Written By: - Date published: 9:51 pm, March 5th, 2008 - 54 comments
Categories: john key, Media, rumour -
Tags: john key, Media, rumour
Today in Parliament Bill English made a very interesting comment which, if true, raises some very concerning questions about either his own honesty or the editorial integrity of APN, publishers of the New Zealand Herald.
Referring to a quip from Michael Cullen about John Key’s statement that ‘we would love to see wages drop‘, English said:
Is the Minister aware that the newspaper concerned is going to publish a retraction?
Fascinated, a regular reader of The Standard followed up the story by making a few phone calls. Eventually he reached a senior manager at the Northern Advocate, who told him the story would not be a retraction, but a correction, and would be running in the Advocate’s sister paper the New Zealand Herald either tomorrow or in the next few days.
According to this manager the Herald’s correction will run Key’s (eventual) line that he was misquoted and had actually been talking about Australian wages all along.
If true, this is a huge turnaround from APN that needs some serious explaining. The reporter has stood by every word that was written in his original article and a transcript has been released to back him up. The editor backed the journalist and his story to the hilt in an editorial last week. And the publisher has also gone on the public record backing the story:
Northern Publishing stands by the story published in the Bay Report on December 20, 2007 in which National Leader John Key was quoted as saying “We would love to see wages drop.”
Our reporter was at the meeting with the Kerikeri District Business Association President Carolyne Brooks-Quan and recorded the conversation.
We have a transcript of the meeting and we are happy that the quotes printed in the story are an accurate record of what Mr Key said.
Furthermore, if APN does plan to run the line that Key was talking about wanting Australian wages to drop then it has even more explaining to do, because the transcript shows it is simply implausible that Key could have been talking about Australia.
Of course, we don’t know for sure if any of this is true, but it does raise some concerning questions:
1. How and why did Bill English know about the correction in advance?
2. Is it true that Key’s office tried to get journalist Greg Roberston sacked for his story?
3. Why would APN publish the correction in the Herald and not the Advocate or the Bay Report?
4. Why would APN buy Key’s line that he was talking about Australian wages when the transcript suggests this is not the case and Key has issued multiple conflicting denials?
5. Why is this suddenly a story now, more than two weeks after it broke?
Again, I stress that none of this has yet been verified. But given Bill English’s comments in the house today, our reader’s conversation with the APN manager and Key’s rather menacing comments on Havoc the other day it all looks a little murky. Hopefully Bill or APN can clear it up soon.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
How many times does the Herald misrepresent people’s positions? How many times have ordinary people been incorrectly quoted or had their positions skewed.
And yet poor vulnerable Mr Key is misquoted and the head of the publishing conglomerate personally tells him they are printing a correction. POLITICS OF PRIVILEGE ANYONE? This reeks, they publish incorrect things about Clark everyday and she just has to get on with it. Key on the other hand makes another enormous fuck up and the Herald jumps, licks his wounds and makes it alllll better. Yay for our media!
anon reporter – if you are indeed what your name suggests, then bravo for contributing here. Blogs are a great forum for whistle-blowers, and whistle-blowers do a great service to democracy.
If I thought I had been misquoted I too would put pressure on the media to correct it. What exactly is wrong with that? You, me or Cullen saying something happened doesn’t make it true.
Thanks rOb!
I would add that the press council complaints process specifically says that people who have an issue with soomething printed must take it up with the media concerned first. Not doing so means you have no options to follow up further.
The PC is the industry’s self governing body, so they encourage disaffected people to ‘pressure’ them. So where is the issue?
You wouldn’t have a shit show in being succesful though would you insider? Unless you know something us little people don’t? Which according to your name you should…
“…apparently using their mates the owners to put pressure on editors to influence what is reported.”
rOb, Sorry but who says they are his mates? The analogy is quite correct – you keep going higher up until you get someone to make good on an error.
And Bean
“Key on the other hand makes another enormous fuck up”
Isn’t this the whole point, Bean? That he didn’t stuff up and the Bay report got it wrong? Thats why they would be printing a “clarification”?
“This reeks, they publish incorrect things about Clark everyday and she just has to get on with it. ”
What things were factually incorrect?
“POLITICS OF PRIVILEGE ANYONE?”
You also have the same privilege, Bean. If someone materially affects you by getting something wrong, you too have the right to complain to whomever will listen until it’s either proven that you were right or wrong.
Captcha: Technology 69 – this thing is scary sometimes
Oh FFS bean. Stop looking for conspiracies in every part of your little life. It’s the online name I have been using for years in a range of fora.
To be absolutely clear, all I know about the specifics of this case are what has appeared in public fora such as here and the papers.
Stop taking the paranoia pills and engage on the issues.
they got much of the clarification printing wrong, despite having a direct source/
No, we had a second-hand tip-off and made it very clear that’s what it was. We told our readers (some) of what we knew asked some relevant questions. I’m actually pretty stoked our tip-off was largely right.
insider – the story came out in December and turned up in parliament three weeks ago. The paper stood by it until the CEO stepped in. What the fuck would the CEO (not a journalist) know about the story that the people on the ground didn’t? Answer: nothing except what he was told to do by National.
“You also have the same privilege, Bean. If someone materially affects you by getting something wrong, you too have the right to complain to whomever will listen until it’s either proven that you were right or wrong.”
Actually Brownie I don’t. I wouldn’t have the public profile to make enough of a fuss to push a paper into ‘correcting’ what I had said.
Key here has people working for him specifically to clean up his mess and this is what they have managed to do- he stuffed up. Just like he did on Breakfast yesterday, and about Iraq and about the Auckland Airport issue. This time though he was able to throw his weight around and the herald jumped. I bet if he hadn’t been caught on camera screwing up his treaty policy he would have claimed Paul Henry lied as well.
Say you go and buy a car.
All very reasonable Brownie. But – when the PM makes some mildly critical remarks of The Herald, it gets plastered all over the front page. So clearly politician’s relationships to the media are somewhat more sensitive than my relationship with a car dealer. They are news.
Here we have Key / National, not making a few public remarks, but apparently using their mates the owners to put pressure on editors to influence what is reported. That’s news. It should be plastered all over the front page.
“Oh FFS bean. Stop looking for conspiracies in every part of your little life. It’s the online name I have been using for years in a range of fora.
To be absolutely clear, all I know about the specifics of this case are what has appeared in public fora such as here and the papers.
Stop taking the paranoia pills and engage on the issues”
Nerve hit anyone? next insider will use that witty zing ‘go put on your tinfoil hat’.
specifically to clean up his mess
Oh, but I think they may have made a bigger mess…
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0803/S00055.htm
you’ve usually made a hit when you’re either “PC” or “a conspiracist”. the conspiracist dismissal seems to be growing in popularity at the moment.
But rOb there is no evidence of such interference. Only The Standard’s inferences.
Insider, it’s true that no one has (yet) popped up with a recording of Key on the phone to the Hearld’s owners or whatever. But add up the public comments that are on record, in this thread, and also in this one:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1285
If you can reasonably come to any conclusion other than “Key / National have been putting pressure on the mdeia”, well, good for you, I admire your touching faith in the purity of politicians.
Hey bean – good to see you back!
If I thought I had been misquoted I too would put pressure on the media to correct it.
So you not see any difference between you doing that, and a major politician doing that?
Why has it been front page news every time it seems Clark or Cullen has expressed an opinion on the media? And given that context, why should it not be front page news if Key does the same? Does he get some kind of special free pass?
Not to mention that if he really did try to get a reporter sacked, then he way crossed the line, and he should resign.
Yes, ther is a story here – but not the “story” told by The Standard… get your angles right, boys and girl.