Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 27, No. 4. 1964.

Wrong Ideas About Dominion Takeover

Wrong Ideas About Dominion Takeover

From the Salient poll on public opinion concerning takeover bids for the Dominion, several possible conclusions can be drawn.

Firstly, students are even less interested in social problems than many people have thought; or secondly, students are interested but allow their opinions to be formed for them by such high intellectual authorities as Truth; or thirdly, that intelligence and attractiveness are inversely correlated and Salient's reporter is more attracted to the latter than the former. The last seems most likely.

A Thomson takeover of the Dominion could conceivably have some advantages. It might possibly introduce new technological process into the printing of the Dominion and it might raise the standard of journalism contained in that paper.

Technological progress docs not depend on ownership. It would not necessarily be a corollary of a Thomson takeover that such progress would follow, and if significant advances have been made overseas, it should be possible for the present directorate to seek access to them through some form of licensing, preferably with royalties terminating after a definite time-period. But in the absence of more concrete evidence it seems likely that vaguge suggestions of technological progress are so much guff.

The journal of the Journalists' Association has been rather more specific about the benefits for journalists likely to result from a Thomson takeover. The most prominent of these is the possibility of service with the Thomson organisation overseas.

It cannot be doubted that this would have advantages for the journalists in so far as convenience of overseas travel is concerned. But this cannot be given great weight in considering the desirability of a Thomson takeover. This is not to deny that overseas experience may raise the standard of journalism in New Zealand to the benefit of all newspaper readers but it is denied that a takeover is required to achieve this. It should not be impossible for the present directorate (perhaps rejuvenated) to arrange reciprocal transfers with overseas newspapers or in the absence of this for the Journalists Association itself to take the initiative. It can be an independent action and is not necessarily a corollary to a takeover of ownership.

Against these reputed advantages, there are weighty disadvantages to a takeover of the Dominion. Although it may in the first instance give access to some overseas funds, it will eventually, almost certainly, add to New Zealand's balance of payments problems. It is highly unlikely that the Dominion will ever add to New Zealand's export earnings or replace imports, while dividend remittances either directly or indirectly will become an added charge on these export earnings. Thomson has claimed that dividends will not be remitted but as he has also disclaimed any intention to interfere with editorial policy, one wonders why he wants to control the Dominion at all. Unless sheer prestige has become the prime aim of a rather hard-headed Canadian business man. It seems more than possible that the non-remittance of dividends is limited to the early years or that they will be remitted through investments in some other New Zealand concern.

This argument, of course, applies to all foreign investment. It may be a useful way of introducing technological knowledge, etc., but it should be carefully vetted to ensure that the advantage to New Zealand is not outweighed by the costs in foreign exchange. The particular form of overseas investment here considered does not satisfy this criterion.

Nobody would describe the Dominion as the ultimate ideal in newspapers. But New Zealand papers are in comparison with those of England of a very high standard. The transformation of the Dominion into something like the Dailyly Mirror would not be welcome.

Government has been criticised for its role in the takeover business. The Dominion has of course, been the staunch supporter of the National Party but arguments which serve selfinterest are not thereby automatically invalidated. The motive of a party in presenting an argument is not a factor in its essential validity although the recognition of self-interest may lead other parties to inspect the argument with greater concentralion than would otherwise be devoted to it.

The reaction of the Directors to the Murdoch success in buying Dominion shares, and Government's inaction in response to this certainly indicate that both were primarily concerned to keep the Dominion under its present controllers. But Government's case at the time rested on some such argument as the above and this is not affected by the question of motivation.

Government should be criticised not for opposing the takeover bids hut for not following this opposition to its logical conclusion; viz, the 'vetting of all overseas investment in New Zealand and in particular the Murdoch purchases of Dominion shares.

The omission of any discussion of 'shareholders' rights,' etc., from the above is deliberate. The interest of the community is paramount. In any conflict of a group within society with another group or with the rest of society. Government must arbitrate on this criterion.

G. R. Hawke.