Christians vs South Park: the sequel
December 14, 2007
And I’m afraid it’s 2-0 to South Park.
The BSA has once again refused to uphold a complaint against a sacreligious South Park show.
In the episode complained about, a cut-out picture of Jesus says to George Bush “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?”, and then proceeds to spray brown pellets across the screen, making loud farting noises.
If you don’t think that’s funny all by itself, there is context. The programme was mocking the squeamishness and hypocrisy of the US TV networks and public in censoring pictures of Mohammed, and also satirising itself for its part in the arms race of offensiveness in US cartoon shows.
It’s a close call, though, whether the episode was funnier than the complaint, which argued that South Park breached the law and order standard by (among other things) dissing the US flag. It also said the programme also breached standards of taste and decency and denigration (no, but worth a shot, I suppose) and accuracy, privacy, fairness and balance (WTF?).
Really, these sorts of complaints (the last one went to the High Court) do more harm than good to the Christian cause, I would have thought.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | 1 Comment »
DomPost editor says a bunch of interesting stuff
December 12, 2007
DomPost editor Tim Pankhurst gave a very interesting keynote address at the Jeanz conference called “The Power of Print”. Here are some highlights:
The relevance of print
The DomPost’s coverage of Louise Nicholas, Donna Awatere Huata, the Capital and Coast Health issues and the “Terrorism files” shows that print has “undiminished power” – in the sense that these stories wouldn’t have had the same impact if they had been purely from a web-based news source. (The second part of the sentence is unquestionably right, though I’m not sure it proves the first part).
The growing importance of the net
Newspapers are still profitable, but circulation is in decline and “old established methods” or news gathering and presentation are under threat. The challenge will be adapting. The web is starting to pay it’s own way: Fairfax’s digital arm is now contributing 14% to the company’s bottom line, if I understood Tim correctly. Wow.
He also stuck a thumb in the eye of the newspaper-doom merchants. “If any sector of the media should be worried [about convergence], it is television.” Evidence: a clip on Stuff of two DomPost journalists interviewing each other in the newsroom immediately after Graham Henry’s re-appointment. The audience will like the grainy immediacy, Pankhurst says. (Isn’t the new 24-hour news channel something of an answer to this? And won’t the broadcasters be looking to use their websites in similar ways, with more professional production? Still, the point is intriguing, because I suspect that people do turn to the newspapers’ websites for news, rather than the broadcasters’ ones, and that’s certainly an edge they could exploit).
DomPost 1 NZ Herald 0
Stuff beat the NZ Herald by five minutes with the story on Henry’s reappointment. Suck on that, granny!
The thinking behind the “Terrorism Files” story
Tim Pankhurst was very candid about the DomPost’s decision to run a front-page story about the content of the police affidavit. He wanted to show the public “what all the fuss was about”. He said it wasn’t a difficult call. How could we be in contempt, he wondered, when the situation is so confused? Even the Solicitor-General was saying terrorism laws were a mess. There was widespread criticism of the police actions and the affidavit helped explain to the public why they took the action they did.
The DomPost figured terrorism charges couldn’t be laid; the story was highly unlikely to affect trials on arms charges that were a year out, and judges and juries are robust enough to put aside this sort of publicity. The paper removed the names so that particular defendants wouldn’t be identified.
He said the paper took legal advice, which was encouraging enough for them to go ahead. He summarised the advice as: “it was along the usual lines: there is risk, but on balance, we think you can get away with it, but it will be on your head.” Later, he said that the paper didn’t want to compound this risk by posting the whole affidavit on line. “We were pushing it, as it was, legally.” (This advice may not sound very helpful. But the laws of contempt are vague enough that media lawyers have to say this sort of thing all the time. Of course, I haven’t seen the legal advice. But this summary of it rather downplays the extraordinarily prejudicial effect of the story, even though the defendants weren’t named. I would have expected this to be identified as a high risk story. I would also have expected the advice to explore whether some of the published material was suppressed, and whether the paper would be breaching the Crimes Act, which prohibits the disclosure of material obtained by interception warrant. (Perhaps it did). I also wonder about the wisdom of discussing that advice, on the record, in front of a roomful of journalists, when the paper is corresponding with the Solicitor-General about a possible contempt prosecution. Also, isn’t this explanation a bit at odds with the paper’s own unequivocal assurance to its readers that the story was lawful?).
An aside
(Still, isn’t it refreshing that an editor is prepared to stump up and justify his publication decisions? Former editor of the Press, Paul Thompson, was also very good at this. This is to be contrasted with the appallingly craven refusal of the editorial team at the NZ Herald to front up and answer questions about their campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill).
Terrorism files II
Tim Pankhurst explained that the DomPost had thought hard about how to “maximise such a story”. Should they put it online? Would that hurt casual sales? No, he decided. If we didn’t put it online, someone else would. In the event there were more than 3,500 extra casual sales, a huge spike in online traffic up to 150,000 hits. This sort of result, and the burgeoning interest in online reporting generally, means “it is a wonderful time to be in journalism,” he said.
He also noted that Fairfax management stood by the decisions of its editors. He had advised them that the story was coming. They have backed us, he said. (What’s particularly encouraging about this is that it answers concerns about the foreign domination of our media. I’ve heard the same thing about lack of editorial dictation from owners from many different people. I’m inclined to think that the impact of foreign ownership is much more closely related to the owners’ policies on investing money in good journalism – or conversely, screwing money out of the news operation).
Tim Pankhurst on the NZ Herald’s Electoral Finance Bill campaign
He was a bit bemused. “Good on them,” was his attitude. But he thought it would be boring the Herald’s readers to tears.
Populist? You bet
Pankhurst has no time for people who whine about stories on Paris Hilton. “Get real”, he says. Those stories are popular. Readers want them. Being popular is a sign of business success, a necessity, really. Besides, news would be unremittingly dull if it was filled with the critics’ ideas of worthy stories. Should we dump the Beckham coverage too? What you need is a mix. (Sorry, Tim, I’m a grinch. I like to think that worthy stories can be told in an interesting way. And I think that it’s disingenuous for the media to say they are simply feeding the public appetite for fluff, when they’re actually instrumental in creating that appetite. I think there’s a place for interesting-but-not-especially-important stories, but the media are overdoing it, and it’s creating an ever-shrinking hole for public discussion of important issues. Still, I think newspapers (and public radio) are doing the best job of maintaining that discussion. I have a hunch that Tim and I aren’t really so far apart on this issue.)
Those damned blogs
You get the feeling Tim Pankhurst is a bit ambivalent about blogs. “They have little news credibility, but they do use up limited news consumers’ time”, he said. Time that should be spent looking at newspapers, damn it!
Yet he’s still prepared to host a range of blogs on Stuff’s website. Presumably these have more news credibility.
[Note: some quotes above are very slightly changed from the original post. I have since watched the video of the speech and corrected some small errors.]
Topics: Contempt of Court, Future of journalism, General, Internet issues, Journalism and criminal law, Media ethics | 1,339 Comments »
Has fairness swallowed privacy?
December 11, 2007
What would you do with this complaint?
During a Close Up item about the “naming and shaming” of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated, but she was “unmasked” and named later in the item.
Interestingly, it wasn’t a privacy complaint. (The complaint wasn’t made by the woman, but by a couple who watched the programme and thought it was unfair on her). Privacy might have struck some problems: was her conviction a private fact? Was there public a public interest defence? Was she “vulnerable” so that her privacy might be infringed, even though she was in a public place?
The BSA didn’t have to ask those questions. But it still upheld the complaint – on grounds of fairness. The woman was singled out and humilated, they said. They were particularly concerned about the footage of her running from the reporter, but they also found the “unmasking” at the end “sensational and gratuitous”. TVNZ singled her out and used her as an example. It was mean (the BSA didn’t use that word, but that’s the flavour.) The BSA also said that the result might well have been different if the woman was a public figure.
So: has fairness swallowed up privacy?
I’ve long suggested that everyone who claims breach of privacy should add in a claim for unfairness, even though you have to go to the broadcaster first, and can’t get damages for fairness (you can for privacy). This case is more evidence of the wisdom of this course. When the elements of privacy aren’t quite there, what looks like a privacy issue often falls within fairness. Hidden cameras are argued under both standards.
Did the BSA get it right? We’re talking about a drunk driver here. Doesn’t she deserve shaming? Just because other drunk drivers don’t get similar treatment – does that mean she shouldn’t get it either? Yet TVNZ’s treatment of her was pretty horrible. I’m still not quite sure where I stand on this one.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | 1,684 Comments »
This would be the most fascinating defamation case ever…
December 10, 2007
In her book and in media interviews, Louise Nicholas calls Clint Rickards a rapist. He calls her a liar who needs help.
If one of them were to sue the other for defamation, it would be a hell of a bunfight.
The criminal case hasn’t put these issues to bed. A defamation lawsuit would be decided on proof on balance of probabilities, and material that was inadmissible in the criminal case may be admissible in a civil one.
Incidentally, if either decided to sue, they could line up some media defendants as well (including – because of this post – me).
Does this show that we need to embrace the emerging doctrine of neutral reportage, in which the media are protected if they are merely reporting conflicting allegations, without taking sides, where the fact of the allegations themselves is newsworthy?
Topics: Defamation | 1,422 Comments »
Media criticism from an Ombudsman
December 6, 2007
Some damning quotes about the performance of the media from Ombudsman Mel Smith’s report into the justice sector:
The criminal justice system is complex and difficult. Unfortunately the rhetoric that we hear in the media and elsewhere almost daily tends to convey an impression that there is some simple answer to crime and criminal justice. That is very far from the reality. There is no simple answer. There is no silver bullet.
I express my concern in the report about how the issues of crime and criminal justice have become highly politicised and often the subject of uninformed and superficial public and media comment. There has been, and continues to be, a lack of constructive and clear headed public debate about the issues. As a consequence there is an absence of rational decision making based on any critical examination of the issues.
Criminal justice has unfortunately reached the stage where national debate is difficult. When an incident occurs the responses from the public, politicians and the media tend to polarise. media coverage of events is often extensive and frequently seeks, with minimal investigation, to ascribe culpability on to an aspect of the system.
The total number of offences reported to the police annually has remained reasonably static for the past 10 years. In spite of some public and media comments, crime is not running amok and there seems little need to deploy large numbers of the extra police into active patrol policing. I do not intend to dwell on what the media have described as Corrections scandals (see, eg One News, 30 June 2007) other than to note that this yet again illustrates a recurrent theme.
The criminal justice sector has, all too often, been in the news because of some mistakes. Such mistakes, however minor and isolated in themselves, often receive considerable (sometimes sensational) publicity and are portrayed as an accumulation of systemic incompetence. As a consequence, it is not unnatural for individuals who work within the system to adopt a cautious approach and ensure that they have complied with “the rules” should any of their decisions make the headlines on radio or television or feature on page 1 of the next day’s newspaper. A policy of risk aversion is eminently sensible in these circumstances, although it might not always necessarily be in the best interests of either the offender or the effective and efficient management of the criminal justice system.
Topics: Media ethics | 1,815 Comments »
Free speech audit in Australia
December 6, 2007
Former NSW Ombudsman Irene Moss has conducted an audit into the state of free speech in Australia and concluded that “free speech and media freedom are being whittled away by gradual and sometimes almost imperceptible degrees.”
I confess I’m always a bit suspicious of death-by-a-thousand-cuts claims, since they often overlook or underestimate the ways in which free speech is functioning robustly, and in fact being expanded. Moss’s conclusions are based largely on the flaws in Australia’s freedom of information regime (which are much worse than ours). Interestingly, she treats politicians’ spin, use of very short press conferences, and appearances on sympathetic talkback radio shows as free speech issues. I’m not so sure about that.
Moss also finds fault with the laws protecting whistleblowers and journalists’ sources. Both are better in NZ, but still problematic. She attacks sedition (which we’re dumping) although it hasn’t been invoked in Australia since 1960, and overly broadly worded anti-terrorism laws, though it’s not clear they have been used oppressively yet.
Some of this seems to have spilled into their censorship laws, which have been used to ban two books for inciting terrorism. I’m not aware of that happening in NZ, though our censorship legislation is broad enough that it could.
Moss also tackles suppression orders, finding that there are more than 1,000 in place on any given day. I think a similar study in NZ would also find that they are awarded too readily.
She finds Australia’s privacy laws complex and confusing. She cites the media’s opposition to the possible development of a general action for invasion of privacy (which we’ve got, and which hasn’t led to a deluge of cases, though editors here say they frequently have to grapple with these issues). She also laments the misunderstanding of privacy legislation which leads people to tell journalists that information can’t be disclosed BOTPA (“because of the Privacy Act”). Journalists here have the same frustrations.
She doesn’t find that the laws of contempt have been much of a problem. I suspect they’re causing more angst here.
Overall, Moss’s conclusions reflect the fact that Australia is rated more lowly on international press freedom rankings than NZ (we’re currently 9th on the Reporters Sans Frontieres index; Aussie is at 41; and we’re 9th equal on Freedom House’s rankings; Australia is 39th).
While I’d be the first to agree with Moss about the problems with freedom of information laws in Australia, there’s a debate to be had about whether they are really free speech issues (my take: yes, but only the way access to a library is a free speech issue). The rest of the problems she identifies don’t seem to go anywhere near the heart of free speech, which strikes me as being in pretty good health in Australia.
Topics: Censorship, Contempt of Court, Name suppression, Official Information Act, Privacy Act, Privacy tort, Suppression orders, Whistle-blowing | 1,999 Comments »
OIA book out
December 6, 2007
Nicola White has just released her book on the performance of the Official Information Act. She gives it a B. The book is called “Free and Frank: Making the Official Information Act 1982 work better”. It’s indispensible for anyone who wants to understand the workings of the OIA. The fact that Nicola used to work at the Department of Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and is now deputy Auditor-General gives her conclusions and recommendations extra zing.
Nicola’s research is largely based on interviewing 52 people who use the OIA – as requesters, officials, Ministers and their advisers, and Ombudsmen. My research (see the link on the left) was largely based on examining about a thousand OIA requests and responses, but we reach much the same conclusions. The OIA works pretty well for requests for run-of-the-mill information, with the main problem being a lack of understanding of the OIA’s provisions. But try to make a request for a lot of information or for politically sensitive material, and it’s a different story.
“Free and Frank” is particularly valuable for its nuanced treatment of views from inside the public sector, particularly concerning the need to protect the decision-making process by insulating it from publicity that would damage the policy process.
Nicola finds, in essence, that requesters are from Mars and officials are from Venus – and this produces a spiralling lack of trust that undermines both the OIA and the processes of government.
Like almost everyone who cares about freedom of information issues, Nicola is a big fan of pro-active release of much information using a system of early categorisation. She also makes the extraordinarily sensible suggestion that a set of subsidiary rules giving guidance on recurring OIA issues – treatment of drafts, personal diaries, tender documents, names of officials, status of correpondence to ministers from members of the public, etc – should be drawn up and made available. In fact, many of these rules of thumb already exist in various places (casenotes, the Ombudsmen’s annual and quarterly reports, conclusions from investigations, etc), and could easily be compiled to supplement the more general guidance available in the Ombudsmen’s existing OIA practice guidelines.
So, read it.
One quibble: the book could have done with an index.
Topics: Official Information Act | 2,466 Comments »
NZ Herald archives really in contempt?
December 3, 2007
The Solicitor-General has told the NZ Herald to take some stories off its archives, because they are in contempt of court. The stories contain (presumably prejudicial) information about murder accused Liam James Reid/Julian Edgecombe.
I don’t know what this material is. It may, for example, contain information about previous convictions.
If the judge specifically suppressed this information, it would be a crime to publish it, and possibly a contempt of court too. If the judge didn’t, we need to ask whether its availability creates a real risk of prejudice to his upcoming trial. I would have thought this is not very likely: not many people are likely to access it, and the chances of those people becoming jurors is very likely to be remote. I suppose there may be an argument that someone might stick it up on a blog, or it may become well known by some other avenue. It may be a contempt to put that material on the blog (if it were sufficiently well read), but that contempt would be committed by the blogger. No doubt close to the trial, particularly when jurors have been selected and one might be tempted to do a news search, the risk of prejudice might become a real one. But I doubt it’s serious enough now. Still, if the S-G had made a polite request to the Herald and the Knowledge Basket and whoever else, a reasonable response would be to comply.
Still, the Herald is demonstrating a typical journalistic naivety about contempt with the following sentence:
The request opens significant questions of law, especially whether the courts can force the removal of information that has been in the public domain for some time.
As the Herald should know full well, there’s really no issue here: the courts do have this power. It often happens in contempt cases that material that has already been published must be suppressed as the trial approaches. Think Bain, for example. Anyone with electronic archives (major bloggers, this means you too) probably ought to think about setting up a system to take down prejudicial material when major court cases loom. Obviously, this is a bit problematic. I wonder whether the police and S-G ought to set up some sort of reminder system?
Topics: Contempt of Court | 1,911 Comments »
Press Council review: it’s a bit weird
November 29, 2007
The good
As I said earlier, I agree whole-heartedly with almost all of the recommendations made by the reviewers of the Press Council, Sir Ian Barker and Prof Lewis Evans. Yes, scrap the requirement for complainants to sign away their rights to go to court: as the reviewers say, it’s of very doubtful legality. Hell yes, beef up the PC’s power to mediate complaints if possible, and add in a general fast-track complaints consideration process. You bet, shore up the organisation’s independence by making it an independent legal entity and distancing it from its industry funders. (Will they buy the idea that the PC should set its own budget though?!) Sure, appoint a full-time CEO who’s a trained mediator. Absolutely, review the Statement of Principles to provide greater detail and guidance. And by all means, better advertise the existence of the Press Council.
The bad
A couple of quibbles: first, is it really such a great idea for the PC to be “promoting freedom of expression”? Complainants may be forgiven for thinking that this rather queers the pitch. Admittedly, the reviewers recommend that the promotion of freedom of expression should occur “through a responsible and independent print media and through adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards”. Alas, ghosting behind these lofty principles is the reality that free speech and holding the press to particular standards are often in tension, or at least would be seen to be by the parties to many free speech disputes. Adding another layer of complexity is that it’s hard for the PC to speak out on issues that might come before it, even if it can quickly form views about free speech issues in time to contribute to public debate. What might it have said about the recent DomPost/Press “Terrorism Files” stories, for example?
Second, I’m disappointed that they have merely tweaked the penalty system by adding a power to reprimand as the highest penalty. I would have liked them to allow the PC to use the publication of a statement summarising their decision as a penalty, rather than have it be automatic. In other words, I wish they had the discretion to uphold a complaint (for cases of technical or minor breaches) without ordering publication of their decision. The BSA has this power, and uses it often. Without it, I think the PC tends to have too high a threshold for upholding complaints. Worried about imposing its only punishment too readily, the PC too often finds flaws with a newspaper’s ethics, but doesn’t uphold the complaint. That ends up being unfair on the complainant, I think. It also leads to some pretty silly decisions.
Those fairly minor points aside, I think the recommendations are great, and I hope they are adopted. Given the significant funding increase they will require, though, I wonder whether that will happen.
But the rest of the nearl 200-page report is, I think, often very odd. In places, it’s quite bizarre.
The ugly: bias
The report kicks off with a consideration of first principles. Is self-regulation better than government regulation? Good question to pursue, you’d think. But what follows is hopelessly biased in favour of self-regulation. Government intervention costs too much, it says. It’s wasteful. And it can fall prey to special interest groups, who may be “poorer quality regulators”. The industry, on the other hand, knows the business and can therefore draw up “more effective standards that are then more likely to be complied with”.
All fair points. But shouldn’t an honest discussion look at the other side of the argument? That industry self-regulation can lead to underfunding? That it too can be biased toward a particular special interest group: the one that set it up and funded it? As it emerges later in report, these are the two most common criticisms of the PC.
And why not look to the obvious comparison in NZ with the BSA, which is an example of government regulation? A compelling case can be made that the BSA is performing much better than the PC on almost all the yardsticks the reviewers apply. The BSA is more transparent, is better known, offers clearer guidance to the media in its codes and decisions, reviews its performance more readily, is adequately funded, and, I think, is fairer to the complainants. (This is my impression from reading all of the decisions of both bodies for the past decade. I can almost always predict which way the BSA will go on the basis of its earlier decisions, and the outcomes almost always seem right – or at least justifiable – to me. I find it much harder to predict PC decisions, much harder to extract the principles they are applying, and am sometimes surprised at their failure to uphold what even they seem to accept are justified complaints. And there’s really no evidence (I’ve looked) that the decisions of the BSA are politically biased). Finally, it’s become pretty clear to me that the vast bulk of the PC’s decisions are not well known in the media industry: they don’t get translated into newsroom practice. I suspect that the BSA fares a little (but only a little) better on that score.
The reviewers blithely state that the BSA’s uphold rate is comparable: 12% in the year to June 2006. This is rather disingenuous. The BSA routinely upholds about 25% of complaints, as is very clear from its annual reports. The PC routinely upholds fewer than 20% of complaints.
I’m not saying the PC should be regulated by the government. I am saying I would have expected a more balanced discussion.
The ugly: missing data
I also expected a bunch of other things that don’t feature in the report:
- a chart setting out the number of complaints received each year, and the proportion upheld. (We only get figures for the last six years. Were they different in the 70s and 80s? I would have thought that would be central to any consideration of the history of the PC).
- some indication of whether the nature of the complaints had changed. Are there more political complaints these days? More or fewer about taste and decency? Is the tendency to whinge about non-publication of letters to the editor just a recent phenomenon? Is fairness featuring more?
- some indication of the contents of some of the documents mentioned. There’s a fascinating reference to a pamphlet put out in the early years of the PC giving advice to publications about matters of sex and nudity. What did it say? We’re not told. The PC apparently conducted a review of press standards in 1981. What did it conclude? We’re not told. It seems the PC “came under attack from several sources” in 1993. Who? For what? We’re not told.
- what the Constitution says. I’ve got a copy of this myself, but I doubt many others have. Why wasn’t it an appendix?
Instead, we get a lengthy chapter on the history of the PC that contains almost no interesting information. It’s largely full of smug quotes from successive Chairmen about how fine and independent the PC is.
The ugly: shonky data analysis
Next, there is the series of “surveys” carried out by the reviewers – surveying the public, organisations, the media, and complainants. Those interested were asked to fill out lengthy questionnaires, which were available online. In places the reviewers admit that there is “an element of self-selection” in these surveys. That’s like saying there’s an element of sand on the beaches. These surveys are stupendously non-representative, and do not come close to representing the views of the groups purportedly surveyed. The reviewers cannot justify referring, as they often do, to “the public’s views” on this or that on the basis of the survey. Let’s look at the numbers: 147 members of the “public” responded. (The PC thought this was “a relatively strong response”. Ahem.) 30.6% were employed in education. More than a third had worked for the media before. About a quarter had complained to the media in the past five years; about 12% had complained to the PC. Does this sound like the public to you? We’re looking at a bunch of teachers, former journalists and media complainants.
How do the reviewers use this information? Here’s an example: “According to the survey of the public we conducted, very few individuals in the last five years had complained to a media organisation (28.4%) or the Press Council (12.1%).” Where do you start? In fact, if accurate, this would constitute a staggeringly high proportion of the public. On the survey figures, it would suggest that nearly half a million people had complained to the Press Council alone in the past 5 years, for instance. The real number is more like 250. The reviewers note that “the proportions in the report are higher than we would anticipate for the public as a whole”. No shit. The problem here is that the sample is not by any stretch of the imagination random, and it shouldn’t be used in any sentence that contains the words “the public”.
While on the subject of statistical illiteracy, get a load of this:
The survey indicates that the public are generally satisfied with the press. On the whole, individuals agreed that the press collects information responsibly (31.2%) and does a good job of providing [an] accurate account of events in news stories (34.8%).
Um. “On the whole?” In fact, almost as many respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, and as many again ticked “neutral”. The former members of the media were much more likely to think the media was doing a good job, and were pushing up the numbers. Elsewhere, the reviewers summarised these responses as saying “The majority of respondents agreed that the press does a good job of providing accurate accounts of events in news stories”. You’d have thought that a judge and an economics professor would realise that a “majority” means more than half.
Respondents were also asked to evaluate this statement: “Considering deadline pressures, the press provides as much accurate information as can be expected”. The reviewers note that the most common response was to disagree, then added:
However, those respondents who had worked for a media organisation (and therefore would be aware of the accuracy of the information and the deadline pressures faced) agreed with this statement…
This could equally be phrased this way:
However, more than a quarter those respondents who had worked for a media organisation (and therefore could be expected to be sympathetic to the media’s performance) nevertheless also felt that the press wasn’t producing as much accurate information as can be expected taking deadlines into account. Fewer than half of these people agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
This doesn’t feel like analysis, it feels like spin. To be fair, much of the data is reported straight, and the tables at the back allow the reader to work out what the numbers are.
Still, similar problems did pop up with the analysis of the rest of the data. Only 34 organisations responded to the survey of organisations. Hardly any were businesses. Three respondents were journalistic organisations! What the hell were they doing there? There were usually 5 or 6 “no response” answers to most of the questions. Again, this was hardly much of a sample of anything. Yet the reviewers kept using decimal places in their descriptions of responses. Yes, 8.8% of respondents described themselves as businesses. You get a very different impression when you hear that this in fact means that three businesses responded.
Similarly, less than a quarter of complainants (60 out of 355) returned the survey of complainants, and often as many as 10 or more of them didn’t respond to a particular question. Weirdly, two complainants believed that the PC prevents the free flow of information. Perhaps they thought it was referring to the PC’s ability to get information from the publications being complained about. Also weirdly, five complainants thought there should be no limitations on what the press can publish. This belief apparently didn’t stop them using the PC. Perhaps they thought it was asking about prior restraint.
And again, only 18 media organisations replied to the survey of the media, and often 5 to 8 of them didn’t respond to many questions. Still, interestingly, 4 felt that the PC should have the power to fine media organisations, 5 thought it should be able to make media organisations apologise, 3 had no process to deal with complaints, 2 thought that the PC’s investigations weren’t thorough enough to determine the truth, and only 5 were prepared to say that the PC’s decisions had a long term positive effect on the their performance. Two-thirds felt that advocacy for, and education about, the importance of a free press by the PC is valuable. And yet, the PC at present does almost none of that. Still, I’m not sure how much can be taken from any of this.
The good, reprise
In the end, none of these criticisms really affect the recommendations. The 20 pages or so out of 200 that discuss the recommendations are generally very good (though a bit light, I think). It’s the other 180 pages that don’t provide the sort of historical and statistical resource that might have been expected. That’s according to 100% of the public polled in this survey.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, Media ethics, Press Council | 48 Comments »
Why did Radio Waatea pull its interview with Clint Rickards?
November 26, 2007
The media don’t usually go along with requests from an interviewee’s lawyers to pull a plum interview. I can’t think of any legal rule they’d be breaking by running the interview. If Rickards is breaching his agreement with the police, that’s his problem.
[Update: the interview has now been broadcast]
Topics: Media ethics | 47 Comments »
« Previous Entries Next Entries »