Media agreement on coverage of Tarrant trial

David posted this comment:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/01/self-censorship-media-new-zealand-white-supremacist-2019-226766

Kiwiblog also covers this. Its an outrage that the press has self censored itself as a collective with the government complicit.

“The Kiwi editors don’t appear to trust their readers and viewers to handle the difficult and disturbing material that’s sure to billow out of the Tarrant trial. They regard New Zealanders as children who must be sheltered from the heinous and despicable lest they become tainted with its influence.”

Its worth reading the story from an outsiders point and shines a light on the paternalistic overview that our “betters” in the media exhibit. I would like to see full coverage without sensationalizing the bits that irresponsible media usually do, I want the different perspectives of a varied and uncensored free press usually give. And its appalling that the government and the press think that if we hear what this loon says we will see it as a call to arms. Bloody ridiculous.


Here are the “agreed editorial guidelines” – Reporting the Trial of Brenton Tarrant

MEDIA STATEMENT – NZ MEDIA FREEDOM COMMITTEE
REPORTING THE TRIAL OF BRENTON TARRANT
[1 May 2019]

Senior editors of the major accredited news media companies in New Zealand (TVNZ, Stuff, Mediaworks, NZME and RNZ) have committed to a united approach in reporting the trial of Brenton Tarrant following the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March, 2019. The group of editors, representing the New Zealand Media Freedom Committee, has agreed a set of protocols to ensure that the outlets they represent cover the upcoming trial comprehensively and responsibly.

A group statement and a copy of the agreed editorial guidelines is attached for your information.

Requests for further information or comment should be directed to the respective media organisations.

MEDIA STATEMENT – NZ MEDIA FREEDOM COMMITTEE

REPORTING THE TRIAL OF BRENTON TARRANT 

We are the senior editors representing the major accredited news media companies in New Zealand (TVNZ, Stuff, Mediaworks, NZME and RNZ).

As a group and as individual editors we are committed to ensuring the outlets we represent cover the upcoming trial of Brenton Tarrant comprehensively and responsibly.

We have agreed to abide by these guidelines throughout the trial.

BACKGROUND 
Brenton Harrison Tarrant is charged with 50 counts of murder and 39 charges of attempted murder relating to shootings carried out at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March, 2019.

Victims of the terror attack include citizens of twelve different countries.

We represent accredited New Zealand media organisations that plan to attend the trial and associated proceedings for the purposes of reportage.

As editors we are mindful of the public interest in the trial, in New Zealand and internationally.

We are also mindful of our role as the “eyes and ears of the public” in the context of court reporting. In this instance, we acknowledge the particular importance of this function, given the many victims’ friends and families outside New Zealand who may otherwise be unable to engage in the trial process.

We are aware that the accused may attempt to use the trial as a platform to amplify white supremacist and/or terrorist views or ideology.

GUIDELINES
We agree that the following Protocol will apply to our outlets’ coverage and reportage of the trial:

(a) We shall, to the extent that is compatible with the principles of open justice, limit any coverage of statements, that actively champion white supremacist or terrorist ideology.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt the commitment set out at (a) shall include the accused’s manifesto document “The Great Replacement”.
(c) We will not broadcast or report on any message, imagery, symbols or signals (including hand signals) made by the accused or his associates promoting or supporting white supremacist ideology.
(d) Where the inclusion of such signals in any images is unavoidable, the relevant parts of the image shall be pixellated.
(e) To the greatest extent possible, the journalists that are selected by each of the outlets to cover the trial will be experienced personnel.
(f) These guidelines may be varied at any time, subject to a variation signed by all parties.
(g) This Protocol shall continue in force indefinitely.

SIGNED:
Miriyana Alexander (NZME and chair of the Media Freedom Committee)
John Gillespie (TVNZ)
Shayne Currie (NZME)
Mark Stevens (Stuff)
Paul Thompson (RNZ)
Hal Crawford (Mediaworks)


This is an unusual approach for what is an extraordinary situation.

Media always make judgements about what court cases they will report on and what they will report. What is different here is agreement between all the major media organisations.

Thins could change if circumstances change – “These guidelines may be varied at any time, subject to a variation signed by all parties.”

Leave a comment

33 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  6th May 2019

    As an aside, the Court of Appeal last year ruled that NZME and Stuff would not be allowed to merge. It seems agreement between ‘all’ the major media organisations would be a lot easier to achieve the fewer major media organisations there are.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  6th May 2019

      I read that. It was well titled with “rants” at the top.

      There’s a lot of scope to have a discussion about the roles of the the media, their responsibilities and how they go about what they do when it comes to anything let alone the trial of the Christchurch killer.

      The cheap way is to go political with, “yielded to pressure from Ardern” and “seems that NZ media is now the little lapdog of the government.”

      Reply
      • adamsmith1922

         /  6th May 2019

        But much of the media is Ardern’s sycophantic fanclub

        Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  6th May 2019

      It’s entirely possible that they are all fellow ideological travellers.

      Reply
  2. Duker

     /  6th May 2019

    As it should be. Any coverage of any trial is always selective anyway- that dont have ‘space’ for everything and often courts bar ceratin things from publication.
    Its unusual as this is our first terrorism trial, and some have called the Mosque massacre as the first case of terrorism for the internet. Why should the media provide grist for supremacists mill .
    Its far from outrageous. I presume devotees will be free to attend the trial if they wish to hear Tarrants bullshit.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  6th May 2019

      There will be the ghouls who want to hear and see all the horrors, but if they do they’ll have to apply to be there. No doubt this will disappoint the ghouls, who would like to see it free of charge on television, but there are enough details given when other murder trials are shown on the news for them to get their fix.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  6th May 2019

        Yes . hardly ever are all the photos that jury sees in any murder trial are publicized further.

        I would imagine the media groups say those sorts of photos would breach their standards- where was the previous outrage at this ‘self censoring’ ?
        “Its an outrage that the press has self censored itself as a collective “- PG

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  6th May 2019

          Poor Susan Burdett ! the news showed her house and the bloodstains and bloodied weapon as well as her body being removed. It was an appalling indignity for this woman to have these shown and the horrible details relayed to the whole country. I muted the sound, but still heard some of it. Someone’s unspeakable ordeal should not be used as entertainment.

          Reply
  3. Duker

     /  6th May 2019

    This doesnt make sense
    ‘Kiwiblog also covers this. Its an outrage that the press has self censored itself as a collective with the government complicit.”

    Wheres the evidence that the government was involved with the Editors in this ?…thats because there isnt any PG.

    Reply
    • adamsmith1922

       /  6th May 2019

      TvNz for one is state owned,Herald are an Ardern fanzine, the media did what they thought the government wanted. After all some in Labour want state media

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  6th May 2019

        Your characterisation of a biased, affected media is fine because it’s your perspective. Naturally though that view will be regarded as clearly coming from a biased, affected position.

        Reply
    • David

       /  6th May 2019

      Corrections have him in complete isolation and the governments chief censor quickly stepped in and plod is locking up all and sundry. To shield us from the loon to save us from ourselves in a very paternalistic way is over the top we have our independent free press leaping on board in some pearl clutching collective to stop NZers, arguably the most laid back, accepting and loving folk on earth, from donning white hats and going crazy.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  6th May 2019

        He is probably in solitary for his own safety as much as anything.

        I can’t see what would be gained by ghouls being able to have the ultimate ghoul thrill of seeing people being murdered as the murderer records this. There are enough things for these ghouls to watch online and turn themselves on by doing so.

        The murder victims’ agony should not be used for giving thrills to sickos who love to watch suffering and terror. Two small children were murdered. Who would even admit to wanting to see a laughing baby having his head blown off or whatever happened to him ?

        Reply
        • David

           /  6th May 2019

          Its the collective censorship that I object to being done by the media and to a degree by this government. I dont think the video should be shown etc. but we are grown ups here and editors should be able to make individual choices free from interference except from the judges instructions.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  6th May 2019

            Would you say that if the tiny child who ran laughing towards his killer and was yours ?

            Why would anyone want or need to see these things ?

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  6th May 2019

          People who want to stop it happening again need to be able to see and judge for themselves all relevant material.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  6th May 2019

            How will seeing and hearing all the horrors do that ?

            If you want to know about the warning signs and all that sort of thing, go online. There’s plenty of it there, I am sure. You don’t need to be actually in the courtroom to do that, or read the details of the massacre and see the photos of bodies.

            I know that stockpiling these weapons is a danger sign, but unless I know that someone’s doing it, I’m unlikely to be in a position to stop them.

            I don’t need to see photos of dead bodies after a crash to know what to do if I see a drunk driver getting behind the wheel. I ring the police.

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  6th May 2019

            I hope that ghouls will not be let into the trial.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  6th May 2019

            I don’t know where you get the weird notion that justice should not be seen to be done and that you can understand something properly for which details will be suppressed. Calling people ghouls doesn’t do it.

            If I can sheet it home for you the Jews did not campaign for justice and against anti-semitism by suppressing details of the holocaust in case it inspired copycats or ghouls.

            Reply
      • Duker

         /  6th May 2019

        ” some pearl clutching collective to stop NZers,”
        Video of him posturing during his trial will go around the world. Yes, most Kiwis arent interested in his rants – except his ‘supporters’ on this website who are oblivious to the 51 dead- but even if its half a dozen who get similar ideas and cant access his infamy then its worth it.
        remember this was the first case of ‘internet terrorism’ as he live streamed himself…best that his actions become the obscurity they deserve.

        Reply
        • David

           /  6th May 2019

          I think the judge should ban the filming of it to be honest because it serves no purpose, if someone wants to there will be a transcript. Its the collective media colluding to tell the public what they can and cant have access to that I object to because once you start its a damn slippery slope.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  6th May 2019

            During the jami lee Ross saga, Bridges threatened ALL the political editors with defamation letters over certain aspects .
            So hes allowed to ‘ restrict what you can and cant hear’ ?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th May 2019

              Just silly, Duker. Defamation law protects individuals from everyone. No-one is suggesting it applies here.

  4. Corky

     /  6th May 2019

    https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180711_final_draft_0.pf

    c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on
    migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and
    advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets
    that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of
    discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  6th May 2019

      Most of the Islamophobic sites that you quote seem to fall into the last category. I assume that distortions and fabrications are covered by this.

      Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  6th May 2019

      Crude de-platforming does seem to be the elite strategy of choice these days.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  6th May 2019

        Always happened in media. Do you think talkback dont have a ‘Not to be allowed on air ‘ list!
        letters to editor which always go in bin.
        Even general news would be subject to ‘ community standards’

        Ask Hone Harawira about deplatformed, the university young nats made sure of that back around 2011 – and he was an MP at the time- it was apparently all about the ‘right to protest’

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  6th May 2019

          You’ll never stop repeating that lie, even after it’s demonstrated to be a lie.

          Reply
  5. sorethumb

     /  6th May 2019

    What will people make of it?
    1. the media only show us what they want to show us. The media are paternalistic?
    2. People may have related to his invasion/replacement hypothesis?
    3. Covering it is making crime pay?
    4. Discusses how to carry out terrorism – as far as I know he only does that in a general way?
    ……
    I presume the reason is 3. however there will be a good dollop of suspicion that it is also 1 and 2?

    Reply
  6. Conspiratoor

     /  6th May 2019

    Another nail in old media’s coffin. Don’t let the door…

    Reply
  1. Media agreement on coverage of Tarrant trial — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s