Ever feel as though the
media doesn't like one commenting on their well constructed and
carefully tuned news pieces? The answer appears to be yes.
This essay outlines the
New Zealand Press Council (NZPC) response to the Stuff (Fairfax)
moderation of two comments I placed on their online articles 21
February and 5 March 2017.
The first part of the
story is in this blog post:
The Press Council process and 27 April Council meeting
The NZPC considered the
matter at their Thursday 27 April meeting. Their executive Mary Major
advised that there would be no decision for three weeks, and
apologised that it is usual practice to have the decisions typed up
and verified by two weeks. I was provided with a draft of their
decision mid May and wrote a further note to the NZPC, though there
was no acknowledgement of their receiving it or reading it.
As my earlier correspondence was received I assume the NZPC had the benefit of my thoughts on their decision.
As my earlier correspondence was received I assume the NZPC had the benefit of my thoughts on their decision.
The NZPC decision is
available for online reading at the NZ Press Council website - they do not deal with the merits of my case at any point! The rule on matters of jurisdiction or their right to deal with the matter. They further and comment on the case without addressing the truth of my assertions:
The Press Council say a
bit in the decision without addressing any of the content of my
concern – the media misrepresenting reality and that they limit the
ability of the public to assert alternative factual material to the narrative
available from Stuff and NZ Government websites. Here's how they
approached it;
Overview
1. Although somewhat
long and discursive, the essential element of Mr Rzesniowiecki’s
complaint is unfair moderation by Stuff relating to the posting of
online comments submitted by Mr Rzesniowiecki, and their refusal to
link to a number of external sites.
2. The Council has
already rejected similar complaints from two complainants on the
basis that the complaints are analogous to non-publication of letters
to the editor. In those cases, no adjudication was issued. Given that
this matter has the potential to lead to ongoing complaints, we have
considered it appropriate in these circumstances to accept this
complaint and set forth the views of the Press Council.
Jurisdiction versus Merit - deny jurisdiction then comment on merit - Process Denied
Here note that the
Councils says they have no jurisdiction, however, “Given
that this matter has the potential to lead to ongoing complaints, we
have considered it appropriate in these circumstances to accept this
complaint and set forth the views of the Press Council.” So despite
having no jurisdiction to act or determine, in this instance they
were compelled to make it clear that the NZ Press Council member news
organisations are entitled to maintain what ever guidelines they
determine. Then they go on to make a qualitative statement about the
merits of a substantial element of the complaint in point 10 of their
decision, “The Press Council has no jurisdiction over such terms
and conditions. However, we do see those Terms and Conditions,
particularly those relating to links to unchecked sites, to be a
reasonable position for a publisher to take.” Here's the full
decision component of the complaint report.
The Decision
10. At the outset,
we make it clear that the Stuff Terms and Conditions relating to
online comment are a matter between Stuff and its readership. The
Press Council has no jurisdiction over such terms and conditions.
However, we do see those Terms and Conditions, particularly those
relating to links to unchecked sites, to be a reasonable position for
a publisher to take.
11. The matter of
letters to the editor is covered by Principle 5 which, where
relevant, reads:
Letters for
publication are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided by
fairness, balance, and public interest. Abridgement is acceptable but
should not distort meaning.
12. It is clear this
means that whether or not a letter is published is within the
prerogative of the editor. They are advised to be guided in doing
this by the principle of accuracy, fairness and balance.
13. Mr Crewdson is
correct to point out that as early as 1999 the principle was cited,
and for some considerable time the Council has rejected complaints
about non-publication of letters from the public.
14. In the decision
cited by Mr Crewdson, Case 2470, the Council stated:
An editor can both
decide which letters and opinion pieces to publish as well as when to
close the curtain or close a discussion topic within his or her
publication.
15. The critical
question in this case is whether online content (sourced from the
general public) can be seen as analogous to letters. We are satisfied
it can.
16. As Mr Crewdson
pointed out in his response, there are limits on what content will be
published, both through editorial discretion and through adherence to
the published Rules for Letters (in the case of newspapers), and the
Terms and Conditions between the media online sites and their
readership (in the case of websites). We consider it would be
artificial to suggest that they are somehow different. Since the
advent of newspapers, readers have had the opportunity to forward
letters commenting on various topics to the newspaper for
publication. Our Principle 5 makes it clear that the publication or
non-publication of such letters is at the discretion of the editor.
We see no difference between the invitations to the readership of
online media content to comment on various matters that are published
online and the traditional letters to the editor. The earlier form of
letter was received by way of envelope and postage; the latter form
of online content is received electronically. But that physical
difference does not change the fact that both give readers the chance
to comment. In that sense, we are satisfied that online comment is
clearly analogous to the letters to the editor, and in the view of
the Council should be subject to the same principle.
17. Accordingly, the
Council is satisfied that online comments are analogous to letters to
the editor, and their publication is at the prerogative of the
editor, pursuant to Principle 5. Therefore, the complaint is not
upheld.
18. We reiterate
that the Terms and Conditions for online comment are a matter between
the online publisher and its readership. It is not a matter for the
Council, nor do we have any jurisdiction to interfere in it.
19. We note Mr
Crewdson’s comments relating to the potential for a very
significant increase in the work of the Press Council if this
complaint was upheld. (Indeed he suggests to unmanageable levels). We
have put those comments to one side. They are irrelevant to our
consideration and the work load factor, on its own, would not have
been a ground not to uphold the complaint.
20. In those
circumstances, complaints about the non-publication of comments in
online forums established by parties subject to the jurisdiction of
the Press Council will not be accepted.
This is more interest.
In clause 19 of the decision they state, “We note Mr Crewdson’s
comments relating to the potential for a very significant increase in
the work of the Press Council if this complaint was upheld. (Indeed
he suggests to unmanageable levels). We have put those comments to
one side. They are irrelevant to our consideration and the work load
factor, on its own, would not have been a ground not to uphold the
complaint."
OK the increased
workload from a flood of new websites to fact check is not a concern
of the Council. Their final decision follows;
"In those
circumstances, complaints about the non-publication of comments in
online forums established by parties subject to the jurisdiction of
the Press Council will not be accepted."
NZ Press Council process
The NZ Press Council
process is of note for the benefit of the reader the Press Council
rules for a complaint require a complainant to waive any appeal
rights, the decision of the Council is final. The Press Council
principles are here, which establish what the Council takes into
consideration when making a determination. The Principles are the
guidelines which supposedly the news media industry in NZ follows:
On 9 April I received
an email from Mary Major Executive at the Council;
I have attached the
editor’s response to your complaint. As well as his response the
editor has included the full correspondence between you and the
editor over these complaints.
You now have the
opportunity to provide the Press Council with a brief (around 200
words) comment on this response.
Patrick
Crewdson's thoughts on behalf of Stuff are available to read online
or download from dropbox:
My response to his comments is
here:
And reprinted in whole
below;
Wednesday
12 April 2017
Greg
Rzesniowiecki
xxxxxxxxxxx
To:
Press Council info@presscouncil.org.nz
Shifting
paradigms in media thinking – what is truth and what is the role of
the press?
Dear
NZ Press Councillors,
To
share information today requires savvy in relation to the market for
ideas. That market is concentrated in the internet.
I'm
not media savvy - I'm wordy in a sea of brevity – are my musings
less worthy?
I
was born in 1958 which makes me 58 now. I've got life skills and
critical thinking capacities. I can build anything (carpentry, stone,
mud brick), prune plantation and orchard trees, pick fruit and now
analyse and decipher bullshit. I've done the former and now attempt
to systemically do the latter – one attempt is the link I provided
in my complaint:
Patrick
Crewdson makes the point that I am free to offer the benefits of my
critical thinking in my blog.
My
blog reaches a couple of hundred folk including a few in nations
afar, but nothing approaching Stuff's enormous reach – perhaps mass
media means press freedom to circumscribe the discourse?
With
Stuff utilising the latest news room technology they will have no
difficulty separating fake news from more credibly sourced material -
and without pulling the comment guideline bubble so tight that it
effectively refuses material from without (rest of the world), and
those within who are not part of the Fairfax/Stuff/NZ Government url
club, “we allow only URLs we can trust.”
The
'Fake News' beat up is a convenience brought on by November's US
Presidential election raffle. Stuff announced their altered comment
guidelines as recent as my 58th
birthday December 7 2016 – also Pearl Harbour WW2 anniversary is
synchronicity (see 9/11 stuff below):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/84011451/Why-we-re-introducing-new-rules-to-restore-civility-to-Stuffs-comments
which says in part;
Intellectual
snobs sneer at the views that don't mirror theirs, but the
democratisation of media is one of the great positives of the
internet age. Gone are the days when media gatekeepers controlled the
conversation. Why should politicians, celebrities and media
personalities be the only ones to have their voices heard?
And
a little further down;
We
believe genuine debate on the news of the day - thoughtful,
constructive debate with a range of views - can help society. It's
healthy to allow alternative viewpoints to be aired, not to mention
democratic. The diversity of the comments section provides a partial
antidote to the bubble effect of social media, where you see what you
already think reflected back at you.
That
so many media outlets were blindsided by Donald Trump's US election
victory shows the danger of operating in an elitist cocoon, divorced
from your audience. Comments help us stay connected and, importantly,
accountable. When we make mistakes, our readers will let us know
immediately. And when our journalists see the responses their stories
generate they're reminded who we're really reporting for - our
audience.
Ah!
the Trump factor - 58th
POTUS inauguration. As if Trump is a poorer representative than a
host of past Emperors of the free world? Can anyone recall Bush's War
on Terror, Clinton's intern predilection, or even Obama the drone
assassin king?
And
as every argument might be relative in this post truth world...
Press
Council principle 5 can be applied to assist my case too, especially
where the relevant 'comment guideline' is limiting in comparison to
the above 'mission statement' intent, thereby rendering it unbalanced
and odious to public interest for peace and genuine security:
Letters
for publication are the prerogative of editors who
are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest.
Moderation
is no biggie - folks like me who Stuff might have already flagged as
a 'toxic' (upset the paradigm) commentator, so perhaps we get an
automatic flag? My score 6 comments out of 13 posted, is not great.
I
imagine there wouldn't be much difference to the present resource
requirement – given the internet of things (from 2014, first para
for the guts):
In
fact the benefit is - it requires the moderator to inform herself of
the world outside the 'bubble paradigm'. And if the Fairfax defence
to this suggestion is that the moderators are already informed - then
why close the discourse down?
My
point is made about the public's right to source and reference their
'factual' material from a variety of sources – 'On Liberty.'
It
appears our Stuff/NZ Government url club is already establishing a
bubble of public opinion to support another attack on a nation in
someone else's war, this time Syria – what does the rest of the
world offer?
The
author of the Syria piece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Patrick_Lang
I've
elsewhere listed some US military adventures – see the sourced
link Patrick Crewdson holds up as a problem:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Where's the inaccuracy?
On
Syria our NZ propaganda club appears hell-bent on following the US
military lead, whatever external intelligence/urls might reveal.
The
murdering personnel with intersecting interests in the
bankster-security-industrial-military-oil-(MSM)-government complex
are always at it - ex US General Smedley Butler gave us the insight -
his speech to thousands on his 1930s national tours, 'War is a
Racket' maybe you've heard it?
Short
audio recording of professional speaker reciting Smedley's speech:
Full
audio recording of professional speaker reciting Smedley's speech:
Greg
on a rainy day in Auckland...Please read this, my paper offered to
the FADT select committee in relation to the TPP treaty examination
process, "US - Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?"
covers US militarism and developments on the road to the
(preordained) 9/11 event:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pflwduixj1561y0/AABAx0cfgVLpcn8tdW9XTGela/US%20%E2%80%93%20%20Aotearoa%20NZ%20Values%20-%20Do%20These%20Correlate.pdf?dl=0
What values do you hold?
History
appears to repeat, and one would think that with the acuity and
science of investigative journalism in all its forms, the world would
have had revealed to its awestruck masses, that 'War is a Racket'.
However this simple fact is occulted - go figure...
Thank
you for your careful and critical consideration of the
recommendations in my complaint.
End.
-----000-----
Out takes and conclusions - Independent Press and Press Council? or,
Manufactured narratives predetermined and institutionalised - Catch 22
I guess one lesson is
that one cannot hope to win every battle merely because one thinks
they know or hold the truth – or at least can prove logically a
story more in keeping with the real world.
At the heart of my
complaint is the problem of the 'overtone window' or bubble from which
the mainstream media appears to accept acceptable (colludes with the narrative) opinion. The
strategy of disallowing comments outside of the NZ Government and
Stuff websites is in direct contradiction of Press Council
Principles. This from the Principle's Preamble;
“...An independent
press plays a vital role in a democracy. The proper fullfilment of
that role requires a fundamental responsibility to maintain high
standards of accuracy, fairness and balance and public faith in those
standards.
“There is no more
important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the media are inextricably
bound. The print media is jealous in guarding freedom of expression,
not just for publishers' sake but, more importantly, in the public
interest. In dealing with complaints, the Council will give primary
consideration to freedom of expression and the public interest.
“Public interest is
defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at
large so that they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned
about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others....”
I agree with all of the
foregoing, however the rules governing Stuff's commenting guidelines
are structurally not fit for the purpose if they are meant to reflect
this principle.
So we get to a Catch 22
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22 ) situation where there is no way through by way of institutional
processes of complaint.
What to do about it? How to solve that puzzle :)
What to do about it? How to solve that puzzle :)
