Tom Phillips: Your right to know is bottom on a sliding scale

A positive element of the Tom Phillips saga – perhaps the only positive apart from the safe recovery of his children – has been in highlighting the fragile nature of the public’s right to know.

It is an outstanding example of attempts to control the narrative in a story that has generated worldwide interest and raised a plethora of questions about Phillips and about official handling of the case.

The interests of the three Phillips children are paramount, and no-one in this country wishes to see them face any further trauma. They endured almost four years of deprivation, and one witnessed the violent death of her father after he attempted to take the life of a police officer.

But where does the wellbeing of those children end, and the self-interest of all the other parties associated with this case begin? There are serious questions about the Oranga Tamariki handling of the domestic arrangements for the children during the custody dispute, and certainly after Phillips’ first abduction of his offspring. There are questions about the police operations throughout the case. And there are many questions about the character and actions of a man who would deprive his daughters and son of a normal childhood while normalising criminal behaviour.

Oranga Tamariki has invoked the children’s right to privacy. Police have fallen back on the old trope of ‘ongoing investigations’. And sitting over it all is an interim court order that – temporary or not – has almost the effect of a super injunction where even the purpose and justifications for suppression of facts are shrouded in secrecy. Continue reading “Tom Phillips: Your right to know is bottom on a sliding scale” →

How crunchy are the Herald NOW numbers?

Let me say at the outset: I like NZME’s video breakfast show Herald Now.

It has the hallmarks of a serious news programme designed to inform me at the start of the day, and the relaxed manner of its host Ryan Bridge belies his skill in asking questions that put interviewees on the spot.

It has the ability to attract newsmakers from the Prime Minister and former judges to sports stars and social workers in Gaza. Its rotating list of panellists spans a useful social spectrum.

Ryan Bridge plays a key role in the show’s success but, even when he is not there, the format retains its appeal. Last week, seasoned television journalist Garth Bray (now with NZME’s BusinessDesk) was a quality stand-in who maintained the same pace and inquisitive style.

So, I was not surprised when NZME crowed that the show has attracted 2.4 million views in July. Well, that was the number from one survey source but it could include double-ups  where the same people watched on different platforms. By another measure, the programme has a million ‘unique viewers’ a month.

Herald Now screens on the Herald’s digital platforms and on YouTube. I watch it through the latter on the tv set in our lounge. And that is what roused my curiosity over the audience statistic proudly announced by NZME. When I logged onto the programme on YouTube one day last week it told me there were 407 other viewers. On another day, the number was about 1400. That suggests that the vast majority view it on the Herald’s platforms.

Fair enough, but what does either Herald Now audience survey number actually tell us? Continue reading “How crunchy are the Herald NOW numbers?” →

No, my old friend, you will never be irrelevant

Last week I received an email that deeply saddened me. It was from a friend who is a very talented journalist with vast experience. He told me he felt irrelevant.

Here is a man whose range of experience exceeds my own but with whom I share a number of common traits: We are both male, Pakeha, beyond the age nominally set for retirement, and recognised for what we were rather than who we are.

In his email he told me about a recent encounter which he said “does add to my sense of irrelevance”. In spite of the fact he had not been driven by monetary reward, he “never had so much as a cup of coffee” with those to whom he had offered his services. He was ignored.

I was saddened not only because I greatly value our friendship but because he is yet another casualty of systemic ageism.

I began my reply to his email with this: “Let’s get one thing straight: You are not irrelevant, have never been irrelevant, and will not be irrelevant for as long as you draw breath.”

That is the reality, but the perception is vastly different. Continue reading “No, my old friend, you will never be irrelevant” →

Name suppression sends wrong messages

The irony in the lead story of last Friday’s New Zealand Herald was plain: One rich-lister was wrongly pilloried because another rich man tried to hide his wrong-doing.

Businessman and philanthropist Wayne Wright was the victim of a chatbot that proved that artificial intelligence is not always very intelligent.

Grok, the chatbot owned by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), named Wright as the man found with 11775 objectionable files, including extreme child sexual abuse involving bestiality, pre-pubescent children and toddlers. The defendant was sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment. The court permanently suppressed the man’s name, his family’s name, and the name of his business. Grok had been asked to find his name and did so by scouring speculation on social media.

Wayne Wright was named, but he was not that man.

Understandably, Wright has now called on the offender to apply to the court to have suppression lifted. Customs is also considering an appeal against the permanent suppression. The Herald has stated categorically that Wright is not the offender but, of course, is prevented from naming the guilty man.

The episode is yet another example of the damage that may be wrought by the use of imperfect AI by unaccountable platforms, and of name suppression tarnishing the public’s perception of the courts. Continue reading “Name suppression sends wrong messages” →