Integrity Briefing: Billionaire influence and the future of media independence in NZ

The mission of The Integrity Institute that I’m setting up is to hold the powerful accountable and scrutinise and challenge vested interests in the political process. While this will generally mean we’re focused on politicians, business and various interest groups, we are also highly concerned to scrutinise the media, which is supposed to play a crucial role in helping make the political process democratic.

Therefore, we will regularly evaluate the New Zealand media, evaluating how well journalists and broadcasters are fostering democracy and the public interest, or conversely, enabling the powerful and the status quo. In this regard, we are currently developing an annual report that we will publish on the media landscape, drawing attention to the strengths and weaknesses of New Zealand journalism and broadcasting. We are particularly concerned with measuring how well news outlets are investigating vested interests, corruption, and integrity violations.

RNZ Mediawatch on NZME and the Herald

I gave an interview to RNZ’s Mediawatch this week about this and other activities of The Integrity Institute, which will be broadcast next Sunday. But today, the Mediawatch programme included some of my comments from my interview with them in a story about developments in the ownership of NZ Media and Entertainment (NZME) – the local company that owns the NZ Herald, Newstalk ZB, and numerous other smaller media outlets.

You can listen to the whole programme at this link: NZME’s billionaire buy-in, a rash of resignations, water woe

You can read the news write-up of the programme here: Mediawatch: Anxiety over editorial policy and a billionaire on board at NZME

The comments I made to RNZ were before the news that businessman Jim Grenon had launched something of a takeover of the NZ Herald owner. I made the point that although outlets like the Herald have always been privately owned, there needs to be scrutiny of any activist investors who own these big newspapers. It can be alarming for democracy if the owners push media outlets in a particular direction.

However, I also pointed out that the status quo in the media outlet isn’t exactly optimal, and a shakeup of some outlets could even be helpful if it led those newspapers to be more trusted by the public, given that trust in the Herald and others is in freefall at the moment, and Grenon appears to appreciate this problem.

I also expressed concern about the existing direction of the NZ Herald, as it has been shifting in a much more pro-business direction lately. This culminated in a recent announcement from its current owners (before the Grenon bid) that the outlets would be shifting even more in this direction, with an attempt to set “a new tone” to “help New Zealand thrive”. The media owners announced: “NZME will also focus on taking a leadership position to help New Zealand thrive, using its various platforms – including the New Zealand Herald – to support the reboot and acceleration of New Zealand’s economic recovery – and sharing stories of success and building positive momentum.”

I told Mediawatch that NZME and the Herald needed to answer questions about exactly what this means, as this new approach appears quite disturbing.

Below is some further explanation and critique of what is happening in New Zealand’s biggest media outlet and what this might mean for integrity and democracy:

The Jim Grenon attempted takeover of NZME and the Herald

The unfolding saga surrounding the media giant NZME and the apparent stealth hostile takeover attempt by billionaire businessman James (Jim) Grenon has sent ripples through New Zealand’s media and political landscapes. At a time when global media ownership is increasingly concentrated into fewer, wealthier hands, Grenon’s move warrants serious scrutiny — not merely because it affects the ownership of New Zealand’s largest and most influential media company, but because it strikes directly at the heart of media independence and democracy itself.

Jim Grenon’s recent foray into NZME — owner of the New Zealand Herald and prominent radio stations such as Newstalk ZB — has alarmed many within the journalism community. Canadian-born and resident in New Zealand since 2012, Grenon, a billionaire with deep roots in oil and gas and private equity investments, purchased a 9.3% stake in NZME for over $9 million. Following this, he demanded a reshuffle of the company’s board, nominating himself and three others to replace current directors. Grenon claims to have support from approximately 47% of NZME’s shareholders, putting him remarkably close to exerting significant influence over the company’s strategic and editorial direction.

Grenon’s background and politics

Grenon’s background is not widely known or reported on. According to a report in the NBR last week, “he grew up as one of nine children in a conservative, religious Canadian family”. In this profile written by journalists Calida Stuart-Menteath and Hamish McNicol, Grenon “made most of his money in the oil and gas business, after he went into partnership as a young man with two others and recapitalised three flailing oil and gas companies that would grow into multibillion-dollar businesses”.

In 1995, he set up a private equity company, Tom Capital Management, which he still owns and operates (along with three brothers). According to an article in Stuff this week, Tom Capital Management “largely takes interest in oil and gas, financial services, manufacturing and real estate sectors”.

He moved to New Zealand with his partner in 2012 and purchased one of the most expensive houses in the country. According to the Spinoff’s Duncan Greive, his “beachfront home in Takapuna on Auckland’s North Shore” on Gibbons Road is worth about $19.5m.

An activist investor in media?

Grenon’s personal profile paints him as more than just another wealthy investor. His background indicates he is not merely financially motivated, but ideologically driven. His past involvement with alternative news websites like “The Centrist” — which positioned itself explicitly against what Grenon perceived as mainstream media bias on issues like co-governance and Covid responses — signals an activist agenda. His support for controversial figures, including backing anti-vaccine influencer Chantelle Baker’s defamation action against NZME, deepens anxieties about his potential influence over editorial policy. This activist stance sets Grenon apart as not just another wealthy owner but as an ideological crusader potentially eager to steer public discourse on critical and contentious issues.

The fears of editorial interference are well-founded. Globally, we’ve witnessed billionaires wield their media assets as extensions of their own political or economic interests. Jeff Bezos’s controversial pivot at the Washington Post to prioritise libertarian economic doctrines and Elon Musk’s manipulation of platform neutrality at X (formerly Twitter) offer worrying precedents. Grenon’s actions already echo these examples. His immediate demand to change the NZME board composition, his previous backing of legal actions against NZME, and his vocal criticism of mainstream media’s editorial positions hints at a willingness to reshape the NZ Herald’s editorial stance in alignment with his political worldview.

The Politics of the NZ Herald

Despite the understandable anxiety around Grenon’s intentions, it’s essential to contextualise his actions within the broader history of media ownership in New Zealand. Private media ownership— specifically the New Zealand Herald — is not a novel phenomenon. Historically, the Herald has been under the influence of wealthy owners such as Tony O’Reilly and Rupert Murdoch, and traditionally, it has served as a platform supportive of the business community, free-market capitalism, and establishment politics. Thus, Grenon’s interest in the ownership structure itself isn't unprecedented. Instead, what alarms many observers is his supposed willingness to transform this influence into activist editorial intervention, potentially eroding editorial independence even further.

Currently, NZME is firmly anchored in establishment politics, adopting a strongly pro-business, status-quo-friendly approach. Recent statements from the NZME leadership about setting a “new tone” to “support the reboot and acceleration of New Zealand’s economic recovery” explicitly signal a shift toward a more assertively pro-market stance. While NZME’s editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness describes this position as non-partisan, critics argue this language clearly aligns NZME closely with the current centre-right government and private-sector interests, indicating a move away from rigorous critique of power structures towards advocacy journalism.

Grenon won’t necessarily make NZME any more business-friendly. Although he wants to replace the current NZME board, it must be pointed out that those current board members aren’t some anti-Establishment cabal. Far from it. For example, board chair Barbara Chapman is also the Deputy Chair of the market-liberal think tank, The New Zealand Initiative. She’s also the chair of Genesis Energy (and a director of the BNZ and Fletcher Building). Grenon himself has been a member of the NZ Initiative. So, in a sense, the current fight over NZME might be seen as just a fight amongst different businesspeople with similar political worldviews.

Will the NZ Herald become more conservative?

The question, then, is what Grenon’s intervention might mean practically for the Herald’s role as part of the “Fourth Estate” — the critical watchdog necessary for any functioning democracy. Michael Wood, from the journalists’ union Etū (and previously a Labour Minister), expressed concern that Grenon is not simply a wealthy investor but an activist owner who may impose his personal worldview on one of New Zealand’s most influential media companies. Such influence could undermine editorial independence, distort public discourse, and weaken the public’s trust in media impartiality — already under strain globally.

Yet the picture is not straightforward. Grenon and supporters, like former politician Stephen Franks, argue that existing management at NZME has stifled genuine diversity of opinion by rejecting advertising from politically controversial groups such as Hobson’s Pledge and Family First. Grenon’s entry into NZME could theoretically broaden the ideological spectrum of the Herald’s editorial stance. But this would only strengthen democracy if the intent were genuine pluralism rather than replacing perceived bias with another set of partisan priorities.

Moreover, Grenon’s business practices have been anything but straightforward. His background includes litigation-heavy confrontations with the Canadian tax authorities, and his strategy to move substantial funds offshore to New Zealand amidst legal conflicts raises ethical questions. His past engagements highlight a combative, litigious approach to achieving objectives, which further intensifies anxieties regarding his influence over editorial integrity at NZME.

This situation encapsulates an emerging global media dynamic — where billionaire ownership might initially promise innovation or ideological diversity but frequently devolves into personal ideological projects, threatening the critical independence that sustains democracy. As I’ve noted, the Herald already faces significant criticisms about its editorial independence, its closeness to business interests, and the inherent tension between its duty to the public and its commercial imperatives.

Further scrutiny required

Ultimately, Grenon’s move must be assessed cautiously. Although a shakeup at NZME might break a degree of complacency and groupthink, it might equally replace it with a different form of ideological narrowness, further compromising an already precarious media ecosystem. The fundamental concern remains: New Zealand desperately needs genuinely independent media capable of holding power —economic, political, or otherwise — to account. Whether Grenon’s ambitions represent a step toward or away from that critical ideal will be a significant test for New Zealand’s media landscape and democracy itself.

Although Grenon’s move might disrupt NZME’s entrenched status-quo orientation, potentially offering a broader range of viewpoints, his track record suggests a high risk of replacing existing biases with equally problematic new ones, thereby undermining the media’s role as the Fourth Estate.

This moment represents a critical juncture for media independence in New Zealand. It underscores the urgent need for clear safeguards and a robust public discourse on the nature of media ownership and its relationship with democracy.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Disclosure: Until recently, I have been a regular contributor to the NZ Herald. I continue to offer my analysis to the Herald for free (although the last column they published from me was in October 2024).

Suggested further reading:

Hayden Donnell and Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Anxiety over editorial policy and a billionaire on board at NZME

Tim Murphy (Newsroom): The Herald gets a new tone, and a wealthy alt-media investor

Calida Stuart-Menteath and Hamish McNicol (NBR): Grenon lobs grenade at NZME’s board, staff, shareholders (paywalled)

Merja Myllylahti (The Post): With billionaire media owners, things can be rosy, until they’re not (paywalled)

The Spinoff: Emergency pod: A revolution at NZME?

Peter Williams: A media coup – the empire’s striking back

Shayne Currie (Herald): Media Insider: Billionaire investor Jim Grenon says he has close to 50% support for NZME board overthrow (paywalled)

Shayne Currie (Herald): Media Insider: Canadian billionaire James Grenon takes substantial stake in NZ Herald publisher and Newstalk ZB owner NZME (paywalled)

Susan Edmunds (RNZ): Union wary of Canadian billionaire Jim Grenon’s NZ media influence

Simon Plumb (Stuff): Billionaire moves to clear NZME board, add himself, days after buying 9% stake