Bigger discussions needed on advertising in news outlets after Hobson's Pledge ad - lecturer

Bigger discussions around advertising in news outlets are needed, a lecturer says.

The New Zealand Herald's 7 August newspaper edition featured a wraparound Hobson's Pledge ad that urged readers to sign a petition to return the seabed and foreshore to "public ownership". Public backlash continues.

Auckland University of Technology advertising and brand creativity lecturer Dan Fastnedge said the Herald's decision to publish a front-page advertisement is an "interesting" example of where context is important.

"In the context of today, we're at a really fragile point with our traditional media and the trust that we put into it," Fastnedge said.

"Based on the global context, we know that selling ads is big business, but I think we need to ask at what social costs."

Trust in the media was "delicate", and ads, such as the one from Hobson's Pledge, could "shatter" it, he said.

More than 170 lawyers and legal academics have signed a letter condemning the ad, claiming it was misleading and deceitful.

Barrister for Wellington-based Thorndon Chambers, Max Harris, who is one of the signatories, said media outlets including the Herald would acknowledge they are not only driven by commercial profit.

"Of course, they include opinion content, but they take into consideration whether what they are putting forward is going to contribute to the public interest and informed public debate or detract from that."

Harris believed the Herald should have thought twice before deciding to publish the first advertisement and said that it was possible for them to do so, given they have refused to publish a second ad from Hobson's Pledge.

"What we're saying is they made the wrong choice, and it's really important that we speak up and explain why it's wrong, so that we can move on from things like the foreshore and seabed debacle."

Fastnedge, who has researched controversial advertising, said as a community, these types of responses to "controversial" advertising serve as a reflection of "our views as a society and our social norms".

"We're seeing parts of the community respond directly to the advertiser and the publisher, showing their response. And in a lot of cases, they're very negative, and we've seen that the publisher are responding to that.

"I think advertisers realise there is a responsibility to what they post on their platform, and I know that they're differentiating the journalistic side from the advertorial side, but that comes back to the perspective of the audience.

"Somebody picking up the paper and seeing an ad on the front page and then re-reading journalistic content on the next page. Do they make that distinction?"

With NZME's decision to not publish an additional ad, he said this may "have future impacts on how similar advertisements or advertisers might be allowed to advertise in that publisher in the future".

Hobsons Pledge spokesperson Don Brash said the reaction to its advertisement had been "extraordinary".

"In public, prominent Māori figures have loudly accused Hobson's Pledge of misinformation, racism, hatred, and more.

"There was nothing pejorative or untrue in our ad. Accusations of misinformation have been levelled without evidence or even specifics of what exactly we have got wrong.

"Given the map was sourced from Te Kete Kōrero a Te Takutai Moana Information Hub (Kōrero Takutai) on the Te Arawhiti Māori Crown Relations website we would expect it to be accurate. Likewise, our information on the rights that come with Customary Marine Titles was sourced from the Te Arawhiti Māori Crown Relations website."

In a statement to RNZ, Te Arawhiti said it was unaware information on its website was being referenced and clarified "No person or group, or the Crown owns, or can own, the common marine and coastal areas, which excludes all privately owned coastal areas, conservation areas, national parks, reserves and the bed of Te Whanga Lagoon on the Chatham Island."

Te Arawhiti chief executive Lil Anderson said the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 "sets out a framework to protect the interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area, while enabling the legal recognition of Māori customary rights."

The Act established that the common marine and coastal area has a 'no ownership' status and is protected from ownership claims, Anderson said.

Te Arawhiti clarified the map used in the ad represented applications for legal recognition of Māori customary interests, not final determinations, with five cases currently before the High Court.

"To date, 34 CMTs have been awarded to applicants, and of those, 19 have been finalised through the legal process and are in place."

Te Arawhiti noted that the common marine and coastal area, which is referred to in the Act is "sometimes inaccurately referred to as the foreshore and seabed, which is not defined or used in the Act."

Fastnedge said New Zealand could expect to see these conversations happen again, given the ever-changing societal norms.

"We're going to see it again and again in other examples around different issues where we see polar opposite audience, either critiquing or supporting, and I think in the long term, it will help us see these norms and bring these discussions about, but sometimes they'll be quite hard to have."

RNZ has contacted NZME for comment.