The Clayton Weatherston murder trial is perhaps New Zealand's worst example yet of blogs and social networking sites playing fast and loose with the laws governing court reporting and contempt of court.
Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and that's why there are rules and regulations surrounding court reporting that mainstream media have always had to follow. But how do you police the internet - how do you police blogs, and facebook and twitter? There's talk at the moment that some of the more prominent blogs and facebook sites might be targeted for legal action. This makes sense as it would serve as a reminder that the normal rules do apply even in the online world - but there's no way you could keep every blog, facebook mention and tweet about the case under control, so in the end this would be a symbolic action as much as anything.
I think it is also important that juries be constantly reminded that they are not to look at the internet during the course of a trial - and I understand this is happening these days.
The interesting thing about the Weatherston case in terms of blogging, tweeting and all, is that a lot of what is being said online is almost comic in nature (in a dark and cynical kind of way) - so you could possibly argue that it's not really the sort of thing that would influence any sensible jury member anyway. I mean if someone posted some supposed new evidence on a case online, that would be one thing, but just to poke fun at an accused and say that he seems guilty, well if I was on a jury I don't think that would change my thinking much.
It's certainly an interesting issue. I'm really not sure if the legal system can stem the giant tide that is the internet - so I do wonder where we will all end up with this one.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
CAMPBELL LIVE STILL HAUNTED BY MEDAL THIEF INTERVIEW
I see in today's Herald on Sunday there is a not-quite-apology on Paul Holmes' column page, relating to a suggestion he made in last week's column that perhaps the controversial John Campbell interview with the medal thief never actually took place.
Holmes was speculating that a lawyer or some other middle man may have interviewed the thief on behalf of Campbell Live and then Campbell just recreated the questions with the hooded man, who we now all know was an actor. I thought at the time Holmes made the suggestion that it was unlikely, but the fact that the programme didn't tell viewers on the night the story screened that they had only secured an audio interview with the thief and so the television interview scenario was being re-created with an actor, left them wide open to such speculation.
It was a major cock-up on TV3's part, and to be fair they know that and have apologised for it. So fair enough that they wanted to set the record straight with the Herald on Sunday that Campbell's interview with the medal thief did indeed take place.
This one has been a bit of a sorry saga for TV3 and Campbell Live, and it continues to drag on. The Campbell Live team are now in the awkward position where they will have to fight a legal fight not to give up the name of the thief, as journalists must always protect their sources. This is an important journalistic principle, and one that is worth fighting for. It's just a shame that some hasty decision making back when this story screened means this important point of principle is being fought over a medal thief loathed by the nation rather than a brave whistle-blower or some other more admirable human being.
Holmes was speculating that a lawyer or some other middle man may have interviewed the thief on behalf of Campbell Live and then Campbell just recreated the questions with the hooded man, who we now all know was an actor. I thought at the time Holmes made the suggestion that it was unlikely, but the fact that the programme didn't tell viewers on the night the story screened that they had only secured an audio interview with the thief and so the television interview scenario was being re-created with an actor, left them wide open to such speculation.
It was a major cock-up on TV3's part, and to be fair they know that and have apologised for it. So fair enough that they wanted to set the record straight with the Herald on Sunday that Campbell's interview with the medal thief did indeed take place.
This one has been a bit of a sorry saga for TV3 and Campbell Live, and it continues to drag on. The Campbell Live team are now in the awkward position where they will have to fight a legal fight not to give up the name of the thief, as journalists must always protect their sources. This is an important journalistic principle, and one that is worth fighting for. It's just a shame that some hasty decision making back when this story screened means this important point of principle is being fought over a medal thief loathed by the nation rather than a brave whistle-blower or some other more admirable human being.
A FOND FAREWELL TO EYE TO EYE
I'm very sorry to hear that Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson is finishing its run with TVNZ.
The current affairs panel discussion show with a Maori focus has run for six years off-peak on TV ONE. Funding for off-peak shows is a rather perilous thing these days, and it was almost inevitable that the plug would eventually be pulled, but it's a shame. The show was great, and had a real role to play in furthering understanding of Maori issues and points of view.
I'm not an entirely unbiased observer on this one, as - in my other life as a freelance executive producer - I worked on the show for a couple of seasons a few years back. It was one of the most interesting and enjoyable productions I have ever worked on, and my time spent with Eye to Eye gave me a greater understanding of the Maori world that I am still grateful for.
It was this providing of another perspective in an easily accessible, very watchable way that was Eye to Eye's strength. The Maori Television Service should have a look at whether there might be a way they could pick the series up with funding from Te Mangai Paho.
The current affairs panel discussion show with a Maori focus has run for six years off-peak on TV ONE. Funding for off-peak shows is a rather perilous thing these days, and it was almost inevitable that the plug would eventually be pulled, but it's a shame. The show was great, and had a real role to play in furthering understanding of Maori issues and points of view.
I'm not an entirely unbiased observer on this one, as - in my other life as a freelance executive producer - I worked on the show for a couple of seasons a few years back. It was one of the most interesting and enjoyable productions I have ever worked on, and my time spent with Eye to Eye gave me a greater understanding of the Maori world that I am still grateful for.
It was this providing of another perspective in an easily accessible, very watchable way that was Eye to Eye's strength. The Maori Television Service should have a look at whether there might be a way they could pick the series up with funding from Te Mangai Paho.
Monday, July 6, 2009
SUNDAY NEWSPAPER WARS
The employment law case involving one-time Herald on Sunday Assistant Editor Stephen Cook has highlighted the intense competition between the HoS and the Sunday Star-Times. The case has been before the court this past week, and the judgement is now reserved.
Between the information actually revealed in court and the rumours circulating about what is contained in some of the suppressed evidence, there have been a few wild stories floating about. A telescope to spy into the SST editor's office (a joke apparently), stealing stories (probably not a joke), deliberate rumour spreading about rival staff members - it's been all on.
I'm amazed the journos have time to do any work with all this carry on. And I'm equally amazed to hear they fight so bitterly when the stories both the papers feature seem so little worth fighting for!
Between the information actually revealed in court and the rumours circulating about what is contained in some of the suppressed evidence, there have been a few wild stories floating about. A telescope to spy into the SST editor's office (a joke apparently), stealing stories (probably not a joke), deliberate rumour spreading about rival staff members - it's been all on.
I'm amazed the journos have time to do any work with all this carry on. And I'm equally amazed to hear they fight so bitterly when the stories both the papers feature seem so little worth fighting for!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
MEDIA COVERAGE OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH
I've waited a week and a half to write about the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death. It just seemed too hard in the beginning. There was so much to say, and - in another way - so little to say. Because in the end the coverage is pretty much what I would have expected it to be - there's really nothing surprising about any of it.
Every now and then something happens that generates absolutely saturation media coverage from both serious and tabloid media - Jackson's death is one of these events. And when this happens you see the best of journalism and the worst of journalism. Great writers from legendary publications write some thoughtful and striking pieces, and - at the other end of the spectrum - madness rules. This is just the way of it I guess.
The American showbiz website TMZ broke the story first, and they've had some other significant scoops in recent times, so they are obviously good at what they do, and you have to give that to them. Getting the scoop is an important part of journalism, and they got it. But as the first reports filtered through, I found myself not believing the story when it was just on the TMZ site. It was when the LA Times reported it that I sat up and took notice. And I don't think I was alone in that.
Also like a lot of other people, I had very mixed feelings about Jackson's death. There's no denying that he was an exraordinarily gifted entertainer, but what a questionable lifestyle he led. I once read a book written by Jordy Chandler's uncle, which was so restrained and balanced in its approach that it was extremely credible and believable. Jordy Chandler was the boy at the centre of the first high profile child abuse scandal. The book told a story frighteningly similar to that told in the later child abuse court case. I know he wasn't convicted of any crime, but I do believe Jackson hurt these boys. He may well not have thought he was hurting them, but maybe that's what all paedophiles think. As I say, mixed feelings indeed.
But in the hours immediately following Jackson's death, it wasn't really the time to talk about the darker sides of his life, and most of the media coverage here in New Zealand didn't. And I'm okay with that. It's a social convention that you don't speak ill of the dead, and I think to a degree it is and should be a media convention too.
Actually one of the best things about this past 10 strange days has been getting to see and hear Jackson's music again - and to remember how great it was before it all started to feel a little tarnished.
I haven't sought out much other Jackson coverage - there's such an enormous amount of it online, I haven't even really gone there. I've been content with reading my daily Herald, listening to radio reports and watching the TV news. The Herald has done the best job for me. Their coverage has been thorough and considered, but not over-kill. The paper has run some excellent pieces of writing from some of the respected overseas publications - the David Randall piece from the Independent in today's Herald is a great example.
On TV ONE news, Tim Wilson looks a little earnest, and Dominic Bowden rather lightweight. David Farrier strikes a better balance on TV3.
And if you're not troubled by mixed feelings like I am, and you just want to be a fan - grab the colour lift-out section from this week's Woman's Day. It's simply a pretty pictorial of a pop star who has died. Maybe that's enough. And maybe soon we can all move on and a tortured genius can rest in peace.
Every now and then something happens that generates absolutely saturation media coverage from both serious and tabloid media - Jackson's death is one of these events. And when this happens you see the best of journalism and the worst of journalism. Great writers from legendary publications write some thoughtful and striking pieces, and - at the other end of the spectrum - madness rules. This is just the way of it I guess.
The American showbiz website TMZ broke the story first, and they've had some other significant scoops in recent times, so they are obviously good at what they do, and you have to give that to them. Getting the scoop is an important part of journalism, and they got it. But as the first reports filtered through, I found myself not believing the story when it was just on the TMZ site. It was when the LA Times reported it that I sat up and took notice. And I don't think I was alone in that.
Also like a lot of other people, I had very mixed feelings about Jackson's death. There's no denying that he was an exraordinarily gifted entertainer, but what a questionable lifestyle he led. I once read a book written by Jordy Chandler's uncle, which was so restrained and balanced in its approach that it was extremely credible and believable. Jordy Chandler was the boy at the centre of the first high profile child abuse scandal. The book told a story frighteningly similar to that told in the later child abuse court case. I know he wasn't convicted of any crime, but I do believe Jackson hurt these boys. He may well not have thought he was hurting them, but maybe that's what all paedophiles think. As I say, mixed feelings indeed.
But in the hours immediately following Jackson's death, it wasn't really the time to talk about the darker sides of his life, and most of the media coverage here in New Zealand didn't. And I'm okay with that. It's a social convention that you don't speak ill of the dead, and I think to a degree it is and should be a media convention too.
Actually one of the best things about this past 10 strange days has been getting to see and hear Jackson's music again - and to remember how great it was before it all started to feel a little tarnished.
I haven't sought out much other Jackson coverage - there's such an enormous amount of it online, I haven't even really gone there. I've been content with reading my daily Herald, listening to radio reports and watching the TV news. The Herald has done the best job for me. Their coverage has been thorough and considered, but not over-kill. The paper has run some excellent pieces of writing from some of the respected overseas publications - the David Randall piece from the Independent in today's Herald is a great example.
On TV ONE news, Tim Wilson looks a little earnest, and Dominic Bowden rather lightweight. David Farrier strikes a better balance on TV3.
And if you're not troubled by mixed feelings like I am, and you just want to be a fan - grab the colour lift-out section from this week's Woman's Day. It's simply a pretty pictorial of a pop star who has died. Maybe that's enough. And maybe soon we can all move on and a tortured genius can rest in peace.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
NEW IDEA DAVID BAIN EXCLUSIVE
TV ONE have just shot an interview with me for tonight's news, about the David Bain exclusive in this week's New Idea magazine, and whether or not it is a good scoop.
In one sense it is - it's what journos call a "good get" and all of our media outlets would have been keen to have it. After all, Bain is someone once convicted of killing five members of his family, who has been found not guilty after spending many years in prison. New Idea editor Hayley McLarin is a good and hard-working women's magazine editor. I don't doubt that she will have worked her contacts and done the necessary groundwork to secure the interview, but of course it is also more than likely that money changed hands. Today's Sunday newspapers are speculating that the price for this two-part story could have been as much as $50,000. That seems a lot for these tough financial times in journalism, but at $25,000 for each of the two parts of the story, it may well be possible. Paying this kind of money for big exclusives is certainly not unheard of for our weekly women's magazines.
So because many readers will be suspicious that they may be reading a piece of chequebook journalism, the scoop is compromised. More savvy readers may well ask themselves - if Bain was paid for the article did that give him control over what questions were asked and what was written? Did he get to vet the questions in advance and did he get copy approval of the final piece? It is certainly a very soft story - there are no questions about why Bain thinks his father killed his family and how he now feels about that, and there is nothing about why some of the forensic evidence seems so incriminating to Bain junior. Of course I haven't seen next week's part two of the interview yet, but I'd be surprised if it contains those harder questions. In the end it is a feature piece for a women's magazine.
I don't know what Bain's motives were for doing the story. They may have been purely financial - no doubt he needs the money after so many years in jail. He may also want to tell his side of the story. But if the latter was the case, picking a soft women's magazine to do so probably doesn't help his cause. The roughly 50 per cent of New Zealanders who believe he is not guilty will no doubt still think so after reading the New Idea piece. But conversely the other 50 per cent who have misgivings about the not guilty verdict aren't likely to change their minds either. In fact their opinion of David Bain may worsen if they feel that he has now profited from a terrible crime.
If Bain had allowed himself to be interviewed for a serious current affairs media outlet like TV ONE's Sunday programme or The Listener, and if he'd had some convincing answers to the tough questions, that might have done more for his reputation and P.R. But I guess it was always unlikely that he would take that path, especially bearing in mind that it is mainly the women's magazines who are known to pay for stories in this country.
So to answer the original question - yes it is a good scoop for New Idea, and it will no doubt sell some magazines for them. But it is a compromised scoop, and I doubt that it will be a P.R. triumph for David Bain and his supporters either.
In one sense it is - it's what journos call a "good get" and all of our media outlets would have been keen to have it. After all, Bain is someone once convicted of killing five members of his family, who has been found not guilty after spending many years in prison. New Idea editor Hayley McLarin is a good and hard-working women's magazine editor. I don't doubt that she will have worked her contacts and done the necessary groundwork to secure the interview, but of course it is also more than likely that money changed hands. Today's Sunday newspapers are speculating that the price for this two-part story could have been as much as $50,000. That seems a lot for these tough financial times in journalism, but at $25,000 for each of the two parts of the story, it may well be possible. Paying this kind of money for big exclusives is certainly not unheard of for our weekly women's magazines.
So because many readers will be suspicious that they may be reading a piece of chequebook journalism, the scoop is compromised. More savvy readers may well ask themselves - if Bain was paid for the article did that give him control over what questions were asked and what was written? Did he get to vet the questions in advance and did he get copy approval of the final piece? It is certainly a very soft story - there are no questions about why Bain thinks his father killed his family and how he now feels about that, and there is nothing about why some of the forensic evidence seems so incriminating to Bain junior. Of course I haven't seen next week's part two of the interview yet, but I'd be surprised if it contains those harder questions. In the end it is a feature piece for a women's magazine.
I don't know what Bain's motives were for doing the story. They may have been purely financial - no doubt he needs the money after so many years in jail. He may also want to tell his side of the story. But if the latter was the case, picking a soft women's magazine to do so probably doesn't help his cause. The roughly 50 per cent of New Zealanders who believe he is not guilty will no doubt still think so after reading the New Idea piece. But conversely the other 50 per cent who have misgivings about the not guilty verdict aren't likely to change their minds either. In fact their opinion of David Bain may worsen if they feel that he has now profited from a terrible crime.
If Bain had allowed himself to be interviewed for a serious current affairs media outlet like TV ONE's Sunday programme or The Listener, and if he'd had some convincing answers to the tough questions, that might have done more for his reputation and P.R. But I guess it was always unlikely that he would take that path, especially bearing in mind that it is mainly the women's magazines who are known to pay for stories in this country.
So to answer the original question - yes it is a good scoop for New Idea, and it will no doubt sell some magazines for them. But it is a compromised scoop, and I doubt that it will be a P.R. triumph for David Bain and his supporters either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
