You probably missed this thing when it actually happened, which was back in September, but in the week that Tom Phillips was shot and the kids were saved from the bush, Stuff got its hands on some of the audio of the police chase, and they published it.
And they got in trouble with the coppers immediately, and then the cops started an investigation into Stuff.
Today, the police boss, Richard Chambers has written an open letter in both main newspaper outlets - as in the Stuff guys and the New Zealand Herald, saying the police have decided not to charge Stuff, but don't do this again, it's really, really bad.
Now, I cannot explain to you why Richard Chambers thought this was a good idea - because either way you look at this, this is not a good look.
I mean, it either looks like he's trying to bully the media into being good boys and girls, or he hasn't got the cojones to actually do the thing that he's threatened and just go and prosecute Stuff.
But what's even weirder about it is - I just don't think that this warranted the cops getting this vexed about it.
I mean, as I said, you probably missed it when it happened, because the audio wasn't that interesting. It was mildly informative, because it told us that the police officer who got shot was alone and exposed like we suspected.
And it showed how he got in touch with various members of the community, locals, to find out if they could hear Tom Phillips on the quad bike, so that he could track Phillips down.
But really, other than that, it wasn't interesting enough to draw public attention to it again - unless of course, you are trying to bully Stuff.
And while I think this audio wasn't that interesting, I did find it refreshing, actually, to have a media outlet be brave for once and publish something that the authorities didn't want them to publish and tell the public something that the authorities didn't want them to know - basically doing their job.
So on the whole, I think I'm on the side of Stuff on this one. Mainly because I don't like what this looks like, which is the police trying to publicly shame them for doing their job.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Heather’s position boils down to two sentiments: the audio wasn’t that interesting, and Stuff was brave for publishing it against police wishes. That may work as talkback theatre, but it’s miles from serious engagement with the issues at stake.
Chambers’ argument was not emotional, censorious or authoritarian. It was simple: the broadcast breached the law; it risked contaminating evidence in an active shooting inquiry; it caused distress to officers and families still navigating trauma; and police chose not to prosecute to avoid needless escalation.
That is not a tantrum — it’s a considered exercise of restraint.
Heather dismisses all of this because she found the audio underwhelming. But the Radiocommunications Act doesn’t bend to whether a media personality thinks a recording is gripping. Evidence integrity does not hinge on entertainment value. Police officers giving statements in a fatal force case deserve conditions where their recollections aren’t seeded by leaked comms audio. That’s not “bullying the media”. It’s due process.
And calling Stuff “brave” for publishing what amounted to live-evidence from a critical incident is adolescent hero-journalism. Courage is exposing wrongdoing. Publishing sensitive operational audio for competitive edge — and then wrapping it in rhetoric about “doing our job” — is not bravery. It’s newsroom self-importance dressed as principle.
This episode isn’t cops versus press. It’s procedure versus performance.
Chambers acted like an adult. Stuff pushed a boundary and got a warning. Heather waved pom-poms.
-PB
Being Heather must be kinda wild, maybe like being a dementia patient. Every day she is baffled by simple things and writes low-effort opinion pieces about how confused she is by some minor thing. Yesterday she was confused by teachers, today she was confused by police. If the world is so difficult to understand then I think she would do better for herself and the readership to try her hand at another profession, and let someone else with a few more clues pick up the mantle. We let her have a good honest go at it but enough is enough, this isn’t a charity.
Heather
Questions to be considered:
What was the sequence of events that lead to the police officer being shot?
Who shot the police officer?
On another matter i.e. failure to find Phillips and the children?
As a former AOS cop and later commissioned officer in charge of a specialised unit, it beggars belief that a combined SAS, AOS and RNZAF air support, did not saturate such a small enclosed part of the country with heat seeking helicopters/dogs/surviellance/overnight trecking - until the foun d the family.
Basically, I agree with anon PB above. Stuff were way out of line and the Police have done the right thing. If the cops had proceeded with prosecution Stuff would have made a big drama out of it all.
But I would not criticise Heather for expressing her opinion.
Not long ago anyone with a vhf receiver could monitor most police channels anywhere not just in the sticks, and many did. (It was grand entertainment althiugh as the later Police tv progrmme, the descriptions of persons pusrsued very repetitive). Despite availablity the msm then sufficently responsible to refrain from directly reporting .
It doesn't baffel me. The children all emergd alive.
Ross, I think they may have been to busy doing breath testing....or maybe not.
Even if they did publish it, I can't imagine many people read it.
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.