Cactus Kate blogs about new editorial guidelines at APN (publishers of the Herald and the Listener) discouraging editors and journalists from running stories that might incur any legal costs. Kate has the text of the guidelines. Money quote:
Editorial could take a more conservative approach to the subject matter and content of the risky or contentious articles. Where editorial identifies an issue or risk in an article the relevant passages could be proactively removed, or rewritten internally, to remove the perceived risk, as an alternative to obtaining legal advice on the risks of publication (emphasis mine).
I guess this is inevitable when your newspaper has falling revenue and no real competition in it’s main market (Auckland, although I don’t know how their website could compete with other national media outlets that actually break real stories). It also helps to explain the obsession APN publications have with house prices.
Exercising caution is one thing – nobody wants to get sued – but if the editors are self-censoring instead of checking with the lawyers then it really is time to shut down the presses and turn off the lights.
Some of those guidelines – particulary the criminal law section – are standard for reporting and are drummed into journalism students during their training. And I for one would love newspapers to produce more stories that have a greater standard of reporting than just repeating what some fuckwit has said to them.
But essentially asking media outlets to save money by removing possibly contentious information rather than running it by lawyers? I know that media outlets’ prime reason for existing is to make money rather than to expose the news, but this guideline is stripping away the even the pretense of news organisations being driven by news.
I know we’re a long way from NZ media reaching the Fox News fakery of ‘news’ but I hate that we’re putting a toe onto the start of that path.
Comment by Ataahua — November 16, 2009 @ 6:48 am
Steve Monbiot of the Guardian had a nice comment: Champions of the Overdog
“They are the pillars of the community, champions of the underdog, the scourge of corruption, defenders of free speech. Their demise could deal a mortal blow to democracy. Any guesses yet? How many of you thought of local newspapers?”
I used to buy the Listener when Findlay Mcdonald was editor.
After he left, it changed into a sort of Remurera Woman’s Weekly.
APN may have just stated their legal-risk guidelines, but it’s probably policy that has been around for a while.
Comment by Adhominem — November 16, 2009 @ 7:17 am
In breaking news today, House Prices ARE GOING UP!
Some other stuff about poor people being eaten by oligarchs and whales landing in downtown Kashgar.
Comment by dontknowthat — November 16, 2009 @ 7:41 am
Well, if the idea that the media aren’t the judiciary is “self-censorship”, I’d like to see a lot more of it.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 16, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Would have been nice for her to include the actual guidelines rather than just the bullet points and her interpretation of them. Sorry, but I don’t buy this “bloggers tell the truth, MSM lies” stuff. Bloggers are just as likely to mislead and distort to maintain their own hardons. Especially ones who stake their reputations on being cutting edge, better than MSM, blah blah blah.
As pointed out up there, some of these are standard practise, so until I see that they’ve actually said this is down to “NO budget allocated for legal action or defence” rather than reminding crap and inexperienced hacks of their actual duties, I’ll take the scoop with a pinch of salt. The general thrust I got from the guidelines was that it’s better to spend the time and money fact-checking and content verifying than it is to have a lawyer look over it or have a claim placed unnecessarily.
Point g) makes a very good case that APN don’t want to breed “repeaters” and are asking for more investigation to take place – making that case that recycling from other groups, blogs or press releases isn’t always the best option.
Comment by Chris C — November 16, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Chris C
I published word for word all the information I was given by the three different sources.
Comment by Cactus Kate — November 16, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Fair enough Kate – thanks for the heads up.
Comment by Chris C — November 16, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
This is bull*hit. Trust me you need to check your facts before you get sued. I was at one of the media law sessions. Honestly!
Comment by Farah — November 19, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Farah, where have you been all week then?
Sued? For what precisely? Releasing details of an internal document from an APN staffer titled “Guidelines” and named “pre-publication vetting.doc”?
A document that no one still seems prepared to tell us under what circumstances it was circulated from Sydney HQ?
Comment by Cactus Kate — November 19, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Some-ones suing the NZ Herald? Some-one settled out of court with the NZ Herald?
Sounds awfully interesting.
News worthy even.
Comment by piglet — November 19, 2009 @ 11:13 pm