Ever feel as though the
media doesn't like one commenting on their well constructed and
carefully tuned news pieces?
My object
This essay outlines my
case to the New Zealand Press Council in relation to the Stuff
(Fairfax) moderation of two comments I placed on their online
articles 21 February and 5 March 2017. I appreciate that Stuff is a
money making business, with a responsibility to its shareholders,
nevertheless we in the public sphere afford Fairfax and other NZ news
media organisations a lot of support through the notion of 'Press
Freedom', and the underpinning idea of 'Freedom of Expression.' My
complaint seeks ultimately that Stuff's comment guidelines are
amended to allow the commenting public a broader source of reference
material in order to support their opinions when commenting on Stuff
articles.
The history
I placed a comment on
this article from Sunday 5th March about President Trump
getting cranky with Obama for tapping his gold phone in Trump Tower,
:
My comment was offered
about midday Sunday 5 March. I took a screen shot of my comment to
have evidence that I'd posted the comment. I waited and patiently
carried on with other activity occasionally refreshing the target
page to see how the moderators were treating my comment this time.
About 40 minutes later a few comments appeared and when I was sure
mine was missed I screen shot the comments with my computer clock in
the screen to establish that comments had appeared posted after mine.
It was clear mine was moderated out.
Prior experience of
the Fairfax comment guidelines for your interest 21 February 2017
On a previous occasion
in February I experienced similar censorship, and emailed the Fairfax
editorial team to ascertain the story, the following Chris Trotter
piece was the one I placed urls that breeched the sacred guidelines.
I had linked urls in
the comment that were disallowed by the Stuff/Fairfax comments
guidelines link here:
I want to link to
an external site, why won’t you approve it?
We do not allow
links to websites, with the exception of Stuff articles or Govt-owned
domains. This is as much as to protect our readers from malicious /
pornographic websites as it is to protect Fairfax Media NZ’s
reputation.
Here's a dropbox link
to a pdf. copy of my emailed complaint on that occasion 21 February 2017:
and here is the
exchange with Fairfax's Angela Quigan referring me to their comments
guidelines. I in my return email raise the issue of which urls might
fit the criteria, asking on two occasions;
- “Thanks for that Angela. Any government or merely NZ government?”
- “P.S. Are you the one to approach regarding your comment guidelines? I request an opportunity to speak (in person or via an email exchange) with your editorial staff regarding limiting comment urls to Stuff and Government links?”
Back to Trump Obama
and spying, and my 5th March comment rejected by Stuff moderators
So being a curious, concerned democrat and free speech advocate I emailed Stuff/Fairfax
editorial staff at 1:00pm, to discover my transgression, seeing I had exercised caution and not placed any urls let alone disallowed urls, into the comment. Here's
the text of my emailed complaint:
---------------------------------------------------
To: Angela Quigan
<angela.quigan@fairfaxmedia.co.nz>, Patrick Crewdson
<patrick.crewdson@fairfaxmedia.co.nz>
Hi Angela, Patrick, and
Stuff,
Re my comment capture
below - you've approved more since my was posted - what is the
problem with mine please?
US President Donald
Trump accuses Barack Obama of 'wire tapping' Trump Tower
My comment above was
offered at about 12:02pm Sunday 5 March;
"The irony is
delicious!
Next up POTUS Trump
will tomorrow sign an Executive Order #666.666 to eliminate the NSA
and CIA for illegal spying on himself and all USA citizens and
residents!
That way Adrian
Leason and friends who protested during the week outside the GCSB
over Drone Assassinations have wasted their blood sacrifice.
God bless America –
land of dreams and hopes - unfulfilled"
I was referring to the
action by Catholic Workers Action, which was to protest Drone
Assassination week in Pipitea Street Wellington outside the GCSB
building, culminating in their blood sacrifice on Friday 3 March, a
story Stuff had run:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/90023103/blood-offering-as-group-protests-at-gcsb-over-drone-strikes
I added below the two
screen shots the following comment and question.
I just had another look
at refreshed article at 12:57pm and two comments Lynners and
Agrarian's have gone through. What's wrong with mine?
If you do not want me
as a commentator on your offerings, just come out nice and clear and
say that "we are banning greg rzesniowiecki" - that would
be the truthful thing to do...
Be nice to gain a
considered response thank you
Greg Rzesniowiecki
------------------------------------------------
Here's a dropbox pdf of
the first email with the screenshots embedded:
A Kathrin came back
with a response at 13:50
Thanks for your
email Greg, I'll take a look at this matter now.
I approached them again
at 18:32,
Hi Kathrin,
I guess 'now' is an
extended moment in space time.
What was the word,
I've not seen the comment appear on the news article, so does that
mean it was rejected by the moderator? If so what was the particular
conflict with the commenting guidelines, do tell please?
I'd like to obtain
an answer promptly in order to inform my next act to pursue fair
freedom of speech - a principle that the news media promote as a
valuable aid to the continuance of democracy. I support your freedom
to report, in fact have been active for press freedom for some time,
amongst my many political interests - you appear to be unwilling to
reciprocate.
Best from greg.
Patrick Crewdson
Editor, responded the next day 9:24 6 March:
Hi Greg,
Your comment was
rejected for being off topic. You can see our terms and conditions
for comments here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/about-stuff/1513458/Terms-and-Conditions-for-Comments
Kind regards,
Patrick Crewdson
Then followed an
exchange where I outlined my interest in and support for Fairfax to
look objectively that my comment was no more off topic than any
number of comments that escaped the moderator's scythe. I offered at
11:05 a couple of hours later;
Hello and thanks for
getting back Patrick,
I've looked at your
commenting guidelines previously as my comments more often than not
are rejected by your thought police. Perhaps you might indicate how
mine was more off topic than the other several hundred comments on
that particular piece?
Your press complaint
guidelines require that I explore the matter with you initially prior
to addressing the concern to the Press Council.
Also on 22 Feb 2017
I asked your Angela, seeking information about your comment
guidelines, "Thanks for that Angela. Any government or merely
NZ government?" in respect to the Chris Trotter piece on "the
deep state" 21 Feb 2017:
Angela had advised,
"Your comment was rejected as it contained links to external
sites.
"As per our
terms and conditions, we do not allow links to sites other than
Government-owned or Fairfax domains. This is as much to protect our
readers from dodgy URLs as it is to protect Stuff's reputation.
"Feel free to
resubmit your comment without including the links and it will be
re-moderated by our editors."
I resubmitted the
comment with a couple of stuff links and it was posted on the
article.
Angela is obviously
stumped how to answer my question, or alternatively didn't realise it
was a serious inquiry.
Perhaps Patrick
whilst I hold your attention, you are more up with the play and can
provide an answer?
Does your comment
guidelines limit which of the approximately 200 governments that
exist plus the thousands of regional, state, and local governments
are acceptable urls to your guidelines for use in comments, or is it
merely the NZ government urls that fit your criteria?
I trust you agree it
is of import to clarify this point.
Thanking you in
advance.
Greg Rzesniowiecki
Which gained the
following response from Patrick at 13:11 early that afternoon;
Hi Greg,
Our moderators
deemed that your comment was off-topic. We publish thousands of
comments every day, so I'm not willing to join you in a comparative
analysis of other comments you consider were more off-topic than
yours.
However, the fact
that you say your comments "more often than not are rejected by
your thought police" suggests to me that you're not in tune with
our terms and conditions for comments.
If you'd like more
of your comments to be approved, I'd suggest re-reading the Ts &
Cs - including the frequently asked questions section at the bottom.
Regarding URLs in
comments, we will accept links to NZ government sites.
If you're not
satisfied with my response, you're welcome to contact the Press
Council: info@presscouncil.org.nz
However, I think
you'll find that - as with letters to the editor - the Press Council
considers the decision on whether comments are published to be the
sole prerogative of the publisher.
Kind regards,
Patrick Crewdson
Now I probably was a
little provocative with my reference to the moderators as 'thought
police' however in the theme of 'fake news' the role of news media as
cheerleaders for empire's adventurism I felt I was on reasonable
ground. Anyway I followed with this response an hour later 14:15;
Thanks for that
Patrick,
My concern is that
you create a bubble of reality which is difficult to penetrate with
facts sourced from outside the bubble. Thus, if I were to advance a
position in response to an assertion in one of your articles and the
matter has no previous consideration, or has a bias due to a limited
perspective, I am literally denied the opportunity to present
referenced material including from my own researches or from NZ or
other nation's tertiary and research institutions, say, for instance
academic papers on an aspect of climate change.
Another example
might be in relation to whether the Democratic National Convention
either screwed the scrum, or allowed it to be screwed, in relation to
the Democrat primaries. Under your comment guidelines the following
study would be disallowed:
Further I hold an
informed opinion in respect to matters relating to the deep state,
including the collusion of the so-called mainstream media with large
power i.e. government to occult and bend truth from the consuming
masses.
That is very much
the case in relation to the 9/11 event that gave us the war on terror
and the chaos that is rampant US hegemony in a very frightened and
insecure world today. I continue to press the criminal nature of that
event by perpetrators associated with the US deep state, into our
government and onto the pages of the news media whether that suits
the sponsors' agenda or otherwise. See here for a taste:
One of my papers to
the FADT Select Committee's TPP treaty examination, this one
entitled, "US - Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?"
covers US militarism and developments on the road to the 9/11 event:
So to the comment
about 'thought police' I offered it aware that it might get your
goat, however, I've now offered my informed opinion as to why I feel
it justified as far as your 'convenient facts bubble' created as a
result of the logical implication and consequence of your comments
guidelines.
I'm not an idiot, I
know what's at work. In fact my political philosophy is liberal with
a strong recognition for good governance. Before the pejorative
'conspiracy theorist' label is employed in the discussion I offer
this essay that the 'thought police' at Stuff would deny me the
ability to disseminate, Otago Professor of Philosophy, Charles
Pigden's paper, "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom
Revisited"
From the abstract:
" Conspiracy
theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the
conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to
investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of
belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first
instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our
control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or
disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster
and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since it leads to
the conclusion that history is bunk and the nightly news
unbelievable. In fact (of course) the policy is not employed
systematically but is only wheeled on to do down theories that the
speaker happens to dislike. I develop a deductive argument from
hard-to-deny premises that if you are not a ‘conspiracy theorist’
in my anodyne sense of the word then you are an ‘idiot’ in the
Greek sense of the word, that is, someone so politically purblind as
to have no opinions about either history or public affairs. The
conventional wisdom can only be saved (if at all) if ‘conspiracy
theory’ is given a slanted definition. I discuss some slanted
definitions apparently presupposed by proponents of the conventional
wisdom (including, amongst others, Tony Blair) and conclude that even
with these definitions the conventional wisdom comes out as deeply
unwise. I finish up with a little harmless fun at the expense of
David Aaronvitch whose abilities as a rhetorician and a popular
historian are not perhaps matched by a corresponding capacity for
logical thought."
The key passage is
highlighted for any idiots.
I'm not aware of
what you might see your role or the role of the organisation you
represent, however, I generally support the idea of a free press that
holds power to account.
We might have
diverse opinions on how that ought proceed, nevertheless, retaining a
thought bubble impenetrable by a contrary or alternative fact because
it is not already covered or addressed by your news organisation, or
your mates in the NZ Government, is tantamount to blatant censorship
- it is definitely the antithesis of a 'free and honest press!' That
is my opinion and I've provided my logic in a transparent and upfront
fashion, which is more than I sense from you who refuses to discuss
the merits of your moderation of the article in question in relation
to my simple piece of irony developed in my comment you refused.
Final word on the
press and 9/11 is from Tony Rooke in relation to the BBC news
reporting of World Trade Centre Tower 7, the BBC broadcast that it
fell 30 minutes before it did! Prophetic, lucky or in the know? ;)
Deep state what's it all about? And what's your role Patrick and
Angela in keeping the lid on the deep state corruption? All fair
questions in a democracy, don't you think? Or don't you?
For a look go to
Tony Rooke UK Film-maker's 'Incontrovertible 9/11':
This movie is
produced by Rooke who got off the charge of not paying his UK TV
license fee because the BBC is supposed to report truth! His evidence
made an impression on the old Bailey:
But that's not a
link on Stuff or the NZ Government's website either - go figure!
With utmost respect
and in the spirit of true critique,
greg
There was nought back
from Patrick for a day so I attempted another line of logic at 14:41
on Tuesday 7 March:
Dear Patrick and
Angela,
hmmm..your silence
indicates you accede to my premise or thesis.
A little additional
consideration on whether my comment with the word 'ironic' in it was
indeed "off topic."
Your friends at the
Guardian and Australia's SBS are assisting in outing the role of
reporters, news media and government in driving nations of people to
war in this case the 2003 Iraq war (complicity to cause Aggression -
hate speech - incitement to violence - false reporting is the least
of the crimes - breach of journalistic ethics)
...to go and murder
people in places far from home, how many millions?
Here's the Aussie
Iraq War dossier referenced in both reports, link is to a
downloadable pdf:
Have you run this
story as yet? Does that mean these 'reputable' sources or the
Australian FOIA report would be unacceptable urls under your comment
guidelines?
Please respond to my
requests for answers, as your guidelines require I satisfy the matter
with you before visiting the Press Council.
Cheers again from
greg.
Which elicited this
final return from Patrick Crewdson at 15:57:
Hi Greg,
I have answered your
initial inquiry about your comment being rejected. I don't believe
engaging further will be productive.
Kind regards,
Patrick Crewdson
---------------------
The following dropbox
provides the full thread of conversation for accuracy's sake:
-----------------------
Why bother
critiquing the news media?
I assert it is every
person's responsibility to be active and vigilant in the democracy.
One significant source and vector in which the democracy informs
itself is through the agency of the mainstream news media
organisations via their journalism and reporting of the matters,
issues and events that impact the state and the planet. To this
effect news media organisations have had this to say about themselves
and their role in the state apparatus;
The press and others
on Freedom of the Press (an outline of the justification)
Fairfax journalism
charter:
On media freedom from
Australia from the MEAA (Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance):
Nick McKenzie who is
the quoted Journalist:
Text from MEAA quote
from Laurie Oakes which arose from his acceptance speech at the
Walkley awards for journalism, full transcript here:
Laurie Oakes, one of
Australia’s foremost political commentators and a Walkley
Foundation Trustee, gave these remarks at the Melbourne Press Freedom
Dinner on Sept. 25, 2015.
As concern over
terrorism grew last year, Tony Abbott told us: “The delicate
balance between freedom and security may have to shift”. Well, the
balance between press freedom and security certainly shifted. Tonight
I want to make a number of points about that.
I want to argue that
we in the Australian media have been somewhat apathetic on the press
freedom front, not vigilant enough or as willing to fight as we
should have been. I also want to say something about our new Prime
Minister and his attitude. And finally, I want to talk about the need
to bring the public along with us in the press freedom cause.
It was Indonesian
troops who murdered the Balibo five 40 years ago, but the response of
the Australian Government was shameful. It lied and covered up,
feigning ignorance about what had happened to them.
Which connects to this
RNZ report on World Press Freedom Day:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201799175/the-right-to-know-and-to-find-out
a couple of extracts;
1.
Across the Tasman, the journalists' union - The Media,
Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) - published a report into the
state of press freedom in Australia.
Criminalising the
Truth, Suppressing the Right to Know said Australia now has a raft of
national security laws that could criminalise legitimate journalism
and prosecute whistleblowers.
Some government
agencies could now trawl through journalists’ telecommunications
data, and jail journalists for reporting matters deemed to be of
national security, the report said.
2.
When Fairfax Media political reporter Andrea Vance
revealed dozens of New Zealanders were illegally spied upon by the
GCSB, an investigation ordered by the prime minister’s office asked
for details of her movements around Parliament and her phone calls
from her office. Parliamentary Services handed it over.
She’s not the only
journalist to have felt the heavy hand of a state agency intrusion,
though some journalists pushed back in 2015.
The New Zealand
Defence Force (NZDF) reached a settlement with freelance foreign
correspondent Jon Stephenson - and apologised to him - after he sued
for defamation. A 2011 statement had effectively claimed part of an
eye-opening Metro magazine report on what our troops were doing by Mr
Stephenson had been made up.
When the case got to
court, the NZDF admitted their press statement was wrong. The jury
couldn’t agree on a verdict and the defamation trial was abandoned,
but the NZDF only settled when another trial was imminent, with the
risk of an award of significant damages. (
see Jon Stephenson's 'eyes wide shut':
http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/eyes-wide-shut-the-governments-guilty-secrets-in-afghanistan/
)
Which in a sense leads
to the latest revelation by Stephenson and Nicky Hager, in their book
'Hit and Run' about alleged war crimes in Afghanistan in 2011 which
is what my concerns are about – military adventurism and
insufficient, inaccurate and or misleading public information being
provided to justify the continuity of criminal militarism:
http://www.pottonandburton.co.nz/store/hit-run
From the webpage;
In August 2010, a
New Zealand soldier died in a roadside bomb blast in Afghanistan. In
retaliation, the New Zealand SAS led a raid on two isolated villages
in search of the fighters they suspected were responsible.
They all knew the
rules. Prior to firing weapons, their freshly issued orders said,
‘the commander approving the strike must determine that no
civilians are present.’ If they could not assess whether civilians
were present, firing was prohibited. But it all went horribly wrong.
None of the fighters
were found but, by the end of the raid, 21 civilians were dead or
wounded. Most were children or women, including a three-year-old girl
who was killed. A dozen houses had been burnt or blown up. The
operation was personally approved by the prime minister via phone
from New Zealand. More missions against the group of fighters and
more potential crimes of war followed, including the beating and
torture of a prisoner. Afterwards no one took responsibility. The New
Zealand military denied the facts and went to great lengths to cover
things up.
This book is the
story of those events. It is, at heart, about the meaning of honour;
about who we want to be and what we believe in as New Zealanders.
I note that Fairfax is
assertive in protecting press freedom as demonstrated in this article
about Sky TV seeking to impose restrictive conditions on competitor
news reporting at the Olympic Games:
Perhaps this piece
might assist in illuminating the subject from my perspective. I'm not
saying that my rights to freedom of expression have any bearing in
the matter, more for the Stuff website to reflect its journalistic
charter it must allow discovery of facts from a broad range of
sources. Thus 'Press Freedom' is framed with ethical considerations:
From the philosopher's
discourse the following extract has bearing in this matter;
Freedom of the press
is quite a different kind of thing, since it pertains to a certain
group of corporations (mass-media companies), rather than
individuals. The key difference is that because corporations are not
people their speech can have no intrinsic value (pace Justice
Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United). Corporations, unlike
individuals, are not sophisticated enough agents to have thoughts of
their own that they burn to express to others, and so they cannot
suffer from censorship as people do. Indeed, because corporations
lack moral agency generally, their 'moral' rights can only be
justified on utilitarian grounds: recognising corporate personality
and property rights is a legal wheeze that makes the capitalist order
function more efficiently, rather than a recognition of some
underlying intrinsic moral claim. (For corporations to gain real
moral rights, they would have to be designed in such a way that they
can conduct morally sophisticated reasoning and give themselves a
moral law. But that's a subject for another post.)
Instead, the
justification for freedom of the press is purely instrumental. First
these companies provide the medium through which freedom of speech is
realised (outside of books, and nowadays the internet). Second is
their political function in a democratic society. They have the
capacity to enhance public reasoning by informing the public about
the important issues of the day, and to incentivise political office
holders to serve the public interest by providing a means for the
voting public to observe what they get up to.
These are good
reasons to care about the health of the press and to keep it free
from government control. After all, they are the very same reasons
autocracies censor the press so severely. Yet they only refer to the
capacities of the mass media. Simply because a free press can support
freedom of speech and democracy, and can threaten dictatorships, does
not mean that it necessarily does so. For a mechanistic justification
like this to be successful, the machine must be shown to work in
practise as well as in theory. And we can see that in the real world
media corporations with the power to serve the public interest often
don't.
The wikipedia entry on
the matter of Press Freedom:
Perhaps the following
passage referenced from John Stuart Mill's essay is of most
relevance;
John Stuart Mill in
1869 in his book On Liberty approached the problem of authority
versus liberty from the viewpoint of a 19th-century utilitarian: The
individual has the right of expressing himself so long as he does not
harm other individuals. The good society is one in which the greatest
number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness.
Applying these general principles of liberty to freedom of
expression, Mill states that if we silence an opinion, we may silence
the truth. The individual freedom of expression is therefore
essential to the well-being of society. Mill wrote:
If all mankind minus
one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing
that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in
silencing mankind. [ On Liberty by John Stuart Mill ]
And this conference in
2007 - the link is to a book which is the record of an international
conference; “New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension Challenges and
Opportunities of New Media for Press Freedom” - to explore the
emerging and rapidly evolving environment of press freedom created by
the new electronic media.
It took place at the
headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris 15-16 February 2007. With
speakers from more than 30 countries, the discussions covered a wide
range of topics from citizen journalism and freedom of expression, to
the looming reality of censorship, as dictators, taking the cue from
China, place blocks on the Internet and lock up people for expressing
their views in cyberspace.
The conference was
sponsored by the World Press Freedom Committee and co-sponsored by
UNESCO and the World Association of Newspapers, in partnership with
the other member groups of the Coordinating Committee of Press
Freedom Organizations:
Committee to Protect
Journalists, Commonwealth Press Union, Inter American Press
Association,
International
Association of Broadcasting, International Association of the
Periodical Press,
International Press
Institute, and North American Broadcasters Association.
who's concluding
statement says;
To that end, civil
society and all those engaged in news flows over the Internet and
other new media must continue to be an integral part of the
deliberations at every stage. The future of new and evolving forms of
communication cannot be left to governments and technocrats alone.
The Coordinating
Committee of Press Freedom Organizations calls for concerted effort
to make preserving and extending the free flow of news and
information in cyberspace and elsewhere an ongoing basic concern.
News on the Internet and other new forms of communication is the same
as news everywhere. New technology does not require any
reconsideration of fundamental rights such as freedom of the press.
We call on those
involved in deliberations on the future of new forms of communication
to:
a) reject any
proposal aimed at restricting news content or media operations,
b) work for
inclusion of clear statements of unqualified support for press
freedom on the Internet and other new forms of communication in any
new agreements or declarations of principle on the subject, and
c) stipulate in any
text that could be used restrictively a clear statement that the
particular provision involved is not intended to limit freedom of
expression or press freedom.
There must be press
freedom in all the new spaces created for communication.
My conclusions and
complaint
I assert that Fairfax's
commenting guidelines on the Stuff news site are deliberately limiting:
I want to link to
an external site, why won’t you approve it?
We do not allow
links to websites, with the exception of Stuff articles or Govt-owned
domains. This is as much as to protect our readers from malicious /
pornographic websites as it is to protect Fairfax Media NZ’s
reputation.
This condition is
contrived to limit alternative narratives and in fact constitutes a
serious breech of the public's 'right to know' which underpins the
philosophy of press freedom.
Surely the press
freedom is founded on the public's right to know? Without the
public's right to know what is truth or what is being done in it's
name by government and powerful interests, i.e. the New Zealand
Defence Forces, the notion of Press Freedom is a nonsense.
Recommended action
1. I seek that the
comment guidelines are broadened to allow urls other then merely
Stuff/Fairfax and NZ Government websites.
2. I seek formal
review as to why my comment was moderated and not run on the article;
'US President Donald Trump accuses Barack Obama of 'wire tapping'
Trump Tower':
3. I seek that my
comment is included in the list where the Press Council finds the
comment is no more off topic than any other.
4. That the Stuff
moderators act in future with impartiality in respect to all
commentators and their comments.
Many thanks for your
consideration,
Greg Rzesniowiecki
