from the NZ Observer
The recent announcement that Stuff Media has sold a 50% stake in its digital property business to Trade Me, with its property listings soon to be rebranded under the Trade Me Property banner, has justifiably raised questions regarding the more than $4 million given to Sinead Boucher and Stuff Media by the NZ taxpayer.
For many, this commercial maneuver, reportedly the culmination of a strategic split of Stuff’s businesses, feels like a bitter pill to swallow, particularly when contrasted with the millions of dollars Stuff received from the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF).
It’s time to ask: Shouldn’t Stuff Media, and its CEO Sinead Boucher, offer New Zealand taxpayers a reimbursement?
The Public Interest Journalism Fund was established by the Labour government as a short- to medium-term intervention to support a “at-risk” media sector, reeling from the twin pressures of declining advertising revenue and the seismic shifts caused by digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic. The $55 million fund was presented as a lifeline to ensure the survival of public interest journalism that might otherwise disappear. Companies, including Stuff, queued up to receive these funds, painting a picture of financial precarity that necessitated public support. Stuff alone secured over $4 million, earmarked for specific journalistic roles and projects, such as community reporting and Māori affairs initiatives that were tied to mandates handed down by Jacinda Ardern and Willie Jackson.
Now, barely a year after the fund’s final allocations, we see Stuff making a significant commercial deal. While the exact sale price for the 50% stake in Stuff Digital’s property business hasn’t been disclosed, the very nature of such a transaction implies a valuable asset and a strategic play that will undoubtedly enhance Stuff’s financial stability. (It is estimated Sinead Boucher has received over 1 million dollars.)
This raises fundamental questions about the spirit in which the taxpayer funds were granted. If the PIJF was designed to support an “at-risk” industry, one struggling to survive without public intervention, then a company that subsequently strengthens its financial position through a significant commercial sale should, in principle, reflect on its obligation to the taxpayer.
While there might be no legal clause demanding repayment in the PIJF contracts, there is a powerful moral and ethical argument to be made [Leftists don’t give a Stuff about that —Eds]. Taxpayer money is not a bottomless pit or a free investment for media companies to leverage for unrelated commercial ventures. It was allocated under the premise of necessity, to sustain journalism deemed vital for democracy.
When a recipient of such emergency aid demonstrates a newfound commercial strength, the perception of public funds being used to prop up a business that then profits from a non-journalism asset can erode public trust.
The public’s trust in media, and in government funding initiatives is already a fragile thing. Polls have consistently shown declining trust in news media and skepticism about government funding undermining media independence. This latest development only fuels those concerns.
Stuff Media has a responsibility to the New Zealand public, beyond just delivering on its journalistic promises. It has a responsibility to demonstrate that the taxpayer money it received truly went to bridge a critical gap, and that it wasn’t simply a subsidy that freed up capital for other commercial gains, or worse, a handout by the Ardern Labour government to print political propaganda.