Last week saw the national broadcaster RNZ launch a review after it emerged that a number of Reuters and BBC stories about the Ukraine-Russia war had been altered to include pro-Russia sentiment. It soon became apparent that stories covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, China and gender identity issues had also been subject to unauthorised editing.
Chair of Radio New Zealand Board of Governors Jim Mather told RNZ’s Morning Report that the board met on Tuesday night and reached a decision on who would make up the review panel.
The panel is made up of three people and includes media law expert Willy Akel, who will chair the panel, public law expert and former journalist Linda Clark and former director of editorial standards at ABC Alan Sunderland.
“We have tasked them to conduct a robust and comprehensive review of RNZ’s editorial process. This is in the interest of achieving and protecting the highest standards of journalism of RNZ,” said Mather.
Mather told Morning Report, “no stone is going to be left unturned”.
At a time when trust in mainstream journalism is plummeting, the upcoming review promises to offer a captivating glimpse into the inner workings of the national broadcaster. If handled effectively, this scandal could present an opportunity to enhance editorial practices within RNZ and the broader New Zealand media sector, potentially restoring faith in the industry.
Industry insiders spoken to over the last week have traced the current scandal back to declining editorial standards that followed the disestablishment of the New Zealand Press Association in 2011. At the time of its closing Stuff declared it, “the end of an era” and observed that, “We’ll all be the poorer for the agency’s passing.”
The NZPA was founded in 1879 and had an association with the Government-owned Post and Telegraph that lasted about 100 years, carrying the agency’s news on its new and expanding telegraph network. In its heyday, the NZPA managed the external newsfeeds from Reuters, Australian Associated Press and Associated Press, and sub-edited the items for a New Zealand audience before distributing them on to member newspapers.
Its demise is primarily attributed to competition between the two foreign-owned newspaper chains operating in New Zealand at the time, and the advances in technology that were revolutionising news media worldwide.
But despite those headwinds, the NZPA had a reputation for maintaining high editorial standards and producing news stories that were not tainted with bias or opinion.
Beyond the loss of the NZPA to the industry, there has undoubtedly been an element of managerial failure within RNZ that has contributed to the current crisis. Sources spoken to for this article note that RNZ is currently a mixed bag. Its political reporting under Jane Patterson is thought to be very strong but both radio and digital are now considered to be riven with ideology on some topics - race and gender being the most apparent.
When news of the unauthorised editing broke on 9 June, the head of content at RNZ Megan Whelan, said “RNZ is aware of instances of inappropriate editing of several wire service stories relating to the war in Ukraine published on our website. An investigation is under way into the alleged conduct of one employee. The employee has been placed on leave while we look into these matters.”
She added, “We have corrected the stories and added an explanatory note to each article. We are auditing other articles to check whether there are further problems. We will release the outcome of the audit when it is completed.”
Sources within RNZ consider Whelan to be a major part of the problem and caution against her remaining involved in the review. It is noteworthy that the head of news at RNZ Richard Sutherland announced at the beginning of May that he would be stepping down from his position at the end of July, months before the general election.
Whilst there has been some speculation that Sutherland’s departure was linked to the chiding that RNZ received from Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, for not promoting Māni Dunlop to Morning Report, others within RNZ believe that a bigger factor was his lack of oversight over Whelan’s digital fiefdom and the building up of perceived problems immediately prior to an election.
This is despite the fact that the digital business was considered to be independent of Sutherland, and that Whelan reports directly to chief executive Paul Thompson. Some media figures have expressed surprise at this line of reporting. Although digital is typically considered to be “looser” than other media, it still generally reports to the head of news in most media organisations.
At the sub-editor level there appears to be two major issues: the first relates to outdated technology and the second relates to a failure to adhere to journalistic standards.
With regard to technology, RNZ uses an editorial system called iNews which has been described by one source at the broadcaster as, “a Frankenstein of bolt-ons and upgrades dating from the 1990s.”
It is unclear whether the software tracks edits made by each author of an article as is the case with similar software used by other media outlets, such as Reuters and the BBC. It is also unclear how effective the software will be at making electronic comparisons of the different versions of each article or whether a manual review will be required to identify unauthorised edits.
The final issue is a lack of journalistic rigour from the sub-editors, and what one source described as “some god-like self-belief on the subs bench” that they could make “untagged” alterations to wire service stories.
Some local commentators have sought to downplay the furore by claiming that the edits seem to correct some bias in the Reuters and BBC articles. However, several sources with local and international sub-editing experience have rubbished that line of reasoning.
As an example, a Reuters article on the Israel-Palestine conflict will be written by a local journalist on the ground and will be checked by a second colleague. The article will then be sent to the World desk either in London or New York - described by one former Reuters employee as “the rock stars” of the organisation. The article will be reviewed a third time, and possibly a fourth and final time by the bureau chief before it is published. The process is intended to ensure that accuracy and balance is achieved and that any individual bias is edited out.
Once the article hits RNZ, the sub-editor will only edit for local content and length. The editorial system will automatically make formatting changes to conform the article with the RNZ house style. Although length is more of an issue for print, RNZ prefers its website columns to be between 800 to 1,000 words. Beyond those parameters, sub-editors spoken to were unanimous that no media outlets should be adding “untagged” content to wire service stories.
Some of the articles that have been identified with unauthorised edits are attributed as “Reuters/RNZ” copy. However, even these so-called “mash-ups” are considered to fall below best practice. Any content added by RNZ should ideally be prefaced with some identifying language such as, “RNZ has reported that …”. And even with the appropriate “tagging”, it is unclear whether there is the necessary editorial oversight in place within the RNZ digital division to ensure the accuracy of any such additions.
The review will undoubtedly uncover various shortcomings in management and editorial practices. However, it also holds the potential to initiate a reset in the local media landscape and play a pivotal role in rebuilding public trust in New Zealand’s media.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was first published HERE
The panel is made up of three people and includes media law expert Willy Akel, who will chair the panel, public law expert and former journalist Linda Clark and former director of editorial standards at ABC Alan Sunderland.
“We have tasked them to conduct a robust and comprehensive review of RNZ’s editorial process. This is in the interest of achieving and protecting the highest standards of journalism of RNZ,” said Mather.
Mather told Morning Report, “no stone is going to be left unturned”.
At a time when trust in mainstream journalism is plummeting, the upcoming review promises to offer a captivating glimpse into the inner workings of the national broadcaster. If handled effectively, this scandal could present an opportunity to enhance editorial practices within RNZ and the broader New Zealand media sector, potentially restoring faith in the industry.
Industry insiders spoken to over the last week have traced the current scandal back to declining editorial standards that followed the disestablishment of the New Zealand Press Association in 2011. At the time of its closing Stuff declared it, “the end of an era” and observed that, “We’ll all be the poorer for the agency’s passing.”
The NZPA was founded in 1879 and had an association with the Government-owned Post and Telegraph that lasted about 100 years, carrying the agency’s news on its new and expanding telegraph network. In its heyday, the NZPA managed the external newsfeeds from Reuters, Australian Associated Press and Associated Press, and sub-edited the items for a New Zealand audience before distributing them on to member newspapers.
Its demise is primarily attributed to competition between the two foreign-owned newspaper chains operating in New Zealand at the time, and the advances in technology that were revolutionising news media worldwide.
But despite those headwinds, the NZPA had a reputation for maintaining high editorial standards and producing news stories that were not tainted with bias or opinion.
Beyond the loss of the NZPA to the industry, there has undoubtedly been an element of managerial failure within RNZ that has contributed to the current crisis. Sources spoken to for this article note that RNZ is currently a mixed bag. Its political reporting under Jane Patterson is thought to be very strong but both radio and digital are now considered to be riven with ideology on some topics - race and gender being the most apparent.
When news of the unauthorised editing broke on 9 June, the head of content at RNZ Megan Whelan, said “RNZ is aware of instances of inappropriate editing of several wire service stories relating to the war in Ukraine published on our website. An investigation is under way into the alleged conduct of one employee. The employee has been placed on leave while we look into these matters.”
She added, “We have corrected the stories and added an explanatory note to each article. We are auditing other articles to check whether there are further problems. We will release the outcome of the audit when it is completed.”
Sources within RNZ consider Whelan to be a major part of the problem and caution against her remaining involved in the review. It is noteworthy that the head of news at RNZ Richard Sutherland announced at the beginning of May that he would be stepping down from his position at the end of July, months before the general election.
Whilst there has been some speculation that Sutherland’s departure was linked to the chiding that RNZ received from Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, for not promoting Māni Dunlop to Morning Report, others within RNZ believe that a bigger factor was his lack of oversight over Whelan’s digital fiefdom and the building up of perceived problems immediately prior to an election.
This is despite the fact that the digital business was considered to be independent of Sutherland, and that Whelan reports directly to chief executive Paul Thompson. Some media figures have expressed surprise at this line of reporting. Although digital is typically considered to be “looser” than other media, it still generally reports to the head of news in most media organisations.
At the sub-editor level there appears to be two major issues: the first relates to outdated technology and the second relates to a failure to adhere to journalistic standards.
With regard to technology, RNZ uses an editorial system called iNews which has been described by one source at the broadcaster as, “a Frankenstein of bolt-ons and upgrades dating from the 1990s.”
It is unclear whether the software tracks edits made by each author of an article as is the case with similar software used by other media outlets, such as Reuters and the BBC. It is also unclear how effective the software will be at making electronic comparisons of the different versions of each article or whether a manual review will be required to identify unauthorised edits.
The final issue is a lack of journalistic rigour from the sub-editors, and what one source described as “some god-like self-belief on the subs bench” that they could make “untagged” alterations to wire service stories.
Some local commentators have sought to downplay the furore by claiming that the edits seem to correct some bias in the Reuters and BBC articles. However, several sources with local and international sub-editing experience have rubbished that line of reasoning.
As an example, a Reuters article on the Israel-Palestine conflict will be written by a local journalist on the ground and will be checked by a second colleague. The article will then be sent to the World desk either in London or New York - described by one former Reuters employee as “the rock stars” of the organisation. The article will be reviewed a third time, and possibly a fourth and final time by the bureau chief before it is published. The process is intended to ensure that accuracy and balance is achieved and that any individual bias is edited out.
Once the article hits RNZ, the sub-editor will only edit for local content and length. The editorial system will automatically make formatting changes to conform the article with the RNZ house style. Although length is more of an issue for print, RNZ prefers its website columns to be between 800 to 1,000 words. Beyond those parameters, sub-editors spoken to were unanimous that no media outlets should be adding “untagged” content to wire service stories.
Some of the articles that have been identified with unauthorised edits are attributed as “Reuters/RNZ” copy. However, even these so-called “mash-ups” are considered to fall below best practice. Any content added by RNZ should ideally be prefaced with some identifying language such as, “RNZ has reported that …”. And even with the appropriate “tagging”, it is unclear whether there is the necessary editorial oversight in place within the RNZ digital division to ensure the accuracy of any such additions.
The review will undoubtedly uncover various shortcomings in management and editorial practices. However, it also holds the potential to initiate a reset in the local media landscape and play a pivotal role in rebuilding public trust in New Zealand’s media.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
Let’s hope the review wakes the media up to the fact that their job is to inform the readers of what’s going on in the world not give us there biased views or opinions.
Opinions are useless, everyone has one and it’s usually contrary to yours.
Slack editorial practices and management failure; well no surprises there then!
It is rich that RNZ feigns surprise that its news reports were shaded to present a particular angle, when their whole general bias is to present an unchallenged pro present government, pro maori view. Commentators on RNZ were puzzled that only a few Ukranians apparently picked up on the problem. I guess the rest presumed that complaining would be futile, and certainly if they had ever ventured any criticism of the relentless distorted, non objective, unbalanced pro maori presentations.
My opening quote (from this article) - "The panel is made up of three people and includes media law expert Willy Akel, who will chair the panel, public law expert and former journalist Linda Clark and former director of editorial standards at ABC Alan Sunderland".
I am surprised that a employee of ABC (I assume the Australian Broadcasting Corp) - which does not have a "current stella record when it comes to Political Bias, with its own news reports and reporting".
I am sure also, that other readers of this article, will make comment about Linda Clark as a journalist - and her past abilities in that domain.
I find it interesting, that "fingers have been pointed at RNZ" over their Political Status/bias etc, when Joe Public of NZ would happily relate that they "have known that RNZ has had a political bias, and has portrayed that for many years". They may also add, "that is why I stopped listening to them".
The question is - "Will the end report be of substance, and or a cover up, because allowing the Public access to the Truth, maybe prejudicial to the Public Interest".
ANON, resident of New Zealand.
Karen Hay , The last RNZ host worth listening to has resigned under a cloud. Does ANYONE really care about the woefully ignorant small minded self important amateurs at RNZ anymore??
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.