I've resisted spreading this spat to here but I feel I should respond to this comment. Lynn, you have accused my of "lying by omission" - a strange accusation because every writer omits some facts and detail. You admitted you omitted things from your post.
But in particular here you have omitted an important fact - you were wrong on a number of claims you made (you had to admit one). In your initial post you made claims and accusations that omitted any supporting facts, and in comments since it became clear you were wrong - it turns out I was better informed about your own author/s on your blog than you, so it was a falsehood on your part, not mine.
I'm not going to continue this here, you know where you can discuss it without having to keep moaning on other people's blogs where you are lying by omission.
Whoever gets the job of serving the papers may have plenty of time, Mallard indicated yesterday he’s half way through his career, so that gives them until about 2040-ish.
Mallard has been unusually active around the blogs too, commenting in person at The Standard and Kiwiblog. Not sure if it's a sign of anxiety or publicity seeking.
"In person" doesn't include on a blog or Twitter I presume.
During the election I complained directly to journalists, and to a news editor by phone followed up by email (who hasn't responded yet, his attitude was very 'couldn't care less').
I didn't go through formal channels because the time that would take renders it pointless.
Fair questions - if the media used their special rights responsibily, were more accurate and more balanced than other groups and the general public, then they might justify special rights. They are merging with wider social media, and merging with personalityism, populism and entertainment so maybe their rights should also merge.
"More controversially perhaps, we argue that those who engage in this type of publishing must exercise their powers responsibly, and be accountable to the public on whose trust they rely."
This shouldn't be controversial, it should be the core focus.
The media is as big and as influental a part of our democratic process as any other group - probably more influential than any other group.
Particularly in the modern age of rapid news cycles and the established pattern of a volatile electorate in the last two weeks of an election campaign for accountability to be effective it needs to be as immediate as possible.
Ratings, ego and 'hit' driven media 'personalities' promoting their own agendas, framing the coverage and choosing and exluding participants are major issues for which there seems to be zero effective accountability.
While freedom of the media is an important aspect of this issue (as is privacy) responsibility of the media is just as important. It appears as if a major story was made out of very little. A strong case for deliberate political interference could be made.
Are the the timing, the opening Occupy screen and this morning's events in Auckland a coincidence?