Tim Murphy – editor of the Herald – responds to Cactus Kate’s post about APN’s editorial policy:
a) there is no truth whatsoever to the claim that our editorial legal budget has been restricted or that we need to alter our approach to legal challenges or threats over Herald stories. No cut. No change. and
b) the rest is a heavily truncated mish-mash of unremarkable legal discussion points (a to g) in a 66-page media law training paper put together by our lawyers, Bell Gully, and provided to 80 or so participants from throughout APN. Nothing secret about them and nothing new.
They are not publisher instructions or editor directives; they are not new (same general thoughts have been included in the training document for years) and in the context of training staff, and shorn of your views on each point, the basic points are entirely matter-of-fact for anyone seeking to get things right and avoid legal pitfalls the media have encountered before.
There is no new ‘conservative’ approach, no recent guidelines discussed, received or implemented, no change. No orders from on-high. No end to investigations or to keeping newsmakers honest or to speaking truth to power. Put simply, no story.
That last sentence always sends my spin detector into the red: I imagine Mr Murphy hears it often, mostly from people who grace the front page of his paper a few hours later.
Also, the excerpt I posted earlier about editors censoring their stories as an alternative to obtaining legal advice seems like an odd thing to end up in a media law training manual; maybe it’s all taken out of context. Anyone at the Herald who wants to sing out (anonymously or otherwise) feel free to email me at the link on the right.
I want to play devil’s advocate.
The passage you refer to in the previous post was talking about editorials – opinions. Opinions, editorials, op-eds, whatever you want to call them, often use fact as their basis and make suppositions and are the most legally risky part of a publication outside of unfounded allegations or information obtained illegally. They’re not news as such, and are treated much differently and become subject to a higher rate of editorial redactions, spikes and censoring.
An editor can’t run to a lawyer every time he’s not sure of something, but at the same time can’t tell his columnists that they’re not running a story. An editor that has to get something legalled every time they get something that could possibly be problematic isn’t doing his job properly.
Comment by Chris C — November 16, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
“Editorial” is a term that is used in the industry to describe the journos, sub-editors, photographers and any other news-gathering and editing positions. Basically it is used to cover all staff who are not production, advertising or administration. It does not mean “columnists”.
Comment by IrishBill — November 16, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Tim Murphy and the Tui ad are intimately related. Yah, right.
Comment by Chris — November 16, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Okay, apologies, brainfart on the reading in the initials – because of the language used and a failure to pay proper attention. It remains that this is not any change to the editorial process. Aside from that, the last part can stand on its own, albeit slightly edited, asking how is this any different:
An editor can’t run to a lawyer every time he’s not sure of something, but at the same time can’t spike a story because he needs to fill the news hole. An journalist that has to get something legalled every time they get something that could possibly be problematic isn’t doing his job properly and wasting money if the department is outsourced.
Comment by Chris C — November 16, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2009/11/herald-clucks-on-spin-cycle.html
This should also answer your point about the “media law training manual” allegation and the origination of the emails I have been forwarded.
Comment by Cactus Kate — November 17, 2009 @ 1:33 am
“Real news is what somebody is trying to hide from you. All the rest is just advertising.” – Lord Beaverbrook.
(via Bill Bennett)
Comment by ropata — November 17, 2009 @ 3:28 am
Cactus Kate does seem to have a point. Why would three alarmed sources have emailed her?
If the “edict” was just “unremarkable legal discussion points”, it displays poor communication between APN’s management levels and staff. What were editors/journalists supposed to think of it?
Comment by Adhominem — November 17, 2009 @ 5:35 am
Couldn’t APN just get a few interns in? Got to be better than leaving it to HR or the CEO’s office to draft legal risk management guidelines surely?
Comment by dontknowthat — November 17, 2009 @ 6:40 am
Couldn’t APN just get a few interns in? Got to be better than leaving it to HR or the CEO’s office to draft legal risk management guidelines surely?
Comment by william of orange — November 17, 2009 @ 6:42 am
@Kate, I take it you haven’t heard from their lawyers . . .
Comment by danylmc — November 17, 2009 @ 6:48 am
“@Kate, I take it you haven’t heard from their lawyers”
Dont forget, lawyers are one of the groups to avoid upsetting.
JC
Comment by JC — November 17, 2009 @ 7:44 am
Dont forget, lawyers WITH HIGH PROFILE BLOGS are one of the groups to avoid upsetting.
Comment by Clunking Fist — November 17, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
“@Kate, I take it you haven’t heard from their lawyers”
No. APN however should be hearing from lawyers for the Letts family.
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2009/11/in-any-post-you-get-your-share-of.html
Comment by Cactus Kate — November 19, 2009 @ 5:15 am
‘Pinko’? Are we really using such a trite phrase in a modern New Zealand Kate?
Comment by Ataahua — November 19, 2009 @ 7:51 am
‘Pinko’? Are we really using such a trite phrase in a modern New Zealand Kate?
I guess it’s still fair game until we can all agree that phrases like ‘Tory’, ‘Pakeha’, and ‘European New Zealander’ should be consigned to the dust-bin of history, too.
Comment by Phil — November 19, 2009 @ 8:52 am
I would argue that ‘Pakeha’ and ‘European New Zealander’ don’t carry a degree of denigration with them, but to each their own.
Comment by Ataahua — November 19, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Broadly I agree they’re not (as) derogitory, but the are as equally archaic as ‘Pinko’.
Comment by Phil — November 19, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Please then post a list of politically correct labels that one is allowed to actually use these days such that you can adequately describe a group of people?
Thanks
Comment by Cactus Kate — November 19, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
The problem isn’t political correctness, CK.
Calling someone ‘Pinko’ is just too much of a cliche…!
Comment by Phil — November 19, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
There is nought like the sound of Pinko’s squealing in the morning.
Comment by piget — November 19, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Ah, the ‘politically correct’ tag gets thrown around again to dismiss a question. A pity – I expected an original argument from someone who questions the daily doings of New Zealand.
Comment by Ataahua — November 20, 2009 @ 6:21 am
‘Pakeha’ and ‘European New Zealander’ ARE nice cozy PC labels applied to caucasian NZ’rs and ARE just as derogatory and trite as ‘Pinko’
But each to their own, aye.
Comment by piglet — November 20, 2009 @ 7:32 am