Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Truth to Power, etc

188 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • bustedblonde,

    Ahh, my dear wee boy, that would be telling.

    wellington • Since Nov 2009 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    If Cactus Kate is one of the blogosphere's finest minds, then well, it might be time to close up shop.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 441 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Are you a middle child, Russell? Be honest. This is important.

    No, the oldest. I'm asserting dominance.

    But did you not find it amusing that Ms Odgers jumped in with guns blazing, and then suddenly took to rolling around on the floor complaining about not getting "a fairer hearing"?

    Playing victim seems to be a habit with a certain sort of blogger.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Does this not simply say: "if you decide not to get legal advice on that risky passage, maybe you shouldn't run with it"?

    Is that really so chilling?

    Sounds like what I do on a weekly basis -- I'll quote unquote "self-censor" my usual potty mouthed and uninhibited approach to the irritants of this world (arse-munching Code of Broadcasting Standards), and if there's a margin called involved I'll check with Russell or the producer. Never had a lawyer involved. And if I've been the subject of a formal complaint, RB's kept it under his hat.

    I sincerely appreciate the level of trust I'm shown, and hope that RB has never had a moment's regret about extending it.

    I've never heard of -- let alone written for -- any media outlet where every word gets run by in-house legal as a matter of course. With the possible exception of Private Eye. Getting that gig must be a lawyer's fantasy. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Hey guys, I was a journo and have today had a bit of a yack to a few scribes at the Herald. There is some concern about the emails. especially this bit

    Fair enough, actually. You're not the only one who's looked twice at it.

    What someone should have done was taken that paragraph and asked Mr Murphy to explain what it meant. There wouldn't be a lot of wiggle room there. Ms Odgers' post was pretty much an example of how not to do it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Remember the Days of the old school yard?

    Ahh, my dear wee boy, that would be telling

    So. As we have said, on these esteemed pages, many times, people shouldn't "Just Make Shit Up" Because, as you well know, it could get you sued.
    According to Tim Murphy Bell Gully reduced this simple statement to a mere 66 pages. (guess they get paid by the word too, eh?)
    Cactus Kate says

    I cannot reproduce in Scribd the two emails I have been forwarded without revealing the identity of those staffers and the other one with a narrative of what has happened, then it is a case of the reader can make up their own minds.

    Perhaps she has actually read the whole 66 pages and decided not to back up her conspiracy Theory with actual facts because

    Ahh, my dear wee boy, that would be telling

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I've never heard of -- let alone written for -- any media outlet where every word gets run by in-house legal as a matter of course.

    That would be awful. There's a degree of trust that applies there -- if you have a story that will likely attract the attention of lawyers, you talk to your editor who talks to legal. The rest of the time you just try and get the story right.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Just heard from a Herald journalist who pronounces himself and his colleagues "completely stumped" by this story.

    He says the document in question is actually the information booklet handed out at a media law training class: "tediously boring guff as usual and as you and a few others have mentioned, it's nothing but journalism 101."

    I can vouch that this person is neither a liar or a corporate lackey. I think this comes close to settling the matter, no?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Perhaps they should have run this past legal
    "Editorial could take a more conservative approach to the subject matter and content of the risky or contentious articles."
    Legal might have come back with,
    "Editorial could take the more conservative approach to the subject matter and content of the risky or contentious articles." And Cameron and Kate could have gone back to whatever it is they do.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Hmm, Dy-hydrogen Monoxide anybody.
    Scammed suckers.
    ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I can vouch that this person is neither a liar or a corporate lackey. I think this comes close to settling the matter, no?

    Perhaps we can go back to bitching The Herald and Herald on Sunday for all the things they should be taken out behind the woodshed for... Not as if that isn't the gift where every day is Christmas. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Perhaps she has actually read the whole 66 pages and decided not to back up her conspiracy Theory with actual facts because

    Murphy will tell all clones to execute Order 66?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,


    So much for Fail Oil and Bogus Kate.
    Next.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Murphy will tell all clones to execute Order 66?

    Damn, perhaps he'd be nicer if we got him a drum of moisturiser and a scented ex-foliating scrub. Throw in a loofah and some bath beads, and journalism as we know it has been saved. That is, until Rupert Murdoch, The Lord of the Great Old Ones and Enemy of All That Lives, rises from his slumbers in deep Ry'leth to bring madness and chaos to the Earth! :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • bustedblonde,

    Shit barnes you just dont get it.. when you are doing investigative articles you push the limits..our media laws are pretty strict. Now I have never been sued. You write like you can tell the whole story. Fearless stuff. The stuff that Phil Kitchin writes.And the lawyers check it to ensure you havent pushed out the boundaries too much. The lawyers ARE conservative. So to get an email that asks journos to be conservative in the first place is just plain sad. and for the record - the lawyers hardly ever tinkered with my copy..

    And I see that Rob Hosking - another scribe of note is also concerned.. so what does that say? I thought all the left were for freedom of speech and defended a fearless fourth estate.. These days its the fifth estate, the blogs who are riding the white chargers of truth.

    wellington • Since Nov 2009 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    And I see that Rob Hosking - another scribe of note is also concerned.. so what does that say?

    Put two hacks in a room and they couldn't agree on what to order for lunch?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    And the lawyers check it to ensure you havent pushed out the boundaries too much. The lawyers ARE conservative.

    Clearly, given that they seem to be the authors of the booklet.

    And I see that Rob Hosking - another scribe of note is also concerned.. so what does that say? I thought all the left were for freedom of speech and defended a fearless fourth estate.. These days its the fifth estate, the blogs who are riding the white chargers of truth.

    I'd be concerned if I thought it actually was a new APN policy document as alleged, but I'm now certain it's not.

    You noted yourself that most of the rest was a beat-up, and the single ambiguous paragraph you flagged doesn't seem to have any status as editorial policy. I think the "white chargers of truth" might be loose in the top paddock, frankly.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Brenda Leeuwenberg,

    - the lawyers hardly ever tinkered with my copy..

    They were probably trying hard not to laugh.

    Wellington • Since Oct 2008 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • James Liddell,

    I thought all the left were for freedom of speech and defended a fearless fourth estate.. These days its the fifth estate, the blogs who are riding the white chargers of truth.

    I'm going to take this opportunity to remind you of your role last year of using your blog to hype allegations of serious criminal offending by a certain (then) Government Minister. (Allegations which were, of course, totally ridiculous and fallacious.) I'd hardly call your actions there as being commensurate with the "white chargers of truth".

    Wellington • Since Jul 2007 • 102 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    They were probably trying hard not to laugh.

    Or processing their invoices?

    Incidentally, Brenda, I greatly appreciated your attack on the implausibility of TV ratings at the SPADA debate.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2557 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    I thought all the left were for freedom of speech and defended a fearless fourth estate

    I increasingly get the idea this document is a sensible, normal and not-overboard response to the possibility of having your ass sued. Talk to me about what's wrong with defamation law, though...

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Shit barnes you just dont get it.. when you are doing investigative articles you push the limits..

    Which rather says that you are the one that "just dont get it"
    Good investigative journalism does not need to "push the limits" Good investigative journalism is getting the facts and backing them up rather than evoking Ian Wishart with all the sensationalist drivel that tends to pose as news these days. But then you conspiracy types need all that edgy excitement I suppose.
    I guess I would be a little more concerned if we were talking about a real newspaper, real eMails and an actual edict.
    As for all this Blogs V MSM nonsense get over it and grow up, it all comes down to how well you do your job. Which in your case seems not very well considering you are no longer a journalist, I wonder why.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Brenda Leeuwenberg,

    Incidentally, Brenda, I greatly appreciated your attack on the implausibility of TV ratings at the SPADA debate.

    Thanks! Apparently the ratings people defended their place hotly the following morning, but people I spoke to remained unconvinced.

    I'm putting a different twist on it for the NDF next week :)

    Wellington • Since Oct 2008 • 41 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    These days its the fifth estate, the blogs who are riding the white chargers of truth.

    A disturbing image. And I suspect the vast majority of those "chargers" wouldn't be fit for glue.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    So I heard. I deliberately avoided that session as I would only have got irate and everyone would have said, "There goes that Geoff Lealand again..."

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2557 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.