Gavin Ellis is a media consultant, commentator and researcher. He holds a doctorate in political studies. A former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald, he is the author of Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights (London, Palgrave) and Complacent Nation (Wellington, BWB Texts). His consultancy clients include media organisations and government ministries. His Tuesday Commentary on media matters appears weekly on his site www.whiteknightnews.com
The actions of Prime Minister’s media advisor Michael Forbes may not have passed the test for criminal charges, but they were more than peccadilloes: They were gross breaches of privacy. Forbes also breached his fundamental professional responsibilities.
He had an inalienable duty to conduct himself in a way that would not potentially damage the standing of the office he served, the reputation of its incumbent, or their ability to continue normal business. If he failed in that duty, he had an undeniable responsibility to inform his superiors of his misconduct.
Creating audio recordings of encounters with sex workers and covertly photographing women in public places and in what appeared to be private places falls squarely into the category of conduct that crossed that line. It was, of course, also completely unacceptable on so many other levels.
Among other things, he laid himself open to sinister possibilities. Tracy Watkins, who edits both The Post and the Sunday Star Times, said in her Sunday editorial that Forbes potentially opened himself to blackmail and manipulation that could have seen sensitive material falling into the wrong hands.
As Watkins said: The security implications had beltway insiders abuzz when the story broke in The Post.
However, let’s stick with professional responsibility.
Forbes’ covert actions may have psychological roots that mean he could not see they were wrong. By his own admission he has since undertaken counselling. However, the laying of a complaint with Police – irrespective of the outcome – triggered an entirely different imperative. Continue reading “PM’s disgraced media advisor had an undeniable duty to tell the boss”→
I had some sympathy for the New Zealand Herald yesterday when it issued an abject apology on behalf of its sister Sunday publication over a mis-identified image. I’ve been there, and experienced the gutting feeling it leaves.
I have even greater sympathy, of course, for the innocent party who was the victim of the mistake. I won’t repeat the nature of the error because that would be rubbing salt into the wound.
I had hoped my own experience with misidentification would still stand as an object lesson, but I suppose 25 years is a long time for anything to stay lodged in collective memory.
However, it is fresh in mine. It happened when the Weekend Herald ran a front page story about a leader of the Headhunters Gang but carried the wrong picture. The image was of a community worker whose only connection with the gang leader was as a community carer for his mother.
I had been mortified, right from the moment I received a Saturday morning phone call that began with the words “um, we have a problem.” As editor, it was my problem even though the error had not been mine. And, yes, it felt a bit like being in mission control when Apollo 13 reported an oxygen tank explosion.
It was a costly mistake, but I like to think some good came out of it. That is because the man who was incorrectly identified was Ricky Houghton. He would go on to earn nationwide praise and recognition as a rangatira and social advocate who ran a not-for-profit housing service that provided homes for hundreds of Northland families.
The qualities recalled by many at the time of his death in 2022 were also evident in how he handled the situation our mistake had placed him in. He was dignified, fair-minded, and accepted our offer of financial compensation. His attitude made an awful situation a little more bearable. Our paths crossed years after the mistake, and he was gracious when he recalled events.
My misidentification experience was not unique. My predecessor carried the can when a caption writer wrongly identified a woman as the Governor-General’s wife. And, in a mistake with chilling parallels to my Headhunter saga, a colleague’s wrong use of a name turned a fine upstanding member of the judiciary into a minor rip-off merchant.
Yesterday’s apology was a stark reminder that the identification of subjects in images requires not only diligence but processes to check for accuracy. It is not only a reminder for the Herald but for all news media. First, like all unintentional errors, there but for the grace of God go they. Secondly, in an era of fragmented processes across a range of media inputs and outputs, mistakes are easier to make and less likely to undergo rigorous multi-level checking in depleted newsrooms. Too much can go wrong. Continue reading “Picture captions: A small start to big problems”→
NZME’s new streaming video breakfast show Herald NOW has debuted. And it’s refreshing to see that from start to finish it is about news.
It stands in stark contrast to TVNZ’s Breakfast and its giggly magazine format punctuated by obligatory bulletins and couch-bound conversations.
Ryan Bridge fronts Herald NOW. He is, of course, no stranger to breakfast television, He was a mainstay of TV3’s AM Show before Warner Bros Discovery axed it as a prelude to walking away from news production entirely.
However, the new show is not a remake of AM, in spite of the scheduled reappearances of familiar political panellists David Seymour and Chloe Swarbrick (the former was interviewed on the first show, but his fellow panellist was absent), and Mark Richardson who is swapping sports commentary for financial observations. Richardson’s role – he is now a financial advisor at Forsyth Barr – was previewed last week but the inaugural financial slot on the show was filled by his colleague Zoe Willis. Bridge previewed the lineup in the Weekend Herald.
The new show’s strong news focus was obvious from the outset. It comes from a glassed-off space in the Herald’s Auckland newsroom, with busy journalists all-too-obvious in the background. The set has none of the enforced casualness of couches: It is a radio studio with video cameras. And Ryan Bridge has no coffee-sipping co-hosts with whom he is expected to exchange inane banter to ease you gently into the day. Continue reading “Herald streaming breakfast show’s best ingredient – news”→
When politicians kick the can down the road it is usually an excuse to do nothing. The Government’s decision to ‘review’ proposals to ban social media for under-16 year olds does not fall into that category. It is the right thing to do, but the can needs to be kicked into next year.
The review was precipitated by a private member’s bill sponsored by National MP Catherine Wedd. By her own admission, that bill “closely mirrors the approach taken in Australia”.
The review must include an assessment of the actual consequences of Australia’s recent federal law banning youngsters from the platforms. That law does not come into force until December.
Canberra’s ban has been widely praised but there are numerous questions over how it will be implemented and how effective it will be. The Australians have a trial underway on an Age Check Certification Scheme, which will assess technology to be used to determine whether people are the age they claim to be when accessing social media. It is due to report next month but, as of now, we don’t know whether it will even work.
Nor do we know whether it will have unintended consequences. For example, there is a proposal by Google that would allow users to store copies of their passport or driver’s licence for age verification purposes. Personally, I would retreat into the analogue world of typewriters, pens and letter paper before entrusting social platforms with such precious proof of identity.
That is just one aspect of the ban that has a question mark hanging over it. Another is how the likes of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg will react to YouTube carving out an exemption for itself when they have not. During the Australian federal election campaign Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was expecting “major pressure”.
Albanese indicated his government would not buckle to that pressure and the legislation contains stiff penalties for non-compliance. However, another of the unanswered questions is how effective those measures will be.
And what would be the overall effect of the likes of Trump-emboldened American platform operators simply pulling plug on Australian operations? After all, Canada was subjected to a news ban by Meta, and Australia is an even smaller market. Can Australians live without social media? Would it push users toward security suspect TikTok if its Chinese owners opted not to join any boycott?
As I say, Australia attracted widespread international praise for tackling the problem of young people’s use of social media. However, that praise was not universal. Leaving aside 12 year olds who think it is “crazy”, opposition to the ban included an open letter signed by 140 international academics and mental health groups. They argued the ban was too simplistic and that systemic regulation (covering social media across the board) was needed. Human rights advocates claimed it infringed on young people’s rights, including access to information and privacy.
The technical, legal, and social fallout from the law will not be resolved in advance of its implementation. Court challenges, for example, may rely on actual evidence of unacceptable inroads or consequences.
In other words, there is much to play out before the Australian blueprint is proven fit for purpose. It would be folly for this country to “closely mirror” it until that fitness test has been passed.
I don’t much care whether the National Party’s motive in usurping Catherine Wedd’s private member’s bill was to take the credit for attacking a serious social issue, or to simply kick the can down the road when it had ‘more important things’ to worry about. Importantly, our solution will no longer turn on Wedd’s Bill.
The review has been placed in a very competent pair of hands – Education Minister Erica Stanford. She is a better choice than Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith, whose preoccupation with other weighty portfolios has seen media issues placed on a back burner this year. Continue reading “Erica Stanford needs to give social media review a well-aimed kick”→
