Press Council rule NZ Herald’s standards of Journalism a joke

14
4

gluc

Rachel Glucina and Government pollster and right wing political blogger, David Farrar 

 

The Press Council ruling has come out and it is damning towards the way the NZ Herald used Rachel Glucina to manipulate Amanda Bailey…

Press council rules against Herald on ‘Ponygate’ interview
On April 23, the New Zealand Herald published, front-page and online, an article about Amanda Bailey and the controversy over her reaction to the Prime Minister, John Key, when he persistently pulled her ponytail at the cafe where she worked as a waitress.

The Press Council has upheld the substance of the complaints. This is a brief outline; for the full Press Council decision, in two parts, please see www.presscouncil.org.nz.

…let’s remind everyone exactly how deceitful the NZ Herald was...

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

I think the young woman at the centre of the Prime Minister’s bewilderingly abusive and arrogant privilege is a hero. She has shown courage and fortitude that is pretty rare. To tell the Prime Minister to his face to stop touching her took enormous strength when you consider the power dynamics.

I did not believe her bravery should be denigrated by a mainstream media who look to get a victim blaming ratings kick. That was why I said I wouldn’t confirm her identity to any of the media who contacted me.

She thanked me for this but accepted that her name might be made public. This understood,  she was determined to direct that voice and allow it to be her narrative and her story told on her terms.

Out of her genuine concern for the reputation and economic ramifications her possible outing might have on her employers, she met with them Wednesday afternoon and was left in a position she had not agreed to.

She also challenges some of the comments the Prime Minister has made.

These are her words. She raises hard questions about the NZ Herald.

*********************************

 

John-Key-not-sorry-for-being-a-man-300x224

 

Thank you for all of the support that has been shown by the people who have taken the time to read the full account of what took place in the past few months. This is a truly humbling experience that no doubt I will never forget.

When I made the decision to publish my experience my feeling was that what transpired was not ok, and the public had a right to be aware of how poorly their Prime Minister had behaved. They could make up their own minds after that and there would be no follow-up. I have said everything there was to say and no further comments would be necessary. I had absolutely no intention of entering into discussions with any other media.

I contemplated the lasting effects this was bound to have on my near and not-so-near future, surely not worth it, but I made the moral decision to put myself second and tell the truth. There is no shame in telling the truth, and it’s a lot easier to keep track of than a lie. A lie would be claiming that I accepted an apology or spoke the words “that’s all fine, no drama.” Neither of these two things have happened and so it had to be said; even my mother knew instantly that I simply don’t talk like that.

So why am I commenting further? Earlier today, in good faith, 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.

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.

This must have been the “fun and games” that John was referring to; and as for the credibility of the New Zealand Herald if this is how they obtain their ‘exclusive interviews’ – no comment.

 

***************

After the young woman contacted me aggrieved about the way she had been treated, I called the NZ Herald at 11.08pm and spoke to their editor Shayne Currie. I told Shane that there was a dispute by the woman and that she had been told Rachel was a PR advisor who was helping protect the reputation of her employers and that she withdrew her permission for the photos to be used or her comments.

If you are reading this and the NZ Herald has printed their exclusive interview, they did so knowing that the woman in question had removed her consent after feeling deceived.  

…the NZ Herald were well aware that there were problems with the story, I rang Shayne Currie, he knows what he said, he knows what he told me and I have been very blunt in my affidavit to the Privacy Commission/Human Rights Commission which is where after this Press Council ruling I think this case now needs to head.

There are also questions over how much Rachel Glucina was telling Key’s Office about all of this while under the guise of being a PR expert. There are also serious questions about how much contact the PM directly had with the owners of the restaurant.

People like Mike Hosking insinuated that Amanda was being somehow deceitful because she had used this Blog to give her a voice rather than talk to journalists or her employers – when you consider the political manipulation and manufactured manner the mainstream media treated the story and that her managers were aware of this harassment, she had every reason to use a blog over the mainstream media.

This is TVNZs response to my complaint of Hosking’s outrageous attack on Amanda and his refusal to declare his friendship with the owners…

29 May 2015 Martyn Bradbury

bomberbradbury@gmail.com

Dear Martyn Bradbury

Further to your email received 4 May we wish to advise the Complaints Committee has completed its enquiry into your formal complaint about Seven Sharp shown on 23 April on TV ONE.

Your complaint has been considered with reference to Standards 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Decision

The Complaints Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint. The reasons for this decision are discussed below.

The Programme

The Seven Sharp bulletin of 23 April contained commentary from Mike Hosking on the developing story of the Prime Minister pulling an Auckland waitress’s hair and the issues arising from this.

The previous day (22 April) the waitress’s anonymous blog about the unwanted hair-pulling had been posted on The Daily Blog. On the morning of 23 April, the NZ Herald published an interview with the waitress and her employers, all named and pictured, this article was written by Rachel Glucina. This NZ Herald interview was the subject of additional controversy as the waitress claimed that the interview was obtained by deception, which the NZ Herald disputed. In a second blog about how the interview was conducted (posted on the morning of 23 April) the waitress states:

When I made the decision to publish my experience my feeling was that what transpired was not ok, and the public had a right to be aware of how poorly their Prime Minister had behaved.

In an established opinion and commentary segment at the end of the Seven Sharp programme Mike Hosking commented about the controversy so far:

You know who the big losers out of this ponytail shambles are? The café owners. They are the victims in an agenda driven circus which has unfolded as these things always do when you involve the angry under-grounders on social media.

To quote the waitress concerned today “I felt New Zealand should know”. What a puffed self-involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work the owners were the people to consult not a blogger.

E: complaints.committee@tvnz.co.nz

The owners, one of whom I have run into a couple of times given that we frequent a number of their cafes, are good hard-working people who in their own way have revolutionised the food scene with an outstanding series of outlets throughout Auckland deserve none of this.

Yes what Key did was bizarre, but it never warranted this. This is what it is because as always there is more at play than the singular incident. Even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business.

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In determining an alleged breach of broadcasting standards, the Committee assesses the importance of the particular speech and the extent to which the values of freedom of expression are engaged, and weigh this against the level of harm in terms of the underlying objectives of the relevant broadcasting standards.

The Seven Sharp comments were given in the context that the ponytail pulling saga had become political as explained by Bill Ralston in the afternoon of 23 April:

“There’s an underlying current of politics throughout all of this and lying at the bottom of it, … She (Ms Bailey) is undoubtedly of a centre-left persuasion, no doubt about that, but then again a lot of her detractors are people of a centre-right persuasion. So once again we’re seeing a news issue turned into pure politics.” http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/ponytail-saga-public-won-t-really-know-happened-until-herald- releases-transcript-6298704

Mr Hosking’s comments raised questions about the political motivation around the discussion of the incidents. There was no suggestion that what the Prime Minister had done was appropriate; however there was some criticism of the motivation of the centre-left and questioning of the motivation of using a left-wing blog to publicise the allegations.

Your Complaint

You state:

Seven Sharp is on TVNZ. TVNZ is the State Broadcaster. As such you have an obligation to hold a certain standard. Last week I believe your host Mike Hosking went well beyond that standard by victim blaming the young woman at the centre of harassment by the Prime Minister of NZ.

Mr Hosking is well known to have conflict of interest issues with Sky City, does he also have conflict of interest issues with the owners of the cafe the young woman was harassed in?

Calling the young woman ‘puffed-up’, ‘self-involved’ and ‘politically motivated’ for having the courage to stand up to intimidating and harassing behaviour by the Prime Minister is outrageous and offensive. That Mike Hosking can victim blame in this manner on national television is an obscenity and it is his mindset which prevents other victims of harassment from stepping forward.

Hosking has breached good taste and decency by victim blaming this young woman.

2

The Relevant Standards

Standard 1 Good Taste and Decency

Broadcasters should observe standards of good taste and decency.

Guidelines

  1. 1a  Broadcasters will take into account current norms of good taste and decency bearing in mind the context in which any content occurs and the wider context of the broadcast e.g. programme classification, target audience, type of programme and use of warnings etc.
  2. 1b  The use of visual and verbal warnings should be considered when content is likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers except in the case of news and current affairs, where verbal warnings only will be considered. Warnings should be specific in nature, while avoiding detail which may itself distress or offend viewers.

To constitute a breach of Standard 1 the material shown must be unacceptable to a significant number of viewers in the context that it is shown. Contextual factors include (but are not limited to): the programme classification, the time of broadcast, the intended audience and the use of warnings (if any). In the case of this Seven Sharp bulletin the relevant contextual factors are:

  • Seven Sharp is aimed at an adult audience and screens during PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended) time.
  • The BSA has acknowledged in Decision 2000-033 that the Authority considers “that children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended”. This was reinforced in Decisions 2007-115 and 2006-125. In decision 2013-084 the Authority stated [9] while the item aired on ONE News at a time when younger audiences might be watching, we note that during unclassified news programmes, including those broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times, adult supervision is expected as these programmes are likely to contain material that is inappropriate for children. There is an expectation that parents exercise discretion around viewing news and current affairs programmes with their children.
  • News broadcasts discuss current events including serious crime such as murder, child abuse and rape and natural disasters of a large scale where people are killed; and there is an expectation that the broadcasts will carry some footage of crimes and disasters including film of bodies, accidents and civil unrest.
  • In the main Mr Hosking’s commentary concerned what he saw as the political machinations behind the release of the blogs. These comments are permitted under the standards as a freedom of expression right.
  • The presenter directly criticised the waitress once when he says: to quote the waitress concerned today “I felt New Zealand should know”. What a puffed self- involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work the owners were the people to consult not a blogger. This comment relates to the perceived political agenda behind releasing the blogs in the way that they were, not to the allegations the waitress made about John Key’s actions.
  • Mr Hosking also states of the waitress that even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business. This is clearly commentary about the political spin that the

3

issue had been given, and two possible (but not known) reasons for the issue to be publicised in the way that it was discussed.

The Committee acknowledges that these sentiments may be seen by some as being personally critical about the waitress. However the intention was rather to critique what was seen as the politics behind how the blog had been released and the commentaries around the blog. This level of political commentary was opened by the way that the accusations were first revealed and subsequent actions of the many parties involved. Such political discussion is protected by the Bill of Rights Act as a freedom of expression right.

Accordingly we find that the comments would not have offended a significant number of viewers in the context of screening. No breach of standard 1 has been identified.

Standard 4 Controversial Issues – Viewpoints

When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Guideline

4a. 4b

No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme. This can only be done by judging each case on its merits.

The assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented takes account of some or all of the following:

  • the programme introduction;
  • whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective (e.g. authorial documentaries, public

    access and advocacy programmes;

  • whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage.

Before considering a complaint under this standard, the Complaints Committee must determine whether the issue being discussed is a ‘controversial issue of public importance.’

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has typically defined an ‘issue of public importance’ as something that would have ‘a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’ (refer BSA decision 2005-125). A ‘controversial issue’ is defined by the BSA as one which has topical currency and excited conflicting opinion or about which there has been on-going public debate (e.g. BSA decision 2006-076). The Committee accepts that this was such an issue.

As discussed under “The Programme” above this was an issue which was being discussed in many news media outlets and by many different commentators. This meant that significant viewpoints on this issue were represented within the period of current interest. The Committee notes that the Seven Sharp segment is a well-known commentary slot where presenters give a ‘final word on topical issues; and that it is permitted under the standards to broadcast opinion and commentary.

In decision 2014-047 concerning Mike Hosking’s comments on global climate change the BSA observed:

[17] … while Seven Sharp is a news and current affairs programme, it takes a sometimes non-traditional, light-hearted or comedic approach to topical issues. Part of the standard format of Seven Sharp is the presenters’ ‘final word’ at the end of each evening’s episode, in which they give their views on a chosen topic of the day. We think viewers would have appreciated in this context that Mr Hosking was not in this segment delivering ‘news’; he

4

was offering his own views in a provocative manner, and he was going against the general consensus (though he is unlikely to be the only person who holds this opinion). Mr Hosking is well-known for this type of monologue where he gives his opinion on any number of issues. Freedom of speech as preserved by the Bill of Rights explicitly entitles Mr Hosking to hold and express an opinion that challenges orthodoxy on the issue of climate change, even if that opinion is unpopular or incorrect.

In the case of this monologue Mr Hosking provides commentary on his perceptions of the political motivations behind the ponytail scandal. Mr Hosking does not dispute that John Key had pulled the waitress’s hair or that these actions were inappropriate in his commentary and he did not dispute the waitress’s rights to protections under employment law.

The Committee understands that the comments do not represent the views of all and could be considered provocative and perhaps rude by some viewers. However Mr Hosking’s right to hold and express his opinion on this issue is protected by the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 4 has been identified.

Standard 5 Accuracy

Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:

  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or
  • does not mislead.

    Guidelines

    1. 5a  The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.
    2. 5b  In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
    3. 5c  News must be impartial.

    You have not made an allegation that any point of fact was inaccurate in the segment. In any case the comments were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion which is permitted under this standard. No breach of standard of standard 5 has been identified.

    Standard 6 Fairness

    Broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

    Guidelines

    1. 6a  A consideration of what is fair will depend upon the genre of the programme (e.g. factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical programmes).
    2. 6b  Broadcasters should exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.
    3. 6c  Except as justified in the public interest:
      • Contributors and participants should be informed of the nature of their participation
      • Programme makers should not obtain information or gather pictures through misrepresentation;
      • Broadcasters should avoid causing unwarranted distress to surviving family members by showing footage of

        bodies or human remains.

    4. 6d  Broadcasters should respect the right of individuals to express their own opinions.
    5. 6e  Individuals and particularly children and young people, taking part or referred to should not be exploited, humiliated or unfairly identified.

5

6f Where the programme deals with distressing circumstances (e.g. grief and bereavement) discretion and sensitivity are expected.

This standard is designed to protect those people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcast. You have complained that the comments were unfair to the waitress.

In Kiro and Radioworks Ltd, the Authority stated that the fairness standard:

… does not prevent criticism of public figures. Indeed, it is an essential element of free speech that even the most trenchant criticism of public figures be allowed. …The question for the Authority is whether that criticism overstepped the boundaries of fairness, that is, whether it strayed into abusively personal territory.

The Committee considered the following in regard to this aspect of your complaint:

  • The waitress was not named or shown in the Seven Sharp segment, even though this information was available in other news media.
  • Mr Hosking does not dispute that John Key had pulled the waitress’s hair or that these actions were inappropriate in his commentary.
  • In the main Mr Hosking’s commentary concerned what he saw as the political machinations behind the release of the blogs. These comments are permitted under the standards as a freedom of expression right.
  • The presenter directly criticised the waitress once when he says: to quote the waitress concerned today “I felt New Zealand should know”. What a puffed self- involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work the owners were the people to consult not a blogger. This comment relates to the perceived political agenda behind releasing the blogs in the way that they were, not to the allegations the waitress made about John Key’s actions.
  • Mr Hosking also states of the waitress that Even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business. This is clearly commentary about the political spin that the issue had been given, and two possible (but not known) reasons for the issue to be publicised in the way that it was discussed.

    The Committee understands that these sentiments could be considered to be trenchant criticism of the politics behind the way the accusations were released and the possibly political motivation of the waitress (although no firm statement is made about this). We acknowledge that these sentiments are very close to being personally critical about the waitress. However we also understand that this level of political commentary was opened by the way that the accusations were first revealed and subsequent actions of the many parties involved and that such political discussion is protected by the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 6 has been identified.

    Standard 7 Discrimination and Denigration

    Broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

    Guideline

7a This standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is:

6

• factual, or
• the expression of genuinely held opinion in news, current affairs or other factual programmes, or • legitimate humour, drama or satire

The BSA has consistently defined denigration to mean the blackening of the reputation of a class of people. The use of this definition goes back at least as far as 1992, and has been followed in numerous subsequent decisions.

The BSA has also consistently stated that in light of the right to free expression contained in s14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, a high threshold must be crossed before a breach of the standard will be found.

The Committee does not agree that the comments would lead to the denigration or discrimination of any section in society. The comments were intended as legitimate contribution to a wider debate and were not intended to be nasty or offend. Mr Hosking is clear that he does not know the waitress’s motivations for the revelation and allows that she may have unwittingly “wandered into a snakes-pit”. He does give his opinion on the political motivation of some of the commentators as his right; and such discussion is protected under the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 7 has been identified.

Standard 8 Responsible Programming

Broadcasters should ensure programmes

  • are appropriately classified;
  • display programme classification information;
  • adhere to timebands in accordance with Appendix 1;
  • are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress ; and
  • do not deceive or disadvantage the viewer.

    Guidelines

    1. 8a  Broadcasters should use established classification codes.
      • Classification symbols should be displayed at the beginning of each programme and after each advertising break.
      • Warnings should be considered when programme content is likely to offend or disturb a significant number of the intended audience.
    2. 8b  All promos (including promos for news and current affairs) should be classified to comply with the “host programme” (the programme in which they screen):
      • Promos for AO programmes shown outside AO time should comply with the classification of the host programme;
      • Promos shown in G or PGR programmes screening in AO time should comply with the G or PGR classification of the host programme;
      • When a promo screens during an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo must be classified G or PGR and broadcasters should pay regard to Standard 9 – Children’s Interests.
      • When a promo screens adjacent to an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo should comply with the underlying timeband.
      • Broadcasters should be aware that promos showing footage of violence or other explicit material outside the context of the original programme may be unacceptable to viewers in the context of the host programme in which they screen.
    3. 8c  Except as justified in the public interest, news flashes screening outside regular news and current affairs programmes, particularly during children’s viewing time, should avoid unnecessary, distressing or alarming material or should provide a prior warning about the material.
    4. 8d  Advertisements and infomercials should be clearly distinguishable from other programme material.
    5. 8e  Broadcasters should ensure that there is no collusion between broadcasters and contestants that results in unfair advantage to any contestant.

7

8f Broadcasters should not use the process known as “subliminal perception” or any other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness.

This Standard relates to broadcasters ensuring that the programme is correctly certified and that the certificates are displayed when the programme screens. As the material you have complained about formed part of an unclassified news and current affairs programme, we find that Standard 8 is not applicable in the circumstances. No breach of Standard 8 has been identified.

Right to Refer to Broadcasting Standards Authority and Time Limit

In accordance with section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act you are hereby notified that it is your right, should you be dissatisfied with this decision, to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, P O Box 9213, Wellington, as provided under section 8 of the Act, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. You have 20 working days after receipt of this letter to exercise this right of referral.

Yours sincerely

Complaints Committee

…what a surprise that TVNZ has backed Mike Hosking’s victim blaming rant.

 

14 COMMENTS

  1. Martyn, BSA is just another “Captured Agency” by Corporate power & control as we see in the US according to The Harvard Law & “Center for Ethics” committee. -See below.

    Firstly consider;

    My complaint was sent also using your arguments, and our response back from the complaints committee was the same bland, we can do no wring result.

    Result;

    There are no real oversight standards here and our complete MSM has become another “Captured agency” as the legal term used against the Corruption charges going on in the US over alleged Corporate corruption of Government watchdog agencies.

    http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

    Also seen was this “Captured Agency” conundrum found in the Harvard law findings & the court ruling over widespread corruption of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

    Captured Agency
    How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates
    By Norm Alster

    Captured agency.
    That‘s a term that comes up time and time again with the FCC. Captured agencies are essentially controlled by the industries they are supposed to regulate. A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted. Until very recently it has also granted cable what it wants. More broadly, the FCC has again and again echoed the lobbying points of major technology interests.

    This ebook is available under the Creative Commons 4.0 license.
    https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

    Published by:
    Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
    Harvard University
    124 Mount Auburn Street, Suite 520N
    Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
    http://www.ethics.harvard.edu

  2. Amanda, not sure your reading this. But well done to you – your bravery in the face of all this macho b.s has been outstanding.

    You get my full respect, and gratitude.

    If you ever feel down, just remember your a awesome human being, that people with no morals tried to destroy – they failed, you’re just to brilliant.

  3. Nice to see a little bit of justice for once.

    As someone who complained to the Herald but didn’t take it any further, my thanks to those who took the time to pursue it all the way.

  4. Well done you Martyn and thank you for keeping us informed.

    At least the NZ Press Council has acknowledged the grubby tactics of the NZH, by ruling against it here! That is something in Amanda’s favour, because she was badly deceived by Glucina, as well as her employers.

    Now with the Harmful Digital Communications Bill passed, it makes me think, given Amanda’s account of what went on in that particular cafe, being assaulted constantly by the PM, there might be more to come of this issue. Because I’m thinking, had the HDC been legislated into law at the time of Amanda’s exposure of Key’s harassment of her, then she might well have been charged with “bullying” Key through a digital communications source (TDB)!

    Now the HDC has become part of legislation, then any further contact Amanda has with TDB, could constitute an offence, in the eyes of the government that is! Very convenient for NatzKEY!

    Again as in everything else involving the reptilian creep, Key seems to have come out of this squeaky clean, when in reality he is a pervert!

    I admire Amanda’s courage for standing up to such an arrogant, lying piece of work that Key is, not to mention her fearlessness for coming out and telling the truth, challenging his powerful position. She is an inspiration.

    Take care Amanda. I wish you well for the future.

  5. Having had experience of the Press Council, I am amazed and delighted that they have upheld this complaint (probably they were afraid of TDB publishing their response it they had not).
    Thank you Cleangreen for mentioning the power of the wireless industry. NZ’s msm and politicians have been ‘captured’ by this industry also. In May, 190 scientists from 39 nations sent an urgent appeal to the UN, the governments of UN member countries and the WHO: INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS APPEAL TO UN TO PROTECT HUMANS AND WILDLIFE FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY – http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists-appeal-un-protect-against-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842#
    A huge number of scientists, united in outrage on an issue that affects everyone, should be front page news, but most people (if they get to read this) will not be aware this is even an issue. If/when, the scientist’s warnings eventuate, the msm will be as guilty as any ignorant, inept or corporate-influenced politician.

  6. As with most of National/ JK sagas, this one will drag out forever – just the way they like it. JK should have resigned over this – but the timing is not right yet. His payoff is when the TPPA is signed sealed and delivered.

  7. Hoskins in particular and NZ media in general gives one a bad case of “cultural cringe”.
    What has happened to our country?

  8. Dear Martyn,

    THE HERALD (part of a business corporation) has NO standards
    Except to serve
    – whomever pays $$$$$ (Business sponsors)

    …Including “NZ GOVT” = nowadays a Corporation
    (You’ve all noticed the curved line beneath the logo???)
    * * * * * * * *
    The Same goes for ALL TV “news”.. IE – TV is just another Business

    * * * * * * *
    Therefore truth, (any real TRUTH)
    has NO place/ use/significance/meaning.

    = A FACT of LIFE TODAY.

  9. Too bad she got moved from the herald to mediworks….

    Now the herald can deny and she isnt in the crosshairslll

  10. I’m still waiting for the NZ Herald to report the news. Looked for follow up reports of the Queen, ex-Pope and Canadian PM being found guilty of genocide on 27 February 2013 by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Can anyone give me a date for that article in the Herald? 25yrs in jail for all three wasn’t it?
    Thanks

Comments are closed.