MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE NAPIER SIEGE

The Napier siege has been a huge news story and a lot of journalists have done a lot of hard work, in some cases in quite scary circumstances. As I have said before in my media commentating, we tend to be reasonably good at on-the-spot news reporting in New Zealand, and coverage of this awful incident was generally strong.

But one thing I would criticise is the rather sensational tone that crept into a lot of the coverage. In these very competitive commercial times for our media outlets that does seem to be the way of things - to be sensational - and the language a lot of reporters used was rather over-the-top at times.

A mate of mine who knows a thing or two about guns and the military - from a historian/collector point of view, I hasten to add - says not only was a lot of the reporters' language sensational, in some cases it was also inappropriate and inaccurate.

He says: "They talked about the gunman firing a 'volley of shots' at police. A volley is fired by a number of shooters firing at the same time. What the gunman fired was a 'burst' or 'series" of shots."

The New Zealand Herald made an interesting call for its Saturday morning edition when it came out that morning with the banner headline Gunman Dead - something that was not confirmed at that time. Maybe a question mark at the end of the headline might have been a better, more accurate option.

Talkback radio has been an interesting part of the media coverage of the siege. On the plus side, it was an opportunity for some really strong and immediate first-hand eyewitness reports as events unfolded, and also a good chance for people who knew him to paint a picture of the gunman. But on the downside, as usual there were all the same old armchair experts who knew what they would do if they were there and doing the job of the police. Yeah right.

It was a hell of a situation, and it seems to me the cops handling it were doing okay. Especially when they were knee-deep in journalists at the time!