THE NOELLE McCARTHY PLAGIARISM CASE

Radio New Zealand has now publicly dealt with the Noelle McCarthy plagiarism case, and McCarthy herself has apologised. While RNZ management may have been a little slow off the mark in dealing with the situation, I think their handling of the case is appropriate. I don't think this was a serious enough instance of plagiarism to warrant McCarthy's dismissal from the station. If the lifting of other writers' work had happened to a broader extent in McCarthy's NZ Herald column that might have been another matter, but spoken pieces for radio feels a little different than print.

McCarthy delivered at least three editorial pieces on National Radio that were significantly lifted from other media. I suspect her actions were a looseness around attribution of sources rather than a wilful plagiarism, but her behaviour was certainly not acceptable in broadcast journalism. She showed a naievity and lack of experience that is no doubt embarassing for Radio New Zealand, which sets its journalism standards high.

But McCarthy is in fact relatively inexperienced. I don't think she has had much in the way of formal journalism training. She was something of an overnight sensation in the New Zealand media, coming from nowhere to everywhere fast.

When she was on the way up, the praise that was heaped upon her was far more than she deserved. But strangely, now that she has in effect "made it," the criticism she attracts is also more than she deserves. The knives have really been out for her on this one - far more than they were for the young New Zealand Herald journalist who got in trouble for a similar instance of plagiarism involving a Tawera Nikau profile a few years back. She too was relatively inexperienced, and she too kept her job.

Yes, McCarthy has made a stupid mistake - one I'm sure she won't commit again - but she doesn't deserve to have her radio career destroyed over it. National Radio needs some young fresh blood, and McCarthy does fill that role for them nicely.

ADVERTORIAL AND AD PLACEMENT ENCROACHING ON EDITORIAL

Our tightening economy has been having an impact on our print media, with moves such as staff cuts at the two big publishing companies APN and Fairfax Media, out-sourcing of subbing, and editors overseeing two or three magazines at once instead of just one. Lately I have noticed another sign of the tough times - the placement of advertising features and advertisements is changing.

It's a long time since I worked in daily journalism, but back then there were quite strict standards regarding the placement of ads and advertorials (ads that look like editorial copy). They couldn't be near any copy that was too similar - nothing that would cause reader confusion or blurring of the editorial lines. This was always a source of tension between editorial and advertising staff at our publications. Journalists want purity of product, but sales people are charged with making money.

As times get tougher, I can see that a lot of the old standards are being eroded. A Greer Robson ad runs opposite her column in Woman's Day. Well the Woman's Day is a very commercial magazine, you might say, what does it matter? But then you see an ad for Brian's Gaynor's investment seminars under his column in the Business section of the NZ Herald. That wouldn't have happened a few years ago.

Going back to the Woman's Day, the Warehouse runs a multi-page advertising feature for its clothing lines inside the mag, and some of the pages are almost identical to the magazine's own fashion pages. Do readers notice? Does it matter? Maybe not as much as the purists in the industry would say. But it's kind of "thin end of the wedge" stuff. If advertising and advertorial gets too tacky looking and too messy in its placement it will affect the over-all look of magazines and newspapers and it could eventually drive readers away. Like most things, it's a question of balance, and a subject worthy of discussion.

THE MEDIA AND THE TRAGIC CASE OF NIA GLASSIE

People have a strange sad fascination with these awful child abuse cases and, like all the others, this story got a lot of publicity initially. But now that the full dreadful details are being outlined in court, this one is so completely hideous that it's almost like our media outlets are slightly shying away from it. I've heard members of the public saying that they mute the TV reports on it or change channels because they can't bear to hear the horrific details. I think journalists and editors sense that, and I think it's affecting the coverage, or at least the low-key placement of the coverage. I've talked before in my media commentating about to what extent journalists should use or not use really grisly crime details. It's not the media's responsibility to protect us from the awful things that happen in the world, but there are definitely issues of taste and sensitivity and reading the public mood that come into play, and this tragic case is an illustration of that I think.