Radio
New Zealands' Brent Edwards and NZ Herald's Tim Murphy spŠµar
The
NZ Herald hacks having a go at RNZ journos
And
as of 15m ago ... from Brent Edwards ...
"what
wished was that I would never have to tweet that. But the Herald's
conduct can't be ignored #qualityjournalism."
'Strong
stuff': the media's role in #ponytailgate
On
Wednesday, the UK-based Guardian
reported that
Radio Live talkback host Sean Plunket "would not be discussing
the hair-pulling controversy because it appeared to him a "cheap
little scummy political set-up".
Colin
Peacock
Photo: Supplied
24
April, 2015
However,
on his
show the next morning he
was unable to hold that line, partly because the reporting of it also
became a story.
The
ponytailed waitress at the heart of it all, Amanda Bailey, was on
the front
page of the New Zealand Herald, under the headline "Waitress
speaks":
"While
she regretted the attention the controversy brought on her workplace
and co-owners, she had no regrets about exposing Mr Key's behaviour".
In
fact, there was more in the story about her employers, who said they
were "...disappointed Ms Bailey" - who they say has "strong
political points of view" - went public rather than coming to
them directly with her concerns.
However,
they are hoping to "put this all behind us" now.
Little
chance of that, after the "waitress who spoke" posted
again on The Daily Blog to
say she didn't realise she was speaking to the New Zealand Herald and
its reporter Rachel Glucina, who usually specialises in stories about
celebrities and showbiz.
Amanda
Bailey insisted she thought she and her two employers were speaking
to a PR person called 'Rachel' who was listening on a phone line, and
was helping to prepare a mutually-agreed statement and photo.
But
then:
"As
we waited for Rachel to e-mail the draft proof one of my employers
read aloud to the other Rachel's e-mail address. It began…
RACHEL.GLUCINA and alarm bells went off. Sounded familiar, and I felt
sick to my stomach... a feeling I simply could not ignore."
Amanda
Bailey insisted her comments were taken out of context by the
Herald's story, and other journalists believed a serious breach of
ethics may have taken place, sparking this exchange between Radio New
Zealand's political editor Brent Edwards and Herald editor-in-chief
Tim Murphy
The
Herald's editor Shayne Currie insisted his reporter and his paper did
nothing wrong, but a series of similar statements published
during Thursday at the end of their story didn't really
help establish precisely what had happened and how this could have
been just one big misunderstanding.
Edits
to the story. - Photo: RNZ
Editor
Shayne Currie and reporter Rachel Glucina did not respond to requests
to be interviewed on Thursday, leaving other questions unanswered:
- The editor's statement said a PR firm had already been "helping" Amanda Bailey's employers, but which PR firm was helping and in what way?
- Why was Rachel Glucina reporting on a story which may also involve a company in which her brother is involved?
- If the only object of the meeting was to provide material for a New Zealand Herald story, why did the editor agree to "run the quotes past the parties" prior to publishing, which he says in his statement is "a rare step"?
- And - most importantly - if it was not clear to Amanda Bailey that a reporter was on the end of the phone during the meeting with her employers, why?
What's ethical?
The
Press Council's principles say:
"Information
or news obtained by subterfuge, misrepresentation or dishonest means
is not permitted unless there is an overriding public interest and
the news or information cannot be obtained by any other means".
Conceivably,
Amanda Bailey may have been in a position to reveal evidence of
misconduct on Wednesday which might have been of genuine public
interest. But her views about the PM's conduct were already known
from her earlier widely-reported blog post and
what was revealed
in Thursday's Herald story didn't
meet that mark.
The
code of ethics for the journalists' main union - the EPMU
-
says journalists "shall report and interpret the news with
scrupulous honesty" and in doing so . .
- They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in their professional duties.
- They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures, films, tapes and documents.
- They shall identify themselves and their employers before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.
In
theory, only the union's member can be disciplined for failing to
abide by these principles, but media organisations the world over
have similar principles set out in guidelines for their staff.
Some
people convinced the New Zealand Herald has acted unethically in this
case say they'll complain to the Press Council (though first they'll
have to write to the newspaper itself with their concerns).
If this is true then Rachel Glucina and @nzherald ought to be on the receiving end of press council complaint! - thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/23/upd…
@DylanReeve @FoxyLustyGrover @nzherald I am penning one at the moment presscouncil.org.nz/complaint_form…
But
this may not necessarily establish if a breach has occurred.
In
some past cases, where the contrary claims of journalists and
complainants couldn't be reconciled, the Council declined to accept
one version over another.
'In
whatever way the breakdown in communication occurred, the case is a
reminder to reporters that subjects should be told in plain language
their name and photograph will be in the newspaper along with their
expressed opinions.'
However
the story of 'The PM and the Waitress Part 2' ends, the same applies
in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.