".....we should note that anyone close
to the PM is in Danger, just ask the brave young woman Amanda Bailey who had
to put up with her hair being pulled by a middle aged multi-millionaire nut
case who just happens to be [for now anyway] our much beloved leader"...
 |
| Journalist? Rachel Glucina. |
The hair pulling episode cover-up by Rachel Glucina has back
fired and the NZ Herald has been found guilty of manipulation over the issue of
the on-going hair pulling of a young woman in an Auckland café…The hair puller
was as is now as we all know was John
Key, multi-millionaire and PM and a good friend of Rachel Glucina. In the past the PM has had the full use of
his Black Op’s group to attack those who have brought issues to the publics
notice ie: Dirty Politics etc. This team [ Jason Ede, Simon Lusk, Mathew Hooton and David Farrar and Cameron Slater] was quickly disbanded when they were publicly
revealed by Nicky Hagar’s book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Politics
and came under public scrutiny:
This from the press council:
Lisa Finlay, Bronwyn Hayward, Leanne Hermosilla, Josh Hetherington, Rob
Stowell, Jasmine Taylor, Giovanni Tiso, Daniel Webster and Julia Woodhall have
complained that an article published by the New Zealand Herald on April 23,
2015 was in breach of several of the Press Council principles.
All the nine complainants have complained of a breach of Principle 9
(subterfuge) with related breaches of Principles 2 (privacy) and 8
(confidentiality), and most of them have also complained of a breach of
Principle 1 (accuracy, fairness and balance). This determination addresses
those complaints, although it addresses Principle 1 only in respect of the
interaction between the New Zealand Herald and Amanda Bailey and not in respect
of the content of the article.
In addition, there are complaints of breaches of principles 4 (comment and
fact), 7 (discrimination and diversity), 10 (conflicts of interest) and 11
(photographs and graphics). These complaints are the subject of a separate
determination, as are the remaining complaints about a breach of Principle 1.
The Press Council upholds the complaints in general although it finds
the complaints about a breach of Principle 8 to be based on a misunderstanding
of the effect of that principle and largely based on the evidence that has led
the Council to uphold the other complaints.
The Press Council is concerned with promoting media freedom and maintaining the press in accordance with the highest professional standards. In its view, the NZ Herald has fallen sadly short of those standards in this case.
Background
On April 23, 2015 the NZ Herald published, both in print and online, an article about Amanda Bailey and the controversy over her reaction to the Prime Minister, John Key, when he persistently pulled her ponytail at the café where she worked as a waitress.
The article was based on an interview made by conference call the previous day by a NZ Herald columnist, Rachel Glucina, with Ms Bailey and her employers. It included photographs of Ms Bailey and her employers, taken by a NZ Herald photographer shortly after the interview. It followed on from an anonymous posting by Ms Bailey on The Daily Blog, a public blog site operated by Martyn Bradbury.
Ms Glucina was already acquainted with the café owners, Ms Bailey’s employers, and had contacted them earlier the same day to arrange the interview.
• In general, the NZ Herald acted in good faith and in accordance with its obligations under the Press Council principles. There was no intention to appear insensitive to Ms Bailey’s situation. It seems very likely that Ms Bailey’s employers, who were already acquainted with Ms Glucina, knew of her PR skills and were comfortable with the idea that she would help produce a media statement that would help counter any possible damage to the reputation of their business. There seems to have been no clear distinction between the journalistic and the PR aspects of the proposed article.
There was also confusion over the nature of the article Ms Glucina proposed to write. Both Ms Bailey, and her employers, understood that she would prepare a general statement that would be released to all media. Certainly in relaying the content of his conversation with the café owners, Mr Currie acknowledges that they “said they had thought their and the waitress’ words would be issued to all media”.
On April 23, 2015 the NZ Herald published, both in print and online, an article about Amanda Bailey and the controversy over her reaction to the Prime Minister, John Key, when he persistently pulled her ponytail at the café where she worked as a waitress.
The article was based on an interview made by conference call the previous day by a NZ Herald columnist, Rachel Glucina, with Ms Bailey and her employers. It included photographs of Ms Bailey and her employers, taken by a NZ Herald photographer shortly after the interview. It followed on from an anonymous posting by Ms Bailey on The Daily Blog, a public blog site operated by Martyn Bradbury.
Ms Glucina was already acquainted with the café owners, Ms Bailey’s employers, and had contacted them earlier the same day to arrange the interview.
• In general, the NZ Herald acted in good faith and in accordance with its obligations under the Press Council principles. There was no intention to appear insensitive to Ms Bailey’s situation. It seems very likely that Ms Bailey’s employers, who were already acquainted with Ms Glucina, knew of her PR skills and were comfortable with the idea that she would help produce a media statement that would help counter any possible damage to the reputation of their business. There seems to have been no clear distinction between the journalistic and the PR aspects of the proposed article.
There was also confusion over the nature of the article Ms Glucina proposed to write. Both Ms Bailey, and her employers, understood that she would prepare a general statement that would be released to all media. Certainly in relaying the content of his conversation with the café owners, Mr Currie acknowledges that they “said they had thought their and the waitress’ words would be issued to all media”.
It seems very likely that Ms Bailey’s employers, who were
already acquainted with Ms Glucina, knew of her PR skills and were comfortable
with the idea that she would help produce a media statement that would help
counter any possible damage to the reputation of their business. There seems to
have been no clear distinction between the journalistic and the PR aspects of
the proposed article.
There was also confusion over the nature of the article Ms Glucina proposed to write. Both Ms Bailey, and her employers, understood that she would prepare a general statement that would be released to all media. Certainly in relaying the content of his conversation with the café owners, Mr Currie acknowledges that they “said they had thought their and the waitress’ words would be issued to all media”.
There was also confusion over the nature of the article Ms Glucina proposed to write. Both Ms Bailey, and her employers, understood that she would prepare a general statement that would be released to all media. Certainly in relaying the content of his conversation with the café owners, Mr Currie acknowledges that they “said they had thought their and the waitress’ words would be issued to all media”.
Decision:
The Press Council upholds
the complaints. It finds there were elements of subterfuge in the NZ Herald’s dealings with Ms Bailey
along with a failure to act fairly towards her, but more importantly it notes
that it is not exclusively concerned with determining whether there has been a
breach of specific principles. It may consider other ethical grounds for
complaint, especially in the context of its objective of maintaining the press
in accordance with the highest professional standards. In this case, it is of the view that the NZ Herald has
generally fallen far short of those standards in its handling of a sensitive
issue and its failure to respect the interests of a vulnerable person.
For the sake of completeness, it should be said that the
Press Council does not find that there was a sufficient public interest in Ms
Bailey’s story to justify the use of subterfuge, or to override any right to
privacy.
Press Council members considering the complaint were Sir
John Hansen, Liz Brown, Chris Darlow, Jenny Farrell, Sandy Gill, Marie Shroff,
Vernon Small, Stephen Stewart and Mark Stevens
John Roughan took no part in the consideration of this complaint.
John Roughan took no part in the consideration of this complaint.
My Comments:
Well it would appear that the National Party Branch at the
NZ Herald has yet again attempted to use its press machine to lessen the impact
of the PM’s sad and juvenile behaviour in the eyes of its readers, both print
and electronic. But hey what’s new! Earlier they had used the Black Op’s team
to blacken their perceived enemies and with friends in the media like the boss
of TV3 and Maori TV and dumb-dumbs like Mike Hosking and Paul [what’s-his-name]
Henry: But this time, as before they became unstuck because the press council
still has on its team some people who can see the light through the darkness of
mud and slime created by people like Whale Oil and David Farrar and the Herald
gossip the chubby cheeked Rachel Glucina. The question we must ask now is,
should we have any faith in anything printed in the once proud NZ Herald? For
it would seem, that the editor is a very muddled thinker, and if Rachel Glucina
is representative their ever declining journalistic quality. Has the Herald
simply become a talk-back radio host these days?
More on Subject:
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/03/press-council-rule-nz-heralds-standards-of-journalism-a-joke/
1 comment:
Shame on Key and his allies, voters and journalists who all value money, status and power over the truth, and support this ongoing abuse of power, secrets and lies that the Natz now stand for.
Post a Comment