The Post reported a few days ago:
Newstalk ZB has apologised to a National MP accused on live radio of leaking to the media against Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
Radio host Mike Hosking named Joseph Mooney, along with four other National MPs, during a broadcast on his breakfast show as being “the leakers in the National Party”. It came amid pressure on Luxon, with reports he could face a leadership challenge. The prime minister subsequently called a vote of confidence on his own leadership, which he won.
In the upshot, Hosking’s information precipitated action of a sort inside the Government which resulted in Luxon living to fight another day – and probably an election – as Prime Minister.
No bad thing, depending very much on your politics and your thinking about who should be leading the Nats.
But the focus of The Post’s report was on the broadcaster, not the PM.
In the April broadcast, Hosking said:
In the upshot, Hosking’s information precipitated action of a sort inside the Government which resulted in Luxon living to fight another day – and probably an election – as Prime Minister.
No bad thing, depending very much on your politics and your thinking about who should be leading the Nats.
But the focus of The Post’s report was on the broadcaster, not the PM.
In the April broadcast, Hosking said:
“First of all, I am not a journalist.
“Second of all, I don’t have sources.
“Somebody told me this and I know that they know … they didn’t say off the record. I said, ‘who are they?’ and they went ‘bing, bing, bing, bing and bing.’”
Hosking named the MPs as Tim van de Molen, Sam Uffindell, Barbara Kuriger, Andrew Bayly and Mooney.
“I don’t know how widely these names are known because I don’t care and I haven’t inquired but I have impeccable sources,” Hosking said.
All five denied the allegations, the Post noted.
Uffindell described the comments as “completely false”.
Mooney said they were “a complete load of nonsense”.
He lodged a complaint with Newstalk ZB.
The Post report went on:
In a post on social media on Tuesday evening, Mooney shared the response from ZB.
“Having reviewed your matter, we acknowledge that the allegation that you were one of the five National Party ‘leakers’ should have been put to you for comment prior to the broadcast,” the response read.
PoO would like to think that’s what a journalist would have done.
“Accordingly, Newstalk ZB has upheld your complaint internally. We have also spoken to the team and reminded them of their editorial obligations.”
Bayly, another of the MPs accused of leaking, also said he had asked NZME for a retraction and a formal apology regarding the remarks.
PoO does not know if he got one.
“I utterly refute claims in the media that I was the source of a leak to media regarding the Prime Minister’s leadership,” Bayly wrote on social media at the time.
“I was not contacted prior to [the] Mike Hosking Breakfast Show and was given no opportunity to respond, deny, or provide context before my name was put to air.”
Mooney said he hoped the apology would lead to “more robust adherence to good fundamental journalistic standards going forward” but did not intend to take his complaint any further.
The report concluded:
A spokesperson for NZME, owners of Newstalk ZB, said the company’s response to Mooney spoke for itself. “We don’t have anything to add.”
PoO has more than a few thoughts on this.
Among them: what might happen if you pass on some gossip-rich tidbits to Mike Hosking and, without checking them for toxicity or palatability, he shares them with his fawning audience?
And in the inevitable brouhaha, Hosking is pressed to name the person whose goodies have caused a serious dose of political indigestion?
Many journalists have been jailed for protecting their confidential sources.
When reporters refuse to comply with court orders or subpoenas demanding the identities of anonymous whistleblowers, judges often hold them in contempt of court, leading to fines or immediate imprisonment.
Some democratic countries offer varying degrees of legal protection, but several high-profile historical and modern cases highlight this ongoing conflict between the legal system and journalistic ethics.
Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, served 85 days in a US federal jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury regarding the leaked identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. She was released only after her source explicitly waived their confidentiality
But Hosking is proud to insist he is not a journalist.
More to the point of these musings, he does not have “sources”.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Uffindell described the comments as “completely false”.
Mooney said they were “a complete load of nonsense”.
He lodged a complaint with Newstalk ZB.
The Post report went on:
In a post on social media on Tuesday evening, Mooney shared the response from ZB.
“Having reviewed your matter, we acknowledge that the allegation that you were one of the five National Party ‘leakers’ should have been put to you for comment prior to the broadcast,” the response read.
PoO would like to think that’s what a journalist would have done.
“Accordingly, Newstalk ZB has upheld your complaint internally. We have also spoken to the team and reminded them of their editorial obligations.”
Bayly, another of the MPs accused of leaking, also said he had asked NZME for a retraction and a formal apology regarding the remarks.
PoO does not know if he got one.
“I utterly refute claims in the media that I was the source of a leak to media regarding the Prime Minister’s leadership,” Bayly wrote on social media at the time.
“I was not contacted prior to [the] Mike Hosking Breakfast Show and was given no opportunity to respond, deny, or provide context before my name was put to air.”
Mooney said he hoped the apology would lead to “more robust adherence to good fundamental journalistic standards going forward” but did not intend to take his complaint any further.
The report concluded:
A spokesperson for NZME, owners of Newstalk ZB, said the company’s response to Mooney spoke for itself. “We don’t have anything to add.”
PoO has more than a few thoughts on this.
Among them: what might happen if you pass on some gossip-rich tidbits to Mike Hosking and, without checking them for toxicity or palatability, he shares them with his fawning audience?
And in the inevitable brouhaha, Hosking is pressed to name the person whose goodies have caused a serious dose of political indigestion?
Many journalists have been jailed for protecting their confidential sources.
When reporters refuse to comply with court orders or subpoenas demanding the identities of anonymous whistleblowers, judges often hold them in contempt of court, leading to fines or immediate imprisonment.
Some democratic countries offer varying degrees of legal protection, but several high-profile historical and modern cases highlight this ongoing conflict between the legal system and journalistic ethics.
Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, served 85 days in a US federal jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury regarding the leaked identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. She was released only after her source explicitly waived their confidentiality
But Hosking is proud to insist he is not a journalist.
More to the point of these musings, he does not have “sources”.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.