NBR stands by coverage of govt's ‘infotainment stunt’
NBR stands by its reporting of the government’s Christchurch rebuild plan last Monday (July 30).
This website reported details of the city’s new blueprint at 5.15pm, and Sky’s Prime TV followed at 5.30pm – both ahead of the official news release time of 6pm.
The move prompted Interest managing editor Bernard Hickey to write to the government, requesting that NBR be banned from under-embargo briefings, such as those given for the budget, and Reserve Bank updates.
NBR supports embargoes for the budget and similar market-moving briefings. The process allows journalists to study information in-depth before everybody publishes at the same time – a process that prevents a publish-first frenzy, and potential misinformation.
But NBR reporter Chris Hutching – who wrote the Christchurch blueprint story in question – says Monday’s briefing was “an abuse of the embargo convention.”
With most of the plan (by Mr Browlee’s own admission) broad brush, conceptual and uncosted, there was only one hard news angle: the compulsory acquisition of land.
Mr Hutching had covered that story days before - not through a government briefing, but by talking to sources.
“This was pure political theatre," Mr Hutching says.
Canterbury University journalism lecturer Jim Tully agrees, telling Radio New Zealand’s Media Watch yesterday:
“There are two kinds of embargoes: those that are inherently worthy and should be honoured and those set up to give preference to certain media and/or highlight an event or launch. In those circumstances, journalists should do everything in their power to subvert it”
MediaWatch presenter Colin Peacock noted there was some irritation from journalists that the Christchurch briefing appeared to be pitched as a party with “join us for a celebration” invites sent to selected journalists.
For an official embargo, such as a budget briefing, details are sent to editors, who in turn assign reporters.
“Many feared the 6pm embargo tailored to the needs of the 6pm news,” Mr Peacock said.
The fears seemed justified.
Mr Peacock went on:
“Irritation in the media rose as the clock ticked to 6pm and the Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee addressed the audience… seemed to be sure precisely what 6 o’clock news viewers at home were about to see.”
It started to look more and more like carefully crafted hoopla, and less and less like a serious lockup.
MediaWatch played a recording of Mr Brownlee addressing the audience.
“What I do need to let you know is that the big event, which will come just a few minutes after 6 o’clock when the prime minister will come back on the stage and on cue he’ll have a few things to say and that will be going out live over both TV1 and TV3 in their news bulletins and it will cutaway to a flyover that is quite a magnificent representation of what the city has been, what it’s been through and what it could be.”
Once the TV news shows were under way mayor Bob Parker joked with the prime minister. “I could be the floor manager?”
Mr Hutching had not waited around to be stage-managed.
But in terms of news coverage, the strategy worked. One News offered uncritical coverage of the Christchurch blueprint, MediaWatch said.
Like 3News, it only spoke to three property developers hand-picked to attend the event – all of whom sung the plan’s praises (TV3 did also note there was a protest outside. Both networks later followed up with harder coverage).
Mr Hutching had interviewed CBD landowners who had concerns about the plan.
Reaction to his “embargo breaking” was vitriolic from public relations staff, he says.
“The PR people must have put a lot of time and effort into lining up their ducks.”
But the earthquake recovery minister took things with better humour.
“I don’t think Brownlee himself, who I saw later in the evening, was as worried as his underlings,” Mr Hutching says.
“He made a joke about it and said, ‘Hutch, we might have to do a Muldoon on you' [a reference to Tom Scott being banned from the former prime minister's press conferences for asking questions outside the official agenda]."
RAW DATA: Listen to Huching, Tully and Hickey on MediaWatch here (the NBR discussion begins at 2 minutes 30 seconds into the clip).
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions62
Bernard Hickey would be out of his depth in a puddle.
With the clowns running the Christchurch circus I care not the time of news that says hundreds of private property owners are about to suffer a mugging. Any ways who watches live telly any more and a pumpkin at 6pm is hardly stop press.
If anyone deserves a media mugging it is Hickey for his drivel in the Herald on Sunday.
Well done NBR.
It is such a non-story it does not matter. The 2 mins the TV news gave was ample for a plan which has no chance of success. It came across as just landscape architects looking for a job, while 28,000 poor homeowners wait 5 yrs.
Hopefully the champagne the suited 'stakeholders' got was the last of my hard earned tax dollars.
Remember folks we are now governed by a corporation not a Government, politicians think they are running a business and this event had 'product launch promotion' all over it... go NBR
Would seem to me they requested an embargo - and you decided not to honour that so they obviously can't trust you so if you get cut out of the next briefing can hardly blame anyone but yourself.
and an embargo would be requested....ummm...why ?
Doesn't actually matter...there was an embargo so you honour it. - and for 45 mins what was the point?
You have it in a sentence.
The Press Council says it as: (Case 747)
"Breaching a clear embargo.....is an unacceptable practice. If a newspaper has been unable to dig out important public information in advance of its rivals through solid contact work, to compensate by simply taking the contents of an embargoed press release and throwing away the strict condition of its release is lackadaisical and counterproductive. It is not the way to preserve this very useful protocol.
If all publications found the embargo simply an impediment to be ignored, those who use the embargo to assist the flow of news would decline to release any information in advance, and the media would be the main loser. The converse is true: if the convention of the embargo is to work, all sections of the media need to observe the well-accepted guidelines. Embargoed information is sent to the media with a clear understanding that the actual words and content have a definite release time, which is not the opening of a negotiation. Most embargoed information is generally released closer to the time of the embargo, enough to allow for preparation of stories, but a longer lead time does not lessen the import nor the force of the embargo.
Members of the public who release embargoed statements to the media have an interest in adherence by the media to the convention. The suppliers of the information should have an expectation of the media abiding by the convention of the embargo after organising their own affairs to coincide with the timing of the release. If made public earlier it can cause to them embarrassment and harm. The essence of an embargo is that it is the fairest system to all participants."
As a former investigative journalist, an embargo was very rarely accepted. However, once you give your word to honour it, you must, come what may. This is because no trustworthy journalist can break their word.
In this case the blatantly stage-managed nature of the event was not obvious until the lockup was underway.
A journalist cannot break their word - even if it means coming second, being embarrassed, going to jail, being misled or whatever.
"A journalist cannot break their [sic.] word
You, saying, the journo is the last word in ethics and integrity?
I agree this is stage managed and was a good example of where an embargo should be breached.
However, one reason for an embargo is to have fairness across all media outlets. Places like Interest.co.nz are right to be annoyed. By playing by the rules, they missed out.
If this situation happens again (ie. improper use of an embargo), you should ensure that others are informed so you can breach collectively.
The Government is not empowered to withhold information for purely political purposes so the embargo is illegal. End of story.
good time to be a team player
As Mr Hutching states in the article, the event itself was an abuse of the embargo convention.
That's no excuse. A journalist gave his word - he broke his word.
Self-evidently this is nonsense. The journalist did break his word so obviously he could.
Furthermore, was there any kind of contractual agreement or was there merely an instruction supplied with the documentation?
There has to be some active acceptance to create a contract which certainly goes beyond accepting a piece of paper thrust into your hands or onto your fax.
Oops, this was meant to refer to #9.
The moment when the request for an embargo is received by a journalist is the moment when a journalist has to decide to (a) reject it and carry on reporting the issue as normal, or (b) accept and honor it. If (b) then it is a contractual agreement.
From the PR perspective, (currently mine) you need to be sure the journalist understands what it is they're agreeing to have embargoed in general terms, before the journalist can give their word.
Btw, what is a fax?
Chris, you lay down the law but it is only your law. As I said above, a Government is not entitled to withhold information solely for political manipulation. Tough bikkies.
(You must be very young, or have a very poor memory re the fax. Think of it as an email.)
"There has to be some active acceptance to create a contract which certainly goes beyond accepting a piece of paper thrust into your hands or onto your fax"unquote
Absolutely correct, the only reason someone may feel obliged to "honour" the embargo request is a fear that they may be excluded in the future if they do not 'obey'.
On the other hand, being "excluded" from mp's press releases, in some instances, may very well be a great blessing.
Well done NBR
.
I'm sure the German media cooperated with their Government fully in the 30s/40s, obeying all instructions, cooperating with all stage managed propaganda deploying announcements and never breaking embargoes, which some people here seem to think are written on tablets of stone by the creator him/herself. This is what you get when a business masquerading as a Government (both central and local in this case) cynically manipulate a serious convention for their own PR ends. Could it be that the journalists having a righteous fit are thinking more about their next job application? again go Mr Hutching and the NBR!!!!
When I sat glumly in a police cell as a journalist for the NBR, having been arrested and charged for "not obeying all instructions, cooperating with all stage-managed propaganda-deploying announcements", as a bit of a journalism history buff, I reflected on a biography of Fritz Gerlich I'd ironically just read. He was arrested in the mid 1930s by the Nazis, taken to Dachau and shot for refusing to bow to their demands. While some in Chch might have wished the same fate for me, on a lighter note, thanks to the unstinting personal support of NBR owner Barry Colman, I was later acquitted of the charges.
Paul
Don't you automatically lose the argument by being the first person to drag Nazi Germany into the proceedings?
Cheers
Ben
What a joke surely - Mr Blobby invites all his groupie swinger mates to a soiree and they got their bottom lip out because someone grabbed their own car keys back early and bolted, maybe something in the room was a bit smelly.
Commenter Chris Rennie is an ex-journalist. He has been a pr spin doctor for some time, therefore his vision is blurred. This was not an embargo. It was a carefully stage-managed pr "event." Has Mr Rennie, or his associates, received any money from any source for pr work relating to Christchurch earthquakes or city council matters? I am sure he will say if he has a pecuniary interest. Just asking.
Hi Jock
Look, welcome the opportunity to clarify.
But I'll let the NBR go first.
Has any reporter while employed by the NBR in Christchurch received any money from any source for PR work? Just asking.
But to your question, as a public relations consultant working in Christchurch I would have had to be diligently incompetent not to have earnt any money for pr work relating to the Christchurch earthquakes. But I have not earned anything, nor has any associate of mine, from the Christchurch City Council. Ever.
I find it easy to believe you have, "not earned anything, nor has any associate of mine, from the Christchurch City Council."
But that wasn't the question, the question was, and I quote,
"Has Mr Rennie, or his associates, received any money from any source for pr work relating to Christchurch earthquakes ........." unquote
Big big difference between the words "received" and "earned".
Chris, is it true you have worked for Christchurch City Holdings, the council's commercial arm for several years, plus Selwyn District Council, plus your wife has just earned $80,000 for carrying out a communications audit for Christchurch City Council?
Hi Chris
Good to see you joining the discussion.
As has been published in The Press newspaper on at least two occasions, it is perfectly correct that I have provided strategic communication advice to CCHL for a number of years. Some people of limited commercial, business, and financial comprehension have tried to say that working for the independent investment company of a local authority is the same as working for the local authority. It is not and I do hope you aren't one of those people.
Jock - FFS ...
All he is doing is expressing an opinion. You may or may nor agree with it (and I don't) but his point is entirely reasonable.
Thin skins at the NBR. I have made a couple of comments critical of NBR coverage of issues in the past - they are usually removed by our fearless champions of free speech within minutes.
I am sure this one will meet the same fate.
Why bother regurgitating a stage managed press event?
Ignore it all together, let the mainstream media do their safe job of following corporate and government leads, and get on with the job of reporting real news.
Press releases are not news.
Exactly.
Whatever the reason for the embargo, isn't the upshot of breaking it simply that - next time - the information source will just wait (until 6pm in this case) and release the information whenever suits it/them? Lose/lose basically. You (NBR) benefit from the embargo because you are able to digest/analyse the information earlier (and perhaps deeper) than would otherwise be the case.
That's generally the position. But in this case it appears the embargo was agreed to, then for whatever reason, discarded. You can't say "oh it was all stage-managed etc , so the embargo doesn't apply and doesn't matter any more". What matters is someone appears to have given an undertaking to honor the embargo. Then they broke the embargo. Perhaps the NBR could be a little more forthcoming around the sequence of events and the reasons for breaking the embargo other than complaining the event was stage-managed? Blind freddie could have seen from the get-go it was going to be stage-managed (6pm - Hello????) so why was it agreed to in the first place?
Exactly. It was obviously a PR move, and you would expect that with such a major announcement.
Brownlee is realistic. He basically got what he wanted via bluff. Next time will be the same.
The local TV channel CTV has news at 5 30pm, they requested but were denied permission to break the embargo.
They were p*ssed off but respected the position.
The network gave but a bland 2 minutes at 6pm-------great govt attitude toward a local outfit that suffered alot of misery.
Didn't know that. Sounds like the local broadcast/digital media should have appealed to Brownlee.
Prime TV ran the so- called "embargoed" story at 5.30 pm. Don't see Hickey and his chums frothing about that...
Hmmm - Prime, Sky, News Ltd, Murdoch. Who'd want to take on that lot? Not our current gummint, that's for sure.
Bernard Hickey is well known for his ' doom and gloom' predictions about all and sundry when it comes to the economy.
And who can forget his laughable prediction when the recession kicked in a few years back and the great pessimist stated that property prices would fall 20- 30%. Yeah right.
He's just being his usual precious self, re his complaint.
Bernard Hickey says he has had a reply to his complaint against NBR but would prefer to let the Minister's office do the talking directly.
He says: "The email back to me was for my eyes only and I'm uncomfortable forwarding it on. The gist of it was they are looking at it and will get back to me."
So Hickey is asking a western Government to ban the NBR from under-embargo briefings. Well good luck with that one Bernard.
UPDATE: I have since asked Mr Brownlee's spin doctor Nick Bryant for a copy of the reply to Mr Hickey's complaint against NBR. In an emailed letter of reply Mr Brownlee's private secretary Rose Chamberlain told me my request would be considered and responded to appropriately as set out in the Official Information Act 1982.
Hickey has really jumped the shark this time.
#40 the upshot more likely is that the "news" will be given simply to those organisations who comply with the "embargo".
Meanwhile, this story is just about an NBR journo trying to justify the breaking of an embargo. There is no justification though - the Press Council has been clear in previous rulings .... though the NBR no doubt sees itself above such rulings and practice.
.
oops, I meant @#30
How ironic to see a member of the Dark Forcfe questioning the bona fides of a damned good investigative journalist! .... but, of course, PR only exists to avoid investigation.
I'm a big fan of the NBR and their 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to journalism, but on this one I agree with that Rennie guy above. What most concerns me is not the cause (breaking the embargo) but the effect (NBR being excluded next time around for being 'naughty').
This is because I really do not want to rely on www.interest.co.nz for their interpretation of the next big political story, given the loony bloggers that frequent that website and therefore the type of journalism that results.
So next time around NBR, I suggest you play by the rules. If you are not prepared to honour a contract, don't enter into it.
Perhaps the real issue here is the over-use of embargos for strategic rather than genuine information timing issues.
In the 'real world' of corporate disclosure (as governed by such thins as NZX listing rules etc), timing of announcements matters so as not to give some investors an advantage from the use of 'inside information'. the embargo means all potential investors have the same opportunity to appraise the information at the same time . The same goes for things like Budget announcements and the release of decisions on the Official Cash Rate. Journalists adhere to the convention so as to avoid being complicit in the cases of insider trading that would ensue if they did not honour the agreement (or the shame of public 'outing' in the case of defying official government announcements with commercial implications). If this has morphed into 'journalistic ethics', then it is a convention of 'good manners' rather than economic reasoning that underpins it. When the embargo is purely for the strategic purposes of the individual revealing the information, then why should the same rules apply?
this distinction is what underpins the Tully comments on Mediawatch
Agree with you about the overuse of embargoes.
I discuss with reporters (and all the other people for whom it's handy to get advance notice) only the following situations, after which they invariably agree to received the detailed information and hold the information in confidence until the agreed time.
Job redundancies
CEO etc resignation
Land designations
Takeover or merger offer, or completion (non NZX)
A Court/Tribunal etc decision
In my view (and contrary to Press Council Decision 747) I don't agree with writing "Embargoed until 'date time' on a document and giving it to a reporter and then expecting the reporter to honor the embargo. The reporter should be first given the opportunity (as above) to decide if they want to enter into a confidentiality agreement. The agreed time doesn't suit everybody - but for the NBR for instance you would do your best to have the agreed date/time early in the week so it can get to work on on backgrounding the issue. Perhaps not 6pm on a Friday.
C'mon Chris Rennie, what's your reply to Chris Hutching's comment #29?Looks a bit murky to me...
You lot still doing the equivalent of chimps in a zoo flinging poo at each other over a lame duck announcement of a F-Grade Plan to rebuild Christchurch (and does nothing for the city any how).
YAWN
I think the country has other things to worry about here such as the pot calling the kettle black - that is Central Government supportive of a "compact" Christchurch yet Auckland gets derided when it went for its Compact City model via The Auckland Plan amongst other things.
The Christchurch Rebuilding Plan is a failure and yet I am seeing not much "investigative" journalism into it.
I do feel sorry for the residents down there (knowing I have family down there too). Oh and if you want my take on how Christchurch should of been been rebuilt - I am sure I can forward an opinion piece
So, Chris Rennie, you give "strategic communication advice" to this CCHL outfit and that's got nothing to do with the Christchurch council, is that right??? How does that work??? Also, I detect a flip flop on your earlier pro-embargo stance... Maybe, like Bernard, you are copping a bit of flack yourself...Just how big is this incestuous glass house???
This is very entertaining! Personally, I prefer to have this kind of debate in a phone call, as I find it infinitely more satisfying, and less humiliating.
Out of interest, was an email confirming acceptance of the embargo ever received?
All sorts of undercurrents starting to emerge here. Media frightened of govt, journos vs PR flacks, news vs infotainment, genuine embargo vs stage management.
Irrespective of whether this was a "stage managed event" for publicity sakes or not, this whole debate irks me.
As someone who was also privy to the CCDU information beforehand - as non-media - I was required to sign the appropriate confidentiality documents stating that I would not release this information to anyone prior to the official release time of 6pm.
Were media not also required to sign this?
If so then surely its a pretty clear cut answer - you signed a contract to maintain confidentiality and you broke it.
therefore you should be disciplined for this - what that form of discipline should be is up to the relevant authorities.
I'm not a relevant authority, but my vote is for a spanking
Are you looking for a spanking, lassie, or do you just want to dish one out??? Hasn't all this got out of hand??? Have none of you any work to do???
Imagine if the sharp minds involved in this debate instead volunteered their time and collective intellectual grunt to solving the insurance issues for people continuing to live in rubbish conditions. We could probably solve some real issues. In the meantime - as professionals in any sector mostly all we have is our integrity. Only Chris can determine if his remains intact.
Just caught up with Chris Rennie’s rants. What an embracement to your own profession. Keep taking the tablets old boy.