The Herald reports:

Education Minister Hekia Parata is refusing to say how much top teachers will earn under a performance pay scheme or where the funding for extra pay will come from.

How dare the Minister keep secret these key details of the performance pay scheme approved by the Government.

Oh wait …. there is no actual scheme approved, so no details to be released. Oh that means the entire story is absolute nonsense. Damn.

In a pre-Budget speech in which she announced $511.9 million of extra education spending over fours years, Ms Parata said performance pay was among the options being considered as part of an appraisal system to boost quality teaching.

So the article even notes that a performance pay system was merely an option, and not in any way decided upon. Yet the article is all about the Minister keeping the details secret!

A good example of how putting something in the wrong context, can change its meaning entirely.

And personally I think it is a great joke!

Winston has just made a speech where Whale and I get a mention. Worth putting things in context:

No sooner had the Banks/Dotcom story hit the headlines than Newstalk ZB decided to interview a bewildered blogger called Whaleoil.

Without a fact to fan his considerable self with Mr Whaleoil explained to ZB listeners that New Zealand First had been a beneficiary of the giant German.

The ZB people did not bother to check with Dotcom or New Zealand First.

To be fair to Whale and ZB, considering NZ First has a long history of not disclosing donations it was legally required to disclose, and that Winston himself was found to have lied about not knowing about Own Glenn’s $100,000 donation to his lawyer, then you could argue checking with NZ First would be a waste of time. However would have been useful to check with Dotcom.

A mischievous blogger known as Kiwiblog made up a story the Thursday before the election that New Zealand First was an incorporated society and that Winston Peters was an illegal candidate.

That story running as it did immediately before the Election Day is a corrupt practice under our election law.

Except that there is a NZ First incorporated society. My story is here. Winston claims that there are in fact two NZ First’s – one incorporated and one unincorporated. But as I blogged here, this is not something his own party officers agree with him on:

Contacted by the Listener, Catchpole, treasurer from 2005 until the party’s convention earlier this month, says: “They are one and the same really, the incorporated society and the party, because the party constitution and rules are all registered with the incorporated society. That basically makes it one entity.” …

Asked about the incorporated society, Groombridge says: “That’s the party itself.”

So that was both the party president and the party treasurer contradicting Winston, and saving the political party NZ First is the same entity as the incorporated society NZ First.

By sheer coincidence, this blogger is the paid pollster of the National Party.

I blogged at the time that absolutely no one in National knew of this story before I published it. I only wrote the story that morning because I received an e-mail from a (non-National) friend who had come across the rules.

What I can also now reveal, is that in fact National got a bit shitty at me for running the story. They told me the last thing they wanted was more publicity for Winston on the eve of the election.  Just as National didn’t like me describing their campaign opening TV spot as looking like an excitable eight year old filmed it

The foreign owned newspaper Dominion Post felt compelled to also publish this garbage and the story appeared to be taking off until some spoilsport presented the true facts.

I’m still waiting for the true facts. Whom do we believe – Winston or his own party president and treasurer?

That story could have been the difference between eight and nine MPs for New Zealand First.

And the publicity it gave Winston may have been what got NZ First eight MPs instead of seven. A possibility that may haunt me for decades

With one more we could have stopped the sale of state assets – and the National Party knew it.

I’d love to take credit for getting the Government back into office with a clear centre-right majority, as it means I’d never have to buy a drink again at party conferences!

For NZ First to have gained a 9th MP, they would have needed 153,819 votes or 6.86% rather than 147,544 or 6.59%, an increase of 6,275.

I hear from someone who was at the actual speech, that in fact Winston blamed me for not just NZ First getting one extra MP, but maybe several. If this is true, surely the PM could consider a knighthood for me?

On the 6th of November we decided that we had to break free from this coalition that we had never entered.

At a public meeting at Kelston we carefully explained that we would be going into Opposition.

Again, there is a credibility problem here. He basically promised the same in 2005, and promptly went into Government with the Foreign Affairs bauble.

In 2008 Barack Obama credited social media with getting both grass root activists and the normally apathetic people involved in his campaign.

In New Zealand politicians have been trying to play catch up.

We, in New Zealand First are learning.

There is no doubt social media provided a way for New Zealand First supporters and candidates to stay in touch and organise for the 2011 election. 

We are using it in Parliament. …

Most members of the press gallery monitor Twitter and Facebook.

News breaks on these social media sites and politicians get themselves into trouble on them!

The technology is amazing.

With the advent of smartphones and iPads, MPs are tweeting from the House to their constituents, providing an instant information service.

It’s interesting to look at the demographics of people of those that like my page on Facebook.

The highest percentage of people who like my page are males aged 18-24. 

There is no doubt that social media provides an unprecedented way for people to connect with politicians.

Good to see NZ First recognising the potential of social media.

Do you recall before the election when the media reported that John Key “stormed” out of a press conference refusing to answer any more questions, and then the video showed it was a total beatup. He just called an end to questions and calmly exited.

Likewise we are now seeing reports that John Key “slammed” the media in his comments on NewstalkZB. Luckily they videoed the show, so you can judge for yourself whether this was a “slamming” or in fact a reasonable critical analysis.

The irony.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has sounded off at the media, while insisting he is is not worried about what he sees as its more aggressive mood towards him.

Speaking on NewstalkZB this morning he singled out television news, the Sunday Star-Times and the NZ Herald for particular mentions.

He said the media are “in a more aggressive and hostile mood towards us”.

He did not worry about the media “despite what they think”.

“I am not that bent out of shape about that – I expected it,” he said. Former prime minister Helen Clark had warned him it would happen after the first term in office.

Pressure came on Governments more, because the media becomes more antagonistic.

He said he was not moaning about it – it was a matter of fact.

And the headline:

Key bemoans ‘hostile’ media

Really proves the point.

Key said over time the NZ Herald had become more tabloid under its new editor, with sometimes only one big sensational story on the front page.

“The Herald has turned more tabloid – that is an absolute statement of fact.” …

For instance, the Sunday Star-Times a few weeks ago had run a headline saying he had locked in former prime ministers’ entitlements.

“I am not locking anything in – it has been in the Civil List Act as long as I have been on this Earth.”

I differentiate between the Herald and the Sunday Star-Times.

The Herald is definitely more tabloid. It is a deliberate strategy, and to give them credit it is working. Their readership and circulation are both doing comparatively well from what I can recall. The impact of being more tabloid and sensationalist is that you tend to end up beating up on the Government more, because most issues are about the Government. If Labour was in Government, they would probably be bemoaning the Herald also (as Clark did – something Key specifically cited).

The Sunday Star-Times does take a very left-wing view on most issues, and is basically anti-National. The example of the MPs perks is a classic example. It was a total nonsense story. John Key has actually done more to reduce MPs perks and introduce transparency that the last ten Prime Ministers combined.

It is fine for a newspaper to be left-wing, so long as people understand that. Just as NBR tends to be centre-right on most issues. I think the few remaining SST readers are of the same persuasion as the paper.

It was trying to lift circulation, especially casual sales at dairies, and had brought over David Fisher (from the Herald on Sunday) as “an investigative journalist, so-called”.

He said former TVNZ political editor Guyon Espiner had left for TV3, and that was a loss.

Personally I think David Fisher does good work, even though on some issues such as the secret tapes, we agree to disagree. I prefer journalists who investigate things, to those who rehash press releases.

Bill Ralston just tweeted that having Key praise Guyon is probably the kiss of death for him. Heh. He is sort of right, but I don’t think it would be fair to conclude that Key thinks Espiner was in any way soft on him. I can recall many instances where he has pushed Key hard. I think it was more a comment that he thought Guyon tends to avoid sensationalism.

On Wednesday evening, an inaugural meeting of the New Zealand Political Polling Forum will be held at Parliament. This is an initiative of the Association of Market Research Organisations(AMRO). I’ve been a bit involved with bringing this together. I believe that polls have a very significant impact on our democracy and elections. They can act as a performance monitor on the Government and political parties. They help voters to decide if they think a vote will be wasted. They help voters decide whether to tactically vote. They even influence if people vote at all (as Electoral Commission research has shown). So there is a strong public interest in having public polls conducted to high professional and ethical standards, and also in having them reported in a useful way. The forum should be of interest to market research professionals, politicians, media, political scientists and others who are are politically interested. The forum starts at 6 pm on Wednesday, and there are effectively three parts to it.

1. A presentation by Assistant Professor Rob Salmond on the 2011 elections and the pollsters, but also on some current issues and global trends in polling such as diminishing landlines, Internet panel polls and the like. Rob also has some really good ideas for the media on how they can report polls in a more meaningful way.
2. A presentation by Murray Campbell of Baseline Research on the value of having a NZ Polling Code. I’ll comment on this in more detail below.
3. A panel Q+A with representatives of most of the major NZ political pollsters. Your chance to ask the experts.

If you are interested in attending, then let me know by end of Monday and I will see if I can get you added to the RSVP list. Technically it has closed for catering purposes but we should be able to get handle a few more people coming, if you have an interest in this area. The idea of some sort of NZ Polling Code is one I support, and it is one I hope can be formulated by both the market research and the media industries. Of course one could have the market researchers just write one unilaterally, but then it would probably be of less practical value. I hope that some of the media who attend, will show an interest in helping progress such a code. When I and others refer to a code, that doesn’t mean it necessarily has any regulatory standing, such as with the Press Council or the BSA. I prefer to see it as perhaps a “best practice statement”. The idea is that it will actually make it easier for media to report polls in a useful way.

Now the industry (AMRO and MRSNZ) do not yet have a formal stance of having a code, let alone started to discuss what might be the substance of any such code, and it isn’t the intention to try and do this on Wednesday. This is just about the start of a process. But I thought I might share some personal views on what might be some issues worth considering at the appropriate time.

1. Any report of a poll should include the number of responses, the dates surveyed and the level of undecideds as essential elements of the poll.
2. Reports from market researchers should clearly indicate the exact questions asked, and the order the questions were asked in.
3. Media organisation should place a copy of the full reports on their websites, after initial publication or broadcast.
4. The term “poll” should be used only to refer to random non self-selecting exercises, and the term “survey” for other exercises such as text in responses, or web surveys.
5. An archive of previous poll results should be publicly maintained (maybe by AMRO?)

Now again these are just my views, and just my initial views. Others will have different views. The purpose of the inaugural forum isn’t to get into a big debate on any of the above, but to see if there is agreement that it would be in the public interest to have a code, and who wants to be involved.

Worth noting that while there is no specific code for political polling, members of MRSNZ and AMRO follow the international code of ethics developed by ESOMAR (the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research).

We have a good range of people coming along on Wednesday, including MPs, press gallery, pollsters, Stats NZ, academics etc. It is in the State Banquet Hall, so if you are in Parliament you can just drop in. There’s even some food and drink before it starts. I’ll blog afterwards how it goes. As I said, I think it is a very worthwhile initiative.

The headline:

Key questions Pullar ACC recording

The lead para:

A recording of a meeting between ACC management and whistle-blower Bronwyn Pullar that reportedly clears Ms Pullar of threatening the corporation has been questioned by Prime Minister John Key.

Further down:

Speaking to TVNZ’s Breakfast today, Mr Key raised questions about the recording.

“Yes there appears to be a difference of opinion although, as we know with recordings, that it might not be the entire recording,” he said.

“I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, I simply don’t know, but the important point there is that there are three investigations going on … and I’m sure they’ll look at all of the information that’s there.”

I have to say I take that not as “questioning” the recording, but just stating the obvious – relying on media reports based on recordings is not the same as a first hand inspection – as the Police and Privacy Commissioner will do.

The Legal Research Foundation has organised a forum on media and new media regulation in Auckland on Tuesday 1 May. It will discuss the issues raised in the Law Commission paper reviewing regulatory gaps with media and new media.

My submission on the paper is here.

There is a star-studded line-up of speakers (plus me). They are:

• Justice Raynor Asher, President of the Legal Research Foundation
• Law Professor John Burrows and former editor Cate Brett from the Law Commission
• Hon Barry Paterson QC, Press Council Chair
• Claire Bradley, Mediaworks Legal Counsel
• Martin Cocker, Netsafe Executive Director
• Steven Price, Barrister
• Judge David Harvey

You can register at the link above, or just send an e-mail to info@legalresearch.org.nz, and the LRF will invoice you.

The issues being discussed are very important, and could well have a significant impact on the Internet. Id encourage interested people to attend, if they can.

Spent most of Thursday at a forum on suicide and the media co-chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman (PM’s Chief Science Advisor) and the Chief Coroner. A dozen or so to researchers were there, along with various media people, and also various government people. 37 people in total.

The background to the forum was last year a set of new guidelines for the media in reporting of suicides was formulated. Some of the health professionals felt that they didn’t cover the science adequately, so hence the forum was to allow an exchange of views.

There was at times some fairly heated exchanges, but most of the time it was just interesting presentations and discussions. Some stats on suicide:

• Largest class of death by external causes in NZ – 540 annually
• Male suicide rates three times female rate (however more females attempt suicide)
• Youth suicide peaked in 1995, however the female youth rate is at the  highest since 1999
• In a natural disaster, suicide rates stay fairly constant or decline – the increased stress compensated for by the increased sense of belonging and community. However in the long-term they then increase 3 – 5 years afterwards

Globally there are at least 100,000 suicides a year.

There was a discussion on S71 of the Coroners Act:

No person may, without a coroner’s authority, make public any particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred if the death occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this section; and there is reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted; and no inquiry into the death has been completed.

It is quite clear that this means one can not report details around a suicide. For example you can not say “xxx killed himself by taking a drug overdose” or  even worse “xxx killed himself by tying a rope around the beam in his bedroom, stepping up on a chair, and kicking the chair away to hang himself”.

There is strong evidence that the reporting of such details can sometimes lead to copycat deaths.

However what is not clear is whether S71 means the media can’t report the fact a death appeared to be suicide, without any details of the suicide. Can you say “xxx killed himself”? Some in the media say you can, some health professionals say even that can be harmful, and the Coroner prefers media indicate suicide by using phrases such as “There are no suspicious circumstances” or “No one is being sought in connection with the death”.

On a couple of occassions I have reported the suicide of a friend, and called it suicide. I think in an interactive medium, being coy is likely to lead to speculation, which can be unhelpful. I also made the point to the forum than now when most young people die, they have a Facebook page and their friends all go there to talk about what happened, how they are feeling etc – and 14 years olds are not too worried about S71 of the Coroners Act.

Having said that, there is some risk around the quite natural tendency to mourn someone who has killed themselves. If their Facebook page becomes a shrine to them, that can encourage other vulnerable youth to think that suicide is a good thing, as it will get people talking about how much they will miss you and what a good guy or girl you were.  So one of the challenges is that when someone kills themselves, to try and encourage comments on their social media sites to not unduly glorify them.

People may be interested in some of the don’ts in the media guidelines. They include:

• Don’t simplify the cause of death. They are normally complex.
• Don’t specify in detail the method or location
• Don’t just focus on the person’s positive characteristics
• Don’t encourage over simplification of the death by contributing it to a single cause
• Don’t blame suicide on texting or Facebook etc.
• Don’t use phrases such as “X successfully killed himself”

I blogged yesterday about a SST story, which I thought was missing some key facts.

I did note in the post:

So people don’t blame the journalist, it is possible all this information was in the story they submitted, and sub-editors butchered it out. But regardless the end result is a story which doesn’t provide any details to back up the headlines.

Now the author has kindly e-mailed me, and it transpires that the couple of paragraphs which I said were missing support facts, were in fact from another story, and merged into that one online. The other story, was linked to from the main story.

While noting that this is not the responsibility of the author, I still regard it as less than satisfactory that the info from the other story was added in, in a way, which meant the story couldn’t be read by itself. But the author wanted it noted that the info wasn’t “made up” (I do not think I was implying it was incidentally), and that also the print edition had further graphs and data.

That’s fair enough. The point I was aiming to make is that an online story should be a complete story in itself.

Stats Chat again exposes stories that do not match the data:

Roy Morgan have released their “State of the Nation” report, and the Herald has twostories. In the first

According to the Roy Morgan State of the Nation March 2012 report, there has been an upsurge in the number of New Zealanders who consider Maori culture to be an “essential component” of New Zealand society.

 If a change from 52% to 61% is an upsurge, then yes, but the upsurge happened from 2001-2005.  Since 2006, the proportion has been flat at over 60%, as is clear from the Herald’s own graph

Reporters without Borders has released its list of countries that are enemies of the Internet. I’ve added on the nature of the Government and/or Head of State:

• Bahrain – monarchy
• Belarus - presidential republic, president is former communist now statist
• Burma - presidential republic, pro-military junta
• China – Marxist-Leninist single-party state (officially)
• Cuba – republic communist state
• Iran – Islamic republic
• North Korea – Juche (Marxist-Leninist) unitary single-party state,
• Saudi Arabia – Islamic absolute monarchy
• Syria – Baathist single party state, Arab Socialist Baath Party
• Turkmenistan – presidential republic, single party state, former communist
• Uzbekistan – presidential republic, former communist
• Vietnam – Marxist/Leninist single-party state

My conclusions are that enemies of the Internet tend to be communists,  former communists, Islamists and absolute monarchs.

The Australian Kangaroo Court blogs on what is proposed in Australia:

 “If a publisher distributes more than 3000 copies of print per issue or a news internet site has a minimum of 15 000 hits per annum it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the News Media Council, but not otherwise. These numbers are arbitrary, but a line must be drawn somewhere.” (15,000 hits a year is just under 300 hits a week which is almost every blogger who posts at least twice a month. Whether he means page views or unique browsers I do not know but it does not make much difference at the end of the day. It is a very low number and would even capture high school children who have a blog)

If the report author has referred to hits he is technically illiterate. You get a hit for every item on a page. One page view can generate 3o hits. And the idea of blogs being forced into this new regulatory body is a huge threat to bloggers in Australia.

There should be a legal requirement that if a regulated media outlet refuses to comply with a News Media Council determination the News Media Council or the complainant should have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order compelling compliance. Any failure to comply with the court order should be a contempt of court and punishable in the usual way.

And so this News Media Council could force bloggers to remove content, without any trial or proof of defamation etc.

I’m glad the proposals in NZ from the Law Commission are so much more sensible (while not perfect), than what is proposed in Australia.

Submissions on the Law Commission’s preliminary proposals on media regulation can be made at http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-gaps-and-new-media?quicktabs_=issues_paper. Submissions close on March 12 2012.

This is a guest post from the Law Commission, which continues to seek feedback on and discussion of its Review of Regulatory Gaps and the New Media issues paper. It follows on from three posts at Public Address being  Who are the media? and Who guards the guardians? and Censorship is not the only enemy of free speech. The Law Commission warmly invites you to engage in discussion of this post.

This is a rare opportunity to influence the direction of media and new media policy in New Zealand. I encourage people to make constructive comments, that help answer the questions posed.

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the posts.”

I would also encourage people to consider making formal submissions, which can be done up until the closing date on Monday 12th of March.

DPF

4.What standards should apply?

One of the first challenges facing any new converged media regulator would be to consult the public about what standards should apply to the news media and the extent to which standards should differ in different contexts.

Currently, the two existing news media regulators, the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council adopt quite different approaches to how they define and apply journalistic ethics and standards.

Because it is a statutory body the BSA must apply standards laid down in primary legislation and must work with industry to translate these into specific codes of practices which are used to assess complaints. There are currently four different codes:

• Free-to-air television
• Pay television
• Radio
• Election Programmes

The BSA has developed a significant body of media jurisprudence, particularly in the area of of privacy.

The Press Council is much less prescriptive in its approach, relying on a set of general journalistic principles which are intended to provide guidance to the public and publishers with respect to ethical journalism.

To date we are not aware of any New Zealand research investigating public expectations of media standards and how these may be changing as a result of the greatly expanded menu of options available to consumers of news and current affairs.

Some of the questions a new regulator might want answered are whether the public has a different expectation of standards of accuracy and fairness from news websites which are constantly updating breaking news, compared with those same sites’ print products? Similarly, does the public expect the same standards from news videos published on newspaper websites as they do from footage broadcast on prime time television? What about news and current affairs programmes accessed on demand?

And what care are news sites expected to take when publishing user-generated content including comments on news stories?

What about bloggers who might choose to come under the independent news media complaints body – should they be subject to a different code more appropriate for the inevitably partisan nature of opinion makers?

Interestingly recent research undertaken by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) exploring Australians’ expectations of media standards in a converged environment found the content itself (and the provider) were more determinative of consumer expectations than the platform on which that content was delivered:

One of the key findings from the focus groups involved in the research was “the expectation that community standards should apply differently to content type rather than delivery channel.

Participants consistently distinguished between user-generated and professionally produced content. This distinction was driven by the perception of each content type having a different ‘community’ Content that was professionally produced (such as films, television programs or series) was expected to be consumed on a mass scale by the broader community and, as such it was expected to reflect broad community standards.

In our Issues Paper we raise a number of questions to test New Zealanders’ perceptions and expectations of media standards in the converged environment. We also suggest a new regulator would need to consult widely with the public on these questions. Among the questions we pose in our Issues Paper with respect to standards are:

Traditionally, the standards to which the news media have been held accountable have dealt with the following matters: (chapter 4 at 4.30)

• Accuracy;
• Fairness and balance – ensuring for example that news is not deliberately distorted through the omission of important facts or view-points;
• Respect for individuals’ rights to privacy;
• A commitment to public interest rather than self-interested publishing;
• Transparency; ensuring conflicts of interest are declared;
• Good taste and decency; ensuring the general public is not offended by the gratuitous publication of offensive content.

Do you think these standards are still important?

Do the internet and the facility for others to comment and participate in the news process change any of these standards?  (chapter 6 at 6.41)

Should all news media be accountable to the same standards irrespective of the medium in which they publish?  Or is there a distinction to be made between content which is broadcast to mass audiences simultaneously and content which is accessed by individuals on demand? (chapter 6 at 6.92)

The ACMA research suggests the on-demand distinction is less important than the nature of the market for which the content was intended. With respect to news and current affairs, this market is by its very nature almost invariably broad-based, which might suggest community expectations of standards for news and current affairs may be uniform irrespective of delivery channel.

What are your views?

“IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:

This discussion is being advertised across several new media websites – guests to Kiwiblog are very welcome but please refer to the rules under Posting Policy and Demerits.

This discussion is part of the Law commission’s consultation on their issues paper “The News Media meets ‘New Media’: rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age. I.E. your comments below may be taken into account when the Law Commission writes its final report on Media Regulation issues. The discussion will be moderated, however this moderation will be in accordance with the normal rules of moderation in this forum.

Several other things follow from this:

1. The Law Commission may participate in the discussion.  Any comments it makes in this forum should be regarded as provisional as the Commission will not finalise its policies and recommendations to government until it tables its final report which is expected at the end of 2012.

2.  Parts or all of this discussion may be archived as part of the official record of this Issues Paper Consultation (Practically this means that  if you change your mind on something then you are encouraged to say so and explain why – otherwise your initial view may be interpreted as a kind of submission).;

3.  This discussion may be subject to the Official Information Act – and certainly any remarks made by the Law Commission will be; The Law Commission encourages all participants to also make formal submissions to the Law Commission here.  If you form an opinion on these issues as a result of reading the discussion in this thread then please share that with the Commission directly if you wish.

- The Law Commission and David Farrar (Host and publisher of Kiwiblog)

The Law Commission is discussing at public address the issue of who are the news media, and what regulation should there be of the media. You can comment over there and your views will help influence their final report. One extract:

In chapter 4 of our Issues Paper we attempt to answer these questions by posing another, more fundamental, question: what is the function of the news media? What is it that distinguishes the news media from other types of publishers?

These questions are the subject of a very large and divergent academic literature which we cannot traverse here. But it may be worth re-stating the orthodox view that suggests the key functions of the “Press” in a liberal democracy are to:

* act as an independent watchdog on government and other seats of power;

* represent the public (for example in Parliament and the courts );

* disseminate information to the public;

* provide a forum for debate and the formation and expression of public opinion.

You can also make a formal submission to the Law Commission.

A headline in the HoS:

Housing New Zealand closes offices in favour of call centre

So this makes it sound like Housing NZ is closing offices.

People in desperate need of housing will soon have to call a national call centre rather than visit a Housing New Zealand office, a change that has angered voluntary services.

And this also makes it sound like Housing NZ is going to a phone only model.

People in need wanting to meet Housing New Zealand staff will have to pre-arrange an appointment through an 0800 number or via their website.

Later on you find that in fact the only thing changing is that people need to make an appointment in advance. There will still be dozens of offices with hundreds of staff meeting and helping people.

So a very misleading headline. Note the article writer does not write the headline – they are made up by sub-editors.

I blogged yesterday about a study that concluded fewer people would take up smoking socially if smoke-free rules extended to areas outside bars.  It was based on a massive 13 interviews.

I wondered how many media outlets reported this study, and how many used their judgement that there is nothing newsworthy in a study of 13 people that purports to reach conclusions that are applicable over the entire population.

Well the answer is depressing. This is a list of media outlets that gave near uncritical coverage to this study of 13 people.

1. Radio 531pi (news)
2. Radio Live Drive (Brent Impey)
3. Radio Rhema (Andrew Urquhart)
4. Newstalk ZB (Larry Williams) (which to be fair had a go at the small size)
5. Radio Dunedin
6. Radio Rhema (news)
7. Radio Live (news)
8. Stuff website
9. Herald website
10. Adelaide Advertiser
11. Launceston Examiner
12. ODT
13. NZ Herald
14. ODT (again)
15. TVNZ7 6 pm News
16. TVNZ7 News at 8

Not bad for a study of 13 people – more media mentions than actual participants.

3 News tonight mentioned the Crafar farm sale twice tonight, during their piece on the latest political poll. The words used were:

“the courts stopped the Government selling the Crafar farms to the Chinese for now”

“its decision to sell the Crafar farms to the Chinese”

First of all, why are we describing the company buying the farms as “the Chinese”.

If say Walmart was purchasing something in NZ, would the news bulletins describe it as selling to “the Americans”. The whole phrase “the Chinese” reeks to me of portraying them as one amorphous group. Shouldn’t the sale be described as to “the China based company Shanghai Pengxin”.

But not only do they get the buyer wrong, they get the seller wrong also.

The Government is selling nothing. The receivers of the Crafar farms are selling them, so the creditors will get some of their money back. Twice on TV3 it was portrayed as a Government sale.

So the overall impression is the NZ Government selling state owned land to the Chinese Government.

An accurate wording would be “the Government’s decision to approve the receivers sale of the Crafar farms to the China based Shanghai Pengxin company”. I won’t hold my breath hoping that media use an accurate description though!

The latest stats from Nielsen are interesting.

The South Island is doing well, with the ODt up 8% and the Press 2%.

The Dom Post is constant, the Waikato Times down 2% and the NZ Herald down 5%.

Both the SST and HoS have small increases, while Sunday News down 8%.

The huge drop is the National Business Review, whose readership dropped 16%.

APNZ report at NZ Herald:

A reporter from the website Scoop will resign from Parliament’s press gallery after being caught photographing documents in Labour leader David Shearer’s office.

Lyndon Hood was among a number of journalists waiting in the office for an interview with Mr Shearer yesterday afternoon, and was spotted taking photos of documents on the leader’s desk by a Labour Party press secretary.

That is a real shame – both for Lyndon whose better judgement deserted him, but also for media/politican relations generally.

Just as MPs should be able to have a conversation without worrying if someone has a concealed recorder at their table, MPs should be able to have media come into their office and not worry about if they may photograph any documents on their desk.

I understand Labour have recently removed access for journalists to enter their corridors in Parliament. If this is correct, you can’t criticise them for that.

I could not believe One News the night before last, when during an (un-necessary) live cross, one of their reporters said how they were hoping to get live footage of the hearse going by (after the ballooning tragedy). I actually yelled at the television – which I do not do often. That was silly and tacky.

I’m not alone it seems. Throng blogged yesterday:

Sarah Batley’s live cross on One News tonight was utterly disgraceful and disrespectful to the 11 people who died tragically yesterday in the hot air balloon crash in Carterton, their families and their friends.

Desperately hoping to be live while a hearse drives past with bodies of the victims is incredibly distasteful, offensive and unnecessary.

Whale has blogged on this also. When Whale says it is distasteful, you know it definitely is

The Law Commission has publicly released today its report on legal and other issues around new media such as blogs. I was one of those interviewed by them in initial consultation phase in formulating this issues paper. It is open for public comment until 12 March 2012.

I think the report is an excellent one, and I am enthusiastically supportive of their proposed model of media regulation in the digital age. There are some risks around the model proposed, but these can be mitigated. Balanced against those risks are considerable opportunities for “new media”.

News media have special protections under the law. The Law Commission recommends “news media” be defined as a publisher in any medium who

1. has a significant proportion of their publishing activities being the generation and/or aggregation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. disseminates this information to a public audience
3. regularly publishes
4. is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process

Kiwiblog (not that this is my main concern) would clearly qualify under points 1 to 3, so would need the accountability and complaints process to qualify. Whether or not this is worthwhile, will depend on the details.

A key point made by the Law Commission is:

It is important to note this definition is not intended to exclude others from reporting or commenting on the news. It simply proposes a set of statutory criteria to resolve the current uncertainty as to which groups and individuals qualify for the legal privileges and exemptions assigned to the media.

This is quite crucial, and one of the risk areas of a new definition. At present bloggers are allowed to report on court proceedings, attend Treasury lockups etc. This should continue to occur, even if a blogger does not qualify under the proposed definition. The definition is for qualifying for legal privileges, and should not be used to block genuine access for online publishers.

The key aspect of the Law Commission paper is an independent regulator for all news media regardless of format or delivery platform. This would replace the Govt appointed BSA for broadcasters and the Press Council for print media. There are significant anomalies in the current system, with an example being:

• A video broadcast by a broadcaster is subject to the BSA
• A video placed on a broadcaster’s website is not subject to any regulation
• A video placed on a newspaper’s website is subject to the Press Council

The Commission proposes the following features for a new regulator

1. Independent of both government and the news industry
2. Appointments to the regulator would be by an independent panel
3. Regulator would work with industry on different codes, so bloggers might have their own code (for example accuracy required, but possibly not fairness)
4. Recognised by statute and part-funded by industry and subsidised by the state

I think the independence from Government is crucial. Without that it becomes a path through which the Government could censor the media and I would be against. The details in these areas will be vital.

The subsidy is also a necessary evil. Bloggers are generally non-commercial and you can’t charge a blogger $10,000 a year to come under such a regulator. Likewise, I can’t see APN and Fairfax wanting to pay on behalf of bloggers. The Commission says:

It is in the public interest that as many news publishers, including small startups, belong to such a standards body and a lack of financial resources should not be an impediment to joining. The state and wider public have a strong interest in a robust and ethical news media and we see no reason why this body should not receive state support, provided there are no strings attached to the appropriation.

One of the issues in the paper would be whether membership of the regulator would be entirely voluntary for everyone, or whether commercial media should be required to join.

I believe it should be voluntary for everyone. The incentive to gain the legal protections of being news media should be enough. A key issue will also be what are the powers of the regulator. If they have the power to (for example) suspend a newspaper, then newspapers would not want to join. If the power is to require publication of a finding, and low level fines, then perhaps less of an issue. The print media are the ones who potentially lose a wee bit of freedom in this model, while broadcasters would end up with greater freedom. In a converged world, all media should be on the same level, and so long as the regulator is not Govt controlled I think that is a good model.

The Commission notes:

The large majority of New Zealanders publishing on the internet would not come within the ambit of the new regulatory system we propose. In essence they will be able to exercise complete freedom of speech. They can, without fear of any regulator, be inaccurate in their facts, unbalanced in their coverage and extreme in their opinions. The public can rely on them, or not, as they see fit. They would not be recognised as “news media” for the purposes of the statutory privileges.

They also note that such publishers are still liable to the laws of defamation, copyright, contempt of court etc.

There are other interesting issues the Commission looks at in its paper

• consider introducing a new offence of maliciously impersonating another person
• amend the Harassment Act 1997 to explicitly include cyber-bullying

But rather than have these go to court, which would be over-kill, they float a model of a Communications Tribunal “which could administer speedy, efficient and relatively cheap justice to those who have been significantly damaged by unlawful communications”

I think this aspect is more problematic, while well-intentioned. They do say:

The Tribunal would only deal with cases which it judges would have met the threshold of a breach of the law. It should not be a port of call for those with insubstantial complaints.

My suspicion is it would become exactly that. For such a model to work, it will need considerable safeguards against malicious and trivial complaints designed to (ironically) harass the person complained about.

The Tribunal would not have the ability to impose any criminal sanction they say:

Sanctions and remedies available to the Tribunal would include the ability to award monetary compensation up to a prescribed level; to order publication of an apology or correction; to order that a right of reply be granted; to order that the defendant cease the conduct in question (a type of injunction); and to make takedown orders against either the perpetrator or an innocent avenue of communication such as an ISP. It might also make a declaration that statements made about the victim are untrue. Failure to comply with an order would be an offence.

I do like the notion of the Tribunal being able to make a declaration that statements about a victim are untrue. Defamation is rarely viable for those who have false things said about them online. And victims of lies and slander often just want the truth affirmed, not damages. I do see considerable merit in the concept of the Tribunal. My concerns are around the small number of nutters out there would would try to use it as a form of harassment in itself.

Two safeguards against this might simply be requiring complainants to use their real names to complain. Those who post under an alias can not claim they have been harmed by speech against them when no one knows who they are. A further safeguard would be a requirement to pay a filing fee. This is the most effective way to stop serial complainers.

An alternate option they put forward is a Communications Commissioner as part of the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think this would be a good fit for the HRC, and in fact could distract them from their primary focus.

The paper is (as expected) very well researched, and shows great understanding of the online environment. I encourage people to read it, or at least the summary paper, and give your feedback. It is my understanding that there are likely to be some sort of forums organised where people can attend and discuss and debate the issues and proposals. I’ll blog details of these as they are known.

Finally it is worth noting this is an issues paper, not a final paper recommending action to the Government. That means this is the best time to influence it.

Karl du Fresne blogs on TV3:

In a post on this blog site yesterday I mentioned my reluctance to accuse media organisations of political bias. I have seen those allegations hurled about far too often and far too loosely, invariably by politically aligned people frustrated that their side wasn’t the only one getting newspaper space or air time. But in the past couple of weeks I have begun to wonder seriously whether TV3 is running some sort of political agenda.

Karl gives several examples of what he sees as a political agenda:

• Scare-mongering over the PM meeting the boss of a global oil company
• Making a meeting with Lord Ashcroft sound sinister
• Coverage of Labour’s welfare policy
• General commentary on the election
• The TV3 debate where every issue chosen was a negative one for National
• The Inside Child Poverty Documentary, being the last straw

For my 2c I don’t think TV3, or its political staff, are deliberately biased against National.

The criticism I would make is more the tendency to sensationalise stuff such as the Ashcroft meeting. The impact of the tendency to sensationalism tends to end up as more anti-Government stories because most events are about the Government. This applies no matter which party is in Government.

I agree with Karl on the so called documentary that had no balance at all and was propaganda. Showing this in election week was an appalling decision.

On the topics for the TV3 debate, I think that is also a valid point. In fact the TV3 commentators even acknowledged that after the debate. Why was there no topic on the health system? National has a great story to tell there, so naturally not chosen. Why now law & order? Labour is pledging to repeal the three strikes law. Let’s hear Phil Goff explain why someone who rapes for a third time should be eligible for parole after just a few years? But no that wasn’t chosen either. Last night’s TVNZ debate was far better balanced with topics.

Now again this may not be bias. It is probably more that they don’t see any ratings in having the Government able to talk about areas where it has been a real success story. But in terms of balanced coverage and a balanced debate, I don’t think it qualifies.

The panel/studio worm has been pretty consistent all night. If Phil Goff says anything it goes up. I joked on Twitter that Goff could confess to the Crewe murders and the panel worm would go up.

I wondered why, as this was meant to be a panel of undecided voters.

Then I saw this tweet from John Kingi, about being a worm panelist. A couple of friends of his seem to be there also.

Now John Kingi is a vocal Labour Party activist. He is about as undecided a voter as Phil Goff is.

TV3 have had their panel infiltrated by one or more Labour activists. Either TV3 failed to ask people if they were genuinely undecided voters, or they were lied to. I hope the media investigate this thorougly before reporting on the results of the worm.

UPDATE: And looks like a second panelist is a Labour voter – see here.

UPDATE2: I have a report of a third panel member (and remember there were only 65 and they are meant to all be undecided) who tutors at Auck Uni politics and has publicly declared she is a Green voter and supporter.

UPDATE3: And we have a third Labour person identified. There may be a fourth.

So also Nive Sharat there, and if we check her out.

This is a major credibility blow to the panel/studio worm.

UPDATE: John Kingi phoned and e-mailed me to say that he in no way misrepresented himself to those selecting the panel, and I take him at his word. His e-mail:

In regards to your post on Kiwiblog, it is implied that myself, amongst others, somehow “inflitrated” the TV3 panel. This is simply not true. I have not been a Labour Party member for some time, and the page you linked from Grassroots Labour was one I haven’t seen or used in over two years. The picture you paint is not an accurate reflection of my current political position. The questions raised in the selection of the panel included:

Who did you vote for at the last election? My answer: Labour

Who do you plan to vote for at this election? My answer: Undecided, but definitely on the centre left. 

Amongst other gender/age/electorate questions. I at no point lied about my political positions or intentions and I gave Key and Goff equal treatment in my response to the debate. In fact I even voted that Key actually won the debate in my view at the end! I hope that with the full facts established, you can clarify on your blog.

I chatted with John and he also confirmed to me that he was not undecided between a centre-right and centre-left party, but between parties of the centre-left. I do not believe this is how the panel was sold. As I said before the debate even begun they would have been better to use “swinging” voters, ie those who have previously voted both CL and CR.

I understand Clint Woolly has also said he is undecided, however it is his own tweet where he describes himself as a Labour voter.

Back to John, I stand my my point that I don’t think someone who was so passionate about their political beliefs that until recently they were an activist for political party, is suitable to be a panelists of “undecided voters”. Take the photo below of John:

This is obviously taken since the last election, and I suspect since Jacinda moved to Auckland which makes it even more recent. I don’t think having once been a political activist for a political party means you can never be seen as “undecided”, even decades later. But at a minimum I don’t regard such activism (and membership) within the same parliamentary term as being compatible with being on a panel which is portrayed to the public as “undecided voters”. I once voted Labour, but that doesn’t make me a swinging voter.

Most New Zealanders will know Kevin Milne. He was the front for Fair Go for 20 years. In dealing with the various crroks etc they exposed, Fair Go would push right to the edge of what they could do, in order to tell a story.

Kevin Milne spoke on ZB today about the secret tape. When a journalist of his standing decries the media behaviour, that surely is a sign that collectively they got it wrong. A rough transcript:

“I’ve been surprised (to say the least) that speculation over what was recorded in the so-called “teacups” conversation this week has taken precedence over questions about the way the recording was obtained and how its been subsequently used.

The freelance cameraman is reported as saying he didn’t intentionally record the conversation. Perhaps that is correct. Perhaps. I don’t believe it, but perhaps. But my knowledge of the filming process is that while you might unintentionally leave a microphone in the proximity of where a private conversation is about to be held, as you continue to video from outside you would be aware that sound was also being recorded.

But lets say I’m even wrong about that and the cameraman didn’t intentionally record that private conversation, doesn’t his innocence in the matter evaporate when he passes on the tapes to the Herald on Sunday and TV3 presumably for money?

I think its a gross breach of privacy to record a conversation between two people who are unaware they’re being recorded and then release the contents of it. It makes me embarrassed Paul to have been once part of the same line of work. If its allowed to go unchecked where does it end? For example, camera operators and sound recordists sometimes use extremely sophisticated and powerful directional microphones. You can pick up conversations from about 100 metres away. 

Are we soon to see these freelance guys drifting around parliament grounds seeing what they can pick up on tape – conversations between politicians standing on the steps of parliament for example? And while they’re at it such freelance cameramen could randomly listen in on private conversations between press gallery journalists and their partners lunching on the chairs in the sun.

I’m not soft, Paul, when it comes to investigative journalism. On “Fair Go” we often took our filming right to the edge in an attempt to show a scam was taking place and not everyone would agree with the tactics that we used. But never would we record a couple of public figures in private conversation then use knowledge of what was on those recordings to put pressure on them to publicly reveal details of what they’d been talking about. In my mind that’s appalling. I don’t care whether the victims are politicians, whether its election time, whether the “cup of tea” meeting was a staged piece of political nonsense or whether in the course of that conversation one or both parties said something they wouldn’t want made public.

The whole thing remains a gross breach of privacy in my mind. The heat ought to be on the media involved here not John Key or John Banks.” …

“I think that the media have misunderstood the public” …

“I’m surprised that there have been no other journalists who have taken the position that I have. I’m embarrassed.”

Whale has the audio also, embedded below.

NewstalkZb – Paul Holmes and Kevin Milne talk about the tea tapes by whaleoil