand medical staff would not have enough stock of PPE supplies to go round.  On Thursday 26 March, Director General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield strongly stated there was enough supply on hand to service our front line health workers to meet the needs of their current guidance with regards to its use.   A NZ Herald article from RNZ reporter, Phil Pennington published on Friday 27 March, led its story speaking to an unknown supplier who talks of the dramatic increase in orders he has received and that the situation was “bedlam”. The simple idea that our front line staff were going to run out planted a seed and went on to spin headlines for almost three weeks.

Unfortunately for Dr Bloomfield, he is the public face for one of the largest – if not the largest – most dysfunctional, bureaucratic organisations in the country.  He sits a top of a ministry that administers 20 District Health Boards (DHBs) – the provincial administrators that run our hospitals and health care system.  They have an enormous task in their own right to keep the system turning in usual circumstances – equally, these are individually run organisations that continue to highlight their own management ineptitude.  In June 2018, Counties Manukau DHB were on the hook for $800,000 for a conference in Australia that was not approved by their own board.  That same year the Waikato DHB was embroiled in an expenses scandal with it’s then Chief Executive, Nigel Murray. The turmoil and ongoing saga of the Southland DHB has been well documented since 2015. Failures of this kind illustrates that if the house is not in order at the top, it is unlikely any better down the chain and it is these organisations that have a significant a role in the supply chain to front line medical staff.

Through the early weeks of lockdown, the PPE story propagated through sound bites and quotes from distressed front line medical staff that they didn’t have enough supply and that through their own systems, the DHBs were to blame.  This was not a story of supply – it was that of distribution, and perhaps more work could have been done to have DHBs reaffirm their stock levels to back Dr Bloomfield’s assertions.  There is no doubt that the supply that Dr Bloomfield was speaking to on Thursday 26 March was likely disproportionately distributed around the country and that work was required to get it where it needed to go.   Dr Bloomfield now needed the DHBs, more than ever, to work together to address the balance of supply.  Needless to say, on Tuesday 21 April - 26 days after the story broke - Dr Bloomfield announced the ministry was reviewing DHB distribution management.  The genesis of this story rests with unrelated matters of supply and demonstrated lack of understanding of DHB mechanics, which were evidently the source of discontent. 

The editorial decision to be brought into question here is that the initial story suggested no fact checking was done on the numbers supplied by Dr Bloomfield as to the stock on hand.  The original article leads with quotes from a supplier two days into a nation wide lockdown where that business was experiencing a significant surge in demand that had possibly been building for sometime from medical and other industries.  A sense of unease unfolds when Mr Pennington speaks with front line medical staff expressing concern at their supply from their DHB which was quite likely problematic.  Further into the article, the reporter alludes to the slow down in the Chinese supply chain, which had been well documented at the time, and this arguably contributes to a feeling of fear to the future supply.  This highly charged article does not address the claims of Dr Bloomfield as to what is on hand in the field at the time, while failing to address the fundamental role of DHB's in the situation. The DHB's were approached for comment to this article and none was provided.

From Friday 27 March until Tuesday 21 April – that’s 26 days of a 24 hour revolving news cycle that would go on to perpetuate a theme of under supply of PPE in New Zealand, real or not – new information was emerging about the spread of the virus that would inevitably continue to infect the national consciousness.  Scientists all across the globe were delivering new discoveries and theories at pace as to how they believed COVID-19 is spread – all very useful information under the right degree of scrutiny.

On Tuesday 21 April, the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story explaining the findings of new research from the US based National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) that was released on Saturday 18 April.  The preliminary research suggested that this strain of COVID-19 was “extremely resilient” and could last longer in the air and on surfaces than had been previously thought.  The story was picked up by the NZ Herald on Wednesday 22 April and was the subject of an extravagant virtual-reality mock up by TVNZ’s OneNews that night. This particular news lands at a relatively sensitive time when scientists worldwide are divided about the effectiveness of the wider public use of facemasks and when New Zealanders were soon to be heading back to work against a backdrop of “questionable” PPE supplies. 

The original article was published by Sherryn Groch – an ‘explainer’ reporter for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.  Ms Groch has written a number of articles for the SMH about COVID-19 and her stories attempt to breakdown the science for the every day reader.  Her interest in the preliminary research published by the NIAID her article is understandable in her role to stay on top of developments.  It is clear that the NIAID is very excited by its findings having published them before peer review saying they are “confident” of their results.  Ms Groch’s article does note that the research has not gone through the usual scrutiny of a peer review.  Without peer review, the NIAID is staking its reputation on its findings in order to be first to announce them, yet should they be disproven it will likely be too late to retract or correct.  It is arguable that at this point, the NIAID findings are a theory rather than a fact.  The reporting on theory has kept the media fed during the outbreak, yet in the context of reporting, editorial decisions are necessary to maintain the flow of factually correct information within the wider context of its audience. 

With the international debate continuing with regard to mandating the use of face masks in public, the impact of reporting on unscrutinised research only fuels uncertainty among the reader or viewer.  At the time this story was published, New Zealand was continuing to see a decline in case numbers, heightened testing and we could begin to feel comfortable that there is no wide spread community transmission occurring.  This calls into question the OneNews virtual demonstration referring to this research in which it did not explicitly state the source, nor that it was preliminary. The demonstration does not discuss the use of face masks, yet it could be reasonable for one to imply that this unreviewed research is strengthening the need for their wider use, which it potentially is, in an environment where there is wide spread community transmission.  Within 48 hours, preliminary research from one scientific outlet, has been conveyed as fact. The editorial standard in question is that while there is intrigue in the findings, is whether or not this preliminary research is in the wider public interest at this point relevant to New Zealand’s situation. 

With regards to PPE, The Ministry of Health has maintained clear guidance over the use of PPE in the lead up to, and throughout our lock down and it states that the advice may change as reputable research comes to light.  Editorial decisions are essential to support official advice and in the rush to publish stories to maintain a competitive edge, there is significant risk that this very guidance will be undermined in doing so.  

The media landscape in New Zealand is facing an unprecedented challenge in terms of its ability to generate revenue, at a time where the role of news media has never been so important.  One outcome that has occurred as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak in New Zealand, is that we are seeing for the first time, the impact of consolidation of our news market.  Where once a publication was able to be at some level, self sufficient through both subscription and advertising, those titles are now part of larger machine fighting for market share.  The reality is that the corporates who own our news titles are often burdened with significant debt and have high overheads; advertising has been the means to keep the lights all the while providing their content for free in that battle for market share.  

With a revived ‘Buy Local’ mentality bubbling away, what remains to be seen is if that demand will stretch to a resurrection of a local news provider that is self sustaining.  One where editorial decisions are considered because their business is sustainable, and by virtue of subscription, its audience values their judgement.  On a public level, TVNZ and RNZ are not immune to the battle of market share.  We are due to see an overhaul of our state media function – presumably that will continue should Labour win the September election.  Competition is healthy, it keeps the system honest and the best reporters will always hunt out the best stories.  Nevertheless, to maintain a robust editorial system, we do need to be prepared to pay for our news, alongside the advertisers, to ensure our outlets both public and private, can make considered editorial decisions without the burden of sacrificing editorial judgment for the sake of a banner ad.