Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
am I the only person crossing my fingers (and everything else) that Philip Field is going to hear the words 'guilty' thirty four times?
Which charge is it you want him acquitted of?
Is it okay if not is some of the "guilty"s are preceded by "not"s?
-
It doesn't legitimise using private data to attack political opponents. But if that *is* fair game, can I put an OIA request in for John Key's tax return?
Of course you can.
Not only that, but there's nothing in the Privacy Act will stop them releasing it to you.
-
if a press sec does the rounds of the gallery during a story and tells people off the record, 'yeah, the guy attacking us on issue X is angry at the government because of confidential reason Y but the privacy act prevents us from saying so in public', then are they leaking?
Yes. I don't see why a leak has to be for publication. Doing it publicly may be a bigger leak, or a more egregious breach of the Privacy Act, but that's a question of degree.
-
It was good journalism.
I wouldn't say that. Sainsbury never asked her for the legal justification for her action, and Campbell just let it drop.
I was talking about the news. Not the current affairs follow up.
-
Sorry, wait, is that a sentence?
It has a verb. That's enough for me.
-
Can anyone recommend a <$200 Freeview HD box?
You can buy mine :-)
I upgraded to the Freevo recording thing after a few months, and it's now sitting in its box.
-
So when analogue signal is switched off, all our old TVs will only be good for playing DVDs and (gasp) VHS tapes?
No. They will however need a freeview box (or a Sky one) to view television.
-
Danyl:
What DOES happen is that press secs and Ministers confide to journalists off the record about specific cases in order to infuence their coverage, but they that's very different from explicitly leaking the information and having it made publically available.
That's what I meant. Providing confidential information in confidence to a journalist is leaking.
And Russell:
It would be useful to know of some actual cases in order to make a real comparison.
Given that journalists may only know of the practice from personal experience (having been confided in with personal information relating to a particular story) it may be difficult to find good example they could use with their obligations of confidence.
-
With all due respect Graeme, aren't you a little tired of "After nine... long... years..." and "When Labour was in power..."? I mean, really how long is a year? Isn't it National who should be accountable for their own actions now?
Which is exactly why I didn't use it like that. If the release was in breach of the Privacy Act - something I consider likely, if less clear than others seems to - then the fact that someone else did it as well, or did something worse, in no way excuses it.
The journalists were holding the minister to account. It was the lead story on both TV One and TV3. They spoke to the women and politicians across the House; and interviewed privacy experts and lawyers. And they also provided us with a context - not to judge the actions of the minister, but the actions of other politicians attacking her. It was good journalism. Hell, it was journalism.
As I noted, my remarks were peripheral. They go in no way to the heart of the issue. Consequences for Ms Bennett if she's found to have breached an individuals privacy? Perhaps. But wasn't it just nice to know? Would you have preferred not to have been advised of the practice under previous government?
-
Some tangential points:
1. It was nice to hear some opposition MPs calling for an apology, rather than the sack. When you call for the sacking of a minister too often people start turning a deaf ear.
2. It's also been nice to hear balance from journalists. "Bennett did this, however, when Labour was in power their practice was to have ministerial staff leak the information instead of doing it openly." etc.
We could do with more of both of these.