Those outlets are being stifled from publishing by continued legal action and their own corporate caution.
Oh, pardon me if I can't must too many crocodile tears for large media corporations who don't appear to have any problem whatsoever lawyering up and defending themselves against legal action -- which, you know, they're not actually immune from.
And who is paying Slater’s legal bills?
Does that actually matter? I'm sure there's plenty of people hereabouts who'd chip in if it was Nicky Hager taking legal action,
If 3 news, the NZ Herald and Fairfax are restricted from reporting issues that could be considered to be within the public interest, where does it stop?
I could flip the question and ask if you've got any problems with court-ordered name suppression -- a restriction responsible media outlets and bloggers operate under every day of the week. Not everything the public happens to be interested in is a matter of public interest.
But the post by Gerard is about ‘national’ media (primarily television), that happen to be based in Auckland. Not about regional newspapers or regional radio or regional television.
True -- but that's a complaint that's been around a long time before the Christchurch quakes. Plenty of people in South and West Auckland could say with some exasperation, and more than a grain of truth, that they barely register on the "national" media radar unless there's photogenic property damage or a corpse involved. I certainly don't mean to be glib or dismissive of the thoughtful and heart-felt contributions made by Gerard or anyone else from Christchurch here, but they're not the only people ill served by the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality of too much media, let alone the thought processes that turned the Duchess of Cambridge's morning sickness into the most important news story in the world. Congrats to Willkat and all, but really?
My position is that at common law ethics and theism are inseparable, but it doesn’t follow that you have to be religious in order to act ethically.
It’s a rather weird argument, because common law isn’t exactly a static beast, which is kinda sorta the entire point. You may beg to differ, but I’m fairly happy the status of women is a very different beast from when Alfred burned the cakes.
It’s a courageous admission to make but upon reflection, he agrees that the Auckland-based media have it in for Christchurch and are intent on giving your southern city as little exposure as possible.
M'kay... if John Campbell is lurking hereabouts I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was smacking his head against the nearest available brick wall. And could I make a modest proposition here? The Herald and the Dom Post gives "your southern city" about as much coverage as, The Press gives to Te Papa's search for a new chief, or Auckland's transport infrstructure -- two long-running stories that are arguably definitely of national interest but I don't find anything sinister if they don't get huge play in Christchurch.
I hope an incoming government cleans up his shows casual little lies in the general wash up.
I hope an incoming government wouldn't be so stupid as to engage in blatant political utu that compromises the basic editorial independence of public broadcasters, no matter how entertaining (and richly deserved) the resulting shit storm would be. Politicians have the same recourse as everyone else to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. If they don't like it, they should at least try to change the relevant legislation.
Paul & Rob:
You're too kind, but while we have the benefit of the secret ballot I don't actually find my voting history some disgraceful secret or that it compels me to never criticize anyone on the right. Anyone who has known me longer than thirty seconds should know how absurd that is.
That said, if the National Party, or anyone else, wants my services as a spin thing they better bring the cheque book and an acceptable disclosure statement. Because I've been called many many things in my life, but a downlow queen isn't one of them. Right, wrong, or a couple of crackers short of a full cheeseboard I speak entirely on my own account and I do at least try to extend others the same presumption.
I thought Matt showed great honesty and ethical spine in personally apologising to Feeley for using Slater’s attack lines against him. I’m happy enough with what Fran has written too, and of course Fish. Bernard Hickey this week greeted the news that Oders et al discussed targeting him as a badge of honour.
Fair enough - and I share your admiration for Matt, who I've been casually acquainted with for a long time and he's a good chap. But I'd just rather we not be back here again down the road because there's been precisely zero meaningful culture change. I won't hold my breath waiting, but it would be nice to see some top level and public examination of how media outlets treat "defamation for hire" and media outlet's interactions with PR/political spin doctors, commitment to change at top level editorial/management and genuine public accountability. At the risk of sounding harsh, in the UK we saw plenty of journalistic breast beating about perv media following the death of Princess Diana (or more precisely the massive public backlash that followed). I'm sure some of them were even sincere. But where did that end up? The Leveson Inquiry.
As you say, I'm sure it would be rather embarrassing to a lot of journalists and their proprietors having their own dirty linen exposed. But I'd argue there would be some real long-term gain in rebuilding the credibility and authority all media brands ultimately depend on.
I don’t read Craig quite so clean. Steve, ask Craig if he votes National every election.
Oh, let's just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source. I turned 18 in 1990, so I've voted in two FPP and six MMP elections. Twelve out of fourteen times I've party voted National and/or for National Party candidates. (I cast no party vote in 1996, and you should have no problem guessing why if I say I was living in Wellington Central at the time.) Getting into TMI land, I've been a financial member of National for twenty two years and was an office holder in the Wellington/LNI Young Nats for a period in the 90's, before I turned into an old fogey.
Last time I looked, none of that has precluded me from criticizing National when I think it's warranted.
In two and a half weeks, I'm perfectly happy voting for Maggie Barry's re-election as my constituency MP. My party vote -- well that's for me to decide on the 20th, and you to never find out because it might (note I say might) offend your delicate sense of smell. The secret ballot is a much under-rated preserver of the public peace, don't you think?
David Slack and I discussed this yesterday on Firstline. Most of it really is just behaving decently: don’t run anything under your own name that you haven’t written, declare your interests, don’t be a hateful bully.
I'm probably on a hiding to nothing on this, but I'd add "Don't run anything entirely based entirely on anonymous sources unless there is a clear and proven risk of harm to said source." And no, just chanting public interest doesn't cut it, and I'm not much interested in hearing "but everyone does it" either. Don't accept it from children, so why should I from alleged adults who can destroy people's reputations? Who knows, it might actually improve the quality of mud being slung if they've got to do it in the open.