NZ Herald responds to allegations of Glucina being deceptive

24
19

images

After the NZ Herald published their story on the young woman at the centre of being touched by the Prime Minister at work,  many people wrote letters of complaint to the Herald regarding the way Rachel Glucina obtained the story. The following letter of response by Editor-in-chief Tim Murphy has been passed onto The Daily Blog  by a person who made a complaint.

Under each defense by the NZ Herald, you will find Amanda’s rebuttal. You decide who is telling the truth.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 5.12.05 AM

I agreed to meet with my employers to address a side of this I hadn’t previously considered in too much detail, besides the obvious nuisance of reporters – the speculation that they failed to take appropriate action to protect me in my place of work. They asked me to meet with them at their home and join a conversation, via speaker-phone, with a concerned friend of theirs who worked in Public Relations. Their friend, Rachel, was concerned with how seriously this would effect their business, and wanted a better understanding of the situation, so that, together, we could proof and agree upon a statement to be released to the media by my employers themselves. A statement clarifying that I took issue with John’s behaviour, and that only, and not with them as my employers; that I had no intention of claiming any negligence on their part. We agreed that it would also be good to have a photo together to show that we had a good relationship and harboured no ill feelings, and for this sole purpose only.

Out of respect for my employers, and what seemed like their genuine concern for my well-being along with the future of their business (a business doing good things which I fully support), they introduced me to Rachel, by name as the employee behind the story, and Rachel said she would put together a statement for us to proof. We then waited for the e-mail she had promised so that we could look over what she had penned and discuss it further. Eventually a final statement would be agreed upon and my employers would personally forward that to any media. We waited. And waited. And waited. Questions were asked of me by Rachel, under the guise of a Public Relations expert working confidentially for my employer, and all responses given were with the effect of trying to separate clearly that the issue was a personal issue (personal, not political) with the way I had been treated by John, and not at all an issue with my employers, or their management of the situation, which they had not even been made aware of prior to Wednesday. ALL ANSWERS WERE GIVEN TO THE EFFECT OF TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT THIS DIFFERENCE.

As we waited for Rachel to e-mail the draft proof one of my employers read aloud to the other Rachel’s e-mail address. It began… RACHEL.GLUCINA and alarm bells went off. Sounded familiar, and I felt sick to my stomach – more than you’d ever imagine, a feeling I simply could not ignore. I gave in to my instinct and googled the name on my phone and one of the leading headlines that came up read “Who is Rachel Glucina and why is John Key always phoning her up?”. I questioned my employers over her name and they admitted that, yes, she works for the New Zealand Herald, but she was doing this as a favour for them for their personal use and not in her capacity as a journalist. I asked how well they knew her, if they trusted her, and they claimed they were confident in their judgement of her character, yet everything about this felt so so wrong. Rachel contacted them again and we expressed that I felt extremely uncomfortable with the discussions that had taken place as any comments I had made were made in confidence and good faith under the understanding that I was discussing an employment issue with a public relations specialist and had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that the person my employers had requested I speak with, who was so determinedly trying to put the word “political” in my mouth, was a “feared” and “loathed” journalist from the New Zealand Herald.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 5.15.11 AM
Rachel’s story changed. RAPIDLY. Now she couldn’t possibly supply us with a proof because she would lose her job. She was absolutely acting in her capacity as a journalist for the New Zealand Herald and claimed that my employers had known all along, which they denied. I made it absolutely clear that all and any comments I had made were given under false pretences, not to mention completely out of context, and questioned whether her supposed story would still be published if I withheld my permission. Rachel simply responded that she would come back to us and read to us what was to be published, although she had no control over editors and sub-editors, and that she had to get in touch with the Prime Ministers office, and then they quickly ended the conversation. I later contacted my employers reiterating that I revoked any permission to use my photo or comments for any press release, and my disappointment that I had been mislead to such a gross degree whilst having my identity knowingly confirmed with the New Zealand Herald at the same time.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 5.19.23 AM

I called the night before the publication came out and told the duty editor that the young woman had withdrawn her permission after realizing that she had been deceived and that the editor better ring me back. Shayne Currie rang me and he went through all these defense lines with me on the phone.

He knew there were ‘issues’ as to how Glucina was introduced to the young woman, but he claimed those ‘issues’ had been cleared up because…

1 – A Herald photographer had turned up and taken photos so the young woman must have known they were to be used for the Herald.

2 – A further  conversation was held where Rachel read out what she was printing.

3 – He had personally called the owners in the afternoon after internal Herald lawyers had highlighted the thin ice the Herald was on.

I responded by telling Shayne that

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

1- The Herald photographer identified himself as working for Rachel as a contractor and that the young woman believed this was still for a press release.

2 – The phone conversation with Glucina as described above by the young woman…

I made it absolutely clear that all and any comments I had made were given under false pretences, not to mention completely out of context, and questioned whether her supposed story would still be published if I withheld my permission. Rachel simply responded that she would come back to us and read to us what was to be published, although she had no control over editors and sub-editors, and that she had to get in touch with the Prime Ministers office, and then they quickly ended the conversation.

…and it is in no way an agreement to go ahead with the story.

3. I pointed out to Shayne that while he may have spoken to the owners in the afternoon after the Herald’s in house lawyers warned him the manner Glucina had taken the story could be an issue that HE HAD SPOKEN TO THE OWNERS not the young woman concerned and that getting their agreement was not the same as getting her agreement.

I made it perfectly clear to Currie that the young woman had removed her consent and that if the NZ Herald went ahead with publication then The Daily Blog would post another blog giving her the space to critique the manner in which the Herald obtained that story.

My conversation with Currie led me to believe he had zero interest in losing his scoop no matter how it come about and that is why I published the second blog before the Herald came out in the morning.

This line that there was nothing the Herald could do isn’t true. They could have stopped the printers, they could have not put the original version on line and they could have come out with a statement on line.

They did none of those things.

The multiple versions of events the NZ Herald tried using online to explain how this all occurred was described as a ‘meltdown’ by Russell Brown.

You be the judge of their actions, I believe a Press Council complaint and a Privacy Commissioner Complaint are the most obvious reactions to such ethical standards.

24 COMMENTS

  1. I got a reply to my letter of complaint too. pretty much the same reply.

    I replied back,
    Dear Tim
    Thank you for your reply.

    Firstly, I’m glad you title Ms Glaucina a writer, because my university professors of journalism struggle to give her the title ‘journalist’ without wincing.

    Secondly, I also thought you might be interested to know – that now – these same university professors use the Glucina article as an example gross unethical behaviour.

    Why? With Ms Glucina being a gossip monger with ‘John Key on speed-dial’, she should have not been let within spitting distance of this story.

    So congratulations Mr Murphy. I wonder, just how does it feel to have scaled such lofty heights? Being held on high as an example of the depths some publications stoop to.

    In the face of these facts, your letter is laughable.

    kind regards
    me

  2. I replied back to the same letter…

    Dear Tim

    Thank you for your reply.

    Firstly, I’m glad you title Ms Glaucina a writer, because my university professors of journalism struggle to give her the title ‘journalist’ without wincing.

    Secondly, I also thought you might be interested to know – that now – these same university professors use the Glucina article as an example gross unethical behaviour.

    Why? With Ms Glaucina being a gossip monger with ‘John Key on speed-dial’, she should have not been let within spitting distance of this story.

    So congratulations Mr Murphy. I wonder, just how does it feel to have scaled such lofty heights? Being held on high as an example of the depths some publications stoop to.

    In the face of these facts, your letter is laughable.

    kind regards

  3. ” I believe a Press Council complaint and a Privacy Commissioner Complaint are the most obvious reactions to such ethical standards. ”

    I agree completely. By the looks of things, the NZ Herald is a bastard child of yankee doodle psycho jonky-stiens neo liberal regime. Surprise, surprise.

    It’ll be TVNZ, National Radio and The Listener next .
    Oh wait … ?

    Rachel Glucina sounds like a common sociopath with associated narcissistic egotist characteristics. Typical of her kind . She’d swear to be truthful and ethical while standing on a stack of bibles all balanced on her mothers grave stone if she thought it’d get her the required result to further her self serving interests. Being photographed with david farrar proves my point.

  4. I believe a Press Council complaint and a Privacy Commissioner Complaint are the most obvious reactions to such ethical standards.

    So who is making one?

    • NOBODY who knows the Privacy Act 1993 will bother involving the Privacy Commissioner in this!

      Read the Interpretation about what an “agency” is:
      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/DLM296645.html

      Section 2 (1) (b) (xiii) makes it abundantly clear, that the Privacy Principles do NOT apply to the news medium in news activities! It is commonly known that the media is not obliged to reveal their sources, under the Privacy Act and some other Acts, and they are also not bound by other privacy law that apply to “ordinary” agencies (including private persons)!

      So forget that. People that deal with the media should think about a fair few things before they do so, as there is only so much protection you will get, and you need to have sufficient confidence and trust in the media reporter, to present information.

      Good reporters will act professionally and respectfully, and research stories well, but going by past stories from “Miss Glucina”, I would not deal with that one at any given time, no matter who I am.

  5. The parties being neglected in this back and forth account – of Amanda being multiply wronged – is the likely complicity of the Hip Group owners in the unwilling press ‘outing’ of the waitress. I would suspect they are Blue through and through and likely fed their employee to the beast. Not only did the owners not protect their employee from Keys (10 times over) unwanted attentions, they then looked exclusively to their own powerful commercial interests over and above the relatively powerless interests of their wronged employee. Someone in the media should be chasing the Hip Group couple and asking them some very pointed questions. Shame.

    • @ Rogaldo – spot on there.

      And also let us not forget too, that Rachel Glucina’s brother is involved in a managerial/directorship position with the Hip Group company!

      Given what’s gone down so far, along with John Key, his close connection to Glucina, the NZH, the Hip Group could be in assault/legal/employment trouble.

      Another instance of a John Key connected line of set up, lies and deceit!

  6. The NZHerald has long been a big player in dirty politics and up to their snouts in it.
    When you have a paid Natsi shill writing columns then it should be obvious for all to see where they get their “news” from and to what levels they will go.
    Surprised that it’s happened in good ol’ NZ ? Why?

    Like the line from War of the Worlds. To paraphrase “in the last years of the century they regarded us with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.”

  7. A bit of simple logic would tell us whom to believe.

    I don’t know Amanda Bailey and I know nothing about her (apart from this fiasco). I wouldn’t even recognise her if I crashed into her on my bicycle.

    I know the Herald of old. It is an organ of the government-supporting news media and has a long record of putting its own political agenda ahead of any investigation of truth. Likewise Glaucoma who is a government sponsored patsy.

    So whom do I believe?

    Certainly not that ratbag rag.

  8. Whathehell Murphy?
    According to her LinkdIn profile Glucina is Director of ‘Pink PR’, which specialises in ‘Media strategy, product planning, brand development, public relations.’

  9. By looking at the whole matter, one needs to look at who had what interests, that makes it simpler to work out who one can perhaps trust and believe more and who less.

    1. The employer had a very strong interest in this “statement” to clarify that Amanda was not holding any grudge or would even dare making a claim against her employer, which could severely harm the employer’s reputation and future business.

    2. Rachel Glucina had a strong interest in being the first to get a story out, about the true identity of the waitress, and as she has been friends with the employer for a long time, and also has regular communications with John Key, as it seems, her involvement cannot be seen as a PR person’s role. But she would at the same time not have wanted to risk losing her “friends”. Amanda cannot be seen as a “friend” of hers though, so there was NO interest in caring much about her.

    So draw your conclusions. My interpretation remains to be the following:

    The employer was shocked about the revelations to TDB and the attention it drew, and it appears Amanda did not confide to them that she would go public, albeit anonymously.

    So the employer – or the employer couple – wanted to try and do anything to save their reputation and to cover themselves legally.

    I believe that Amanda was CONNED by the employer(s) who cooperated with Glucina, and they tried to pull Amanda into an action to reveal publicly what her grievance was, and that it was only with John Key’s conduct towards her.

    They thought that they could get away with this by calling Glucina a PR person, which she was not. Glucina may have been up front, but not with her whole intentions, and as she is friends with the employer, she had an interest in presenting the story she planned to write, so that her friend the employer would stand there without much blemish or guilt.

    Once her identity became clear to Amanda, the story was meant to be stopped from publication. But as the story was too hot and good to excite Herald leaders, and increase sales of the paper, they went ahead with it nonetheless, using whatever explanation or excuse.

    Only the employer(s) can properly clear all this up, but as we know, they refuse to talk.

    Amanda got shafted by her employer, it is so clear to me, and they involved media, full knowingly, but lied to Amanda about the PR person. Sadly some employees are very naive, well while the going was good with the job, there may have been honesty, openness and trust, but when it comes to reputation, business and revenue, all friendship is past, believe you me.

    With many employment situations in small firms being like where every person is taught to work as a “team”, it is difficult to maintain a sound distance to employers, to protect oneself.

    I feel sorry for her, as she has been taken advantage of, and this happens in various situations all the time, just this case is so appalling.

    The employer should be taken to the employment court, and the matter may otherwise be taken to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It is up to Amanda to decide about this, I guess.

    • @ Mike in Auckland – excellent summation of the issue. I concur with your comments here.

      I’ve mentioned this point before, but the fact that Rachel Glucina’s brother Henry Glucina is also involved in a prominent managerial/directorship position of the Hip Group, the company which administrates the cafe Rosie, where Amanda Bailey works, cannot be ignored.

      The dual Glucina sibling connection in this issue is a direct conflict of interest and with the exception of Amanda Bailey, having possible serious consequences for all parties concerned, including the employers and the NZH!

  10. Ethics and integrity in The Herald journo standards – what a joke.
    You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Suck up to the govt. of the day and defend their own writers who should instead be fired and used as poor examples of quality journalism. And it sounds like Rachel Glucina is being used for just that and that’s great.
    Sounds like business as usual and is most of the reason people with brains and intellect just do not tune into The Herald much anymore. Waste of time, too much bias and BS to swim through when there are far more truthful and honest places to get the news. No wonder the likes of RT.com is growing leaps and bounds and The Daily Blog, I predict, will continue to grow with more tuning in each and every day.

    People are hungry for the truth and sick of being lied to with mind controlling propaganda and pro government bias and M A L A R K Y.

  11. Did Amanda Bailey not post an anonymous blog on a a left wing blog? Or maybe I am missing something! The Herald a paper I do not read put the blog into some sort of context and the world is suddenly at an end.

    • Oh really? What sort of context might that be?
      Context is only useful when the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is spoken .
      Otherwise it’s meaningless!

      • Two Grants – very confusing!

        Context – the implications for the Cafe Owners! (a cafe I have never visited)

        Why the blog became public on the day the PM left for the ANZAC celebrations?

        Why take from Septemper 2014 until April 2015 to mak an anonymous statement which could only damage the PM.

        Then the involvement of the Herald and the Herald photographer who took the photo of the owners and Ms Bailey.

        So many questions??

    • Even if she did, how does that excuse Key’s behaviour, or Glucina’s deception? If you start insinuating that people refrain from expressing their political opinions in order to maintain the right to be treated fairly, then you’re heading down a slippery slope.

  12. Isn’t the Herald the same outfit that launched a smear campaign against David Cunliffe with the fake $100,000 bottle of wine? Wasn’t that story shown to be a a total fabrication?

    • Dead right Harry.
      That was a deliberate, completely fabricated, sustained smear campaign to make sure that David Cunliffe never gained any momentum.
      The National Party and Media Works were also involved.
      They all need to have their arses sued for defamation !

  13. The actions of Rachel Glaucina were deceptive and devoid of ethics. That she is the gossip columnist for the NZ Herald goes a long way to showing her standards, she makes a living by tattling about other people.

    A newspaper worth the name would never have gone ahead with the article concerned once it was known that the subject of the story withdrew their consent because they had been deceived. That’s not journalism, that’s the behaviour of a a 10p tabloid.

    To then try and justify the actions of Glaucina and put a ‘PR spin’ on what happened diminishes their credibility even further.

Comments are closed.