Cactus Kate's blog tells the sad story of a recent APN memo covering editorial content. The memo asks editors to consider just a few things before pushing an article to print. These "recommendations" are in the interests of saving capital of course, the benefit of which is reinvestment in quality journalism. Long bow, I know...
The memo has two main points. Firstly, editors should adopt a more "conservative" approach when printing on contentious subject matter. In this context, 'conservative' presumably means avoiding the expense of getting legal advice by deleting content mercilessly until you're left with some limp-wristed, watery piece-of-shit article not worth the dignity of becoming tomorrow's chip wrapper.
Secondly, editors should be mindful of those people "more inclined to sue", like "lawyers, doctors, judges, other professionals, critics and wealthy businessmen/women". Basically anyone who can spell and might know how to use a telephone without being prompted.
Where does that leave the editors of APN's newspapers and publications? Bear in mind, some of these publications include so-called "high-brow" magazines (the Listener) and often read newspapers (the Herald). And moreover, where does it leave the country's fourth estate and its role of keeping those in positions of influence publicly accountable?
I should revise the title to this post. It shouldn't be Further reasons to hate all newspapers, but instead, Further reasons to limit corporate control over our newspapers. Bastards.
So, APN has "officially" responded to Kate's claims through the editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, who says:
That's certainly an adamant response. According to Murphy, the document Kate has now made available via Scribd is little more than a combination of ideas that are already common practise within the industry, and are probably derived from one of their own internal documents: a so-called "66-page media law training paper".
Nothing to see here, then.
Or is there? Kate responds by alleging she's privy to emails that have slowly percolated down APN's chain of command. She goes as far as saying some of those CC'd into that chain include "colleagues" of Murphy, but stops short of actually pointing the finger at him and accusing him of lying.
What's interesting to me is that Murphy would enthusiastically admit there are "training" documents prepared either by, or on, APN's behalf that call for a conservative approach to editorial behaviour, and that he apparently doesn't see any problem with that.
Like any major company, APN has an obligation to its employees and shareholders to manage risk. An obvious exposure when you're working in media, specifically print journalism, is the risk of being sued by an aggrieved party. Thankfully, libel cases are notoriously difficult to prove in New Zealand, giving the media a degree of insulation against prosecution.
Murphy might respond by saying while that's true, mounting any defence is expensive. He has a point, but since when has journalism submitted itself to the advice of legal opinions that line the pockets of the lawyers who write them? A "conservative" approach that avoids "contentious" subject matter, particularly if a "lawyer, doctor, judge, ... [or other] wealthy businessman/woman" is involved, is about as far removed from a sensible risk management policy as you can get.
Surely there are still questions APN needs to answer?
Finally got around to reading these TL:DR posts. I agree with pretty much everything Rob says, and it's a disturbing trend (if it is a trend). But it also helps me on my dilema over whether or not I agree with premium media content online - I would be willing to pay a (small) fee for high quality content with a liberal editorial policy. And this is a workable business model in NZ, where, as Rob says, we have libel laws that offer substantial protection to journalists.