Why we dropped in press freedom
October 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am by David FarrarNew Zealand dropped this year in the press freedom stakes. Still pretty damn good at 19= but last year we were 12=. Our “score” (zero is perfect) is 5.00. The UK is 6.50 and Australia 9.00. Last year our score was 2.00.
So why have we dropped? A blogger has asked the question the media didn’t. Bernard Darnton e-mailed the authors and their reply highlights two factors:
1. . Pressure not to show the Mohammed cartoons (who recalls our PM attacking newspapers which did so)
2. TVNZ’s Board being hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee
I’m glad to see one of their criteria for press freedom is how many bloggers were imprisoned during the last year (for their blogs).
Related posts:
- Press Freedom Debate
- Lincoln Tan on Press Freedom
- EPMU Press Freedom Debate
- The 2008 Heritage Index of Economic Freedom
October 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I would have thought the widespread use of name suppression in court cases would be a factor. In many similar (“Western”) societies, it would not be so easily granted or justified.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Haven’t actually had a good look at this, but it’s probably interesting for people readaing comments on this post.
Amerca’s NPR holds high-powered international debate that “Freedom of expression must include the right to offend.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6249980
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Simon G – interesting point. Are you able to point to any studies/reports backing up the suggestion that NZ is more liberal in allowing name suppression that other western socities or even provide some evidence of your own. Genuinely interested.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am
This survery is a nonsense and this is why.
It ranks press freedom in the US equal with TONGA at No 53. This is bizarre and shows what a joke this list is.
America has an even freer press than we do, and ours is almost
unfettered (contempt of court laws, defamation etc are the main
fetters).
Tonga does not have a free press at all, it is controlled and
bullied by the dictatorial regime there which bans critical newspapers
and prosecutes reporters who question the status quo.
America’s First Amendment enshrines freedom of the press as a bright
Vote:and shining light. There are doubtless many bad things about America but freedom
of the press is one of the many good things about America.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Some interesting info, particularly the movements in ranking year-on-year.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The countries at the top of the index will congratulate themselves on a job well done as will the countries at the bottom of the index.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Was there not a jounalist jailed for refusing to name a source in the USA this year?
Judith Miller iirc.
Also from the report
“Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.”
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
GPT – fair question. After a quick Google I haven’t found an appropriate link to support my assertion, but will investigate more thoroughly when work permits.
Anecdotally, I have always been struck by the greater restrictions on naming (the accused) in NZ compared with American and British courts, and I believe far more learned scholars than I have often commented on this. I’ll see if I can back this up properly later.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Israel is the top rank ME country, gee who’d have thought?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
We will drop even further is Mrs Mugabe enacts all her measures aimed at curtailing political freedoms. I see the Labour Party has launched a massive fund raising effort. It is a great pity Williams did not do this before the election.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
SimonG is right.
I have worked as a journalist on regional dailies in England, Scotland and NZ, each of who have their own diverse court systems.
Name suppression was very rare in Britain but is commonplace here.
As for wider threats to journalistic freedom, there certainly seems a concerted attack on freedom of speech in New Zealand from the government.
First we have Cullen commenting on the financial affairs of journalists affecting their views on taxcuts and questioning APN/NZ Herald about its political coverage in the same breadth as commenting on its tax arrangements.
Then we have the Tim Selwyn sedition issue.
We should also see how the politicians manipulate the media themselves. How much has the PM’s press department grown over the years? And what about the other ministries? How many journos does the government employ compared to say Fairfax or APN?
Then we have the PM herself talking directly to newspaper editors. Remember how it was her who spoke to Suzanne Chetwynn at the Sunday Star-Times about Peter Doone, making seemingly untrue allegations that led to his demise.
The PM or her department has often been the source of stories, particulalrly to the SST.
How much does the NZ media allow itself to be a tool of the government and other politicians?
Finally, concerning free spech, look how Labour plans to curb electioneering and campaigning while offering more state funding to parties.
And it was just the other week that charities were warned they would lose funding if they became too outspoken.
I am sure there are more examples.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Why bother – Journalists are a pack or arseholes anyway
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
SimonG is right.
I have worked as a journalist on regional dailies in England, Scotland and NZ, each of who have their own diverse court systems.
Name suppression was very rare in Britain but is commonplace here.
As for wider threats to journalistic freedom, there certainly seems a concerted attack on freedom of speech in New Zealand from the government.
First we have Cullen commenting on the financial affairs of journalists affecting their views on taxcuts and questioning APN/NZ Herald about its political coverage in the same breadth as commenting on its tax arrangements.
Then we have the Tim Selwyn sedition issue.
We should also see how the politicians manipulate the media themselves. How much has the PM’s press department grown over the years? And what about the other ministries? How many journos does the government employ compared to say Fairfax or APN?
Then we have the PM herself talking directly to newspaper editors. Remember how it was her who spoke to Suzanne Chetwynn at the Sunday Star-Times about Peter Doone, making seemingly untrue allegations that led to his demise.
The PM or her department has often been the source of stories, particulalrly to the SST.
How much does the NZ media allow itself to be a tool of the government and other politicians?
Finally, concerning free spech, look how Labour plans to curb electioneering and campaigning while offering more state funding to parties.
And it was just the other week that charities were warned they would lose funding if they became too outspoken.
I am sure there are more examples.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
“TVNZ’s Board being hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee”
Was that over the TVNZ Board’s threat to its former CEO regarding his exercise of free speech before a Parliamentary Select Committee?
If this is so it would seem to be a strange factor to take into account when down grading a free speech ranking.
I would have thought that having a high degree of freedom of speech before a Select Committee and some reasonable protections for submissioners and witnesses against adverse consequences flowing from what they say is an indicator of a free and democratic society.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I would like to take this chance to commend David on his excellent site supporting free speech which we are obviously loosing elsewhere including in the press. How we even made 13th is astounding but perhaps they don’t take decades of biased training of journalists into account.
It is disappointing but predictable that many bloggers here would label this site as “fringe right” or some other such outmoded claptrap.
Thanks David – its not surprising at all to find your are a maths graduate – as you need intelligence and drive to fight for the right to free speech. I wonder if cat homeopathy graduates will be able to do the same thing for our children?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
“It is disappointing but predictable that many bloggers here would label this site as “fringe right””
Good lord, I would not have thought so.
We whisperingly say that about Murray at HittingMetalWithaHammer, but we thinks he secretly likes that.
now David, ‘fess up please, Porcupine is your mum, isn’t she?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I would have though that diversity of ownership in the commercial mass media would have been one of the criteria and seeing as two mega corperations own 90 % of our daily News Papers and our media TV media is owned by Can-West, Govt and Rupert Murdoch (Sky) (Don’t know wo own’s prime) I would have thought we would rate abysmally.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Innocent III – Was that over the TVNZ Board’s threat to its former CEO regarding his exercise of free speech before a Parliamentary Select Committee?
I think that because RSF’s concerns are quite narrow – press freedom rather than free speech in general – they have looked at Parliament interfering in the running of TVNZ and given NZ a black mark regardless of the need to protect people giving evidence to select committees.
If TVNZ wasn’t state owned they wouldn’t have had the politically appointed board that rankled Ian Fraser and the select committee would never have got involved in what was essentially TVNZ’s internal politics.
Follow the link in the original post for links to background stories.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
There’s nothing secret about it llew. You’re just my token leftie.
Even if you are actually Dons love child it still counts.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
It was notable that the USA media generally avoded giving offence in the cartoons matter and self censored.
This was in line with the US government’s position.
Also that charitable tax free status (including religious groups) in the USA does come with conditions to avoid political involvement.
Also the idea that press freedom means they should not be criticised by politicians is questionable – it’s about everyone’s freedom of speech.
As for access to the PM and the access of the PM to the media, it’s usually the remoteness of politicians from accountability to the media that is regarded as a problem (like not holding regular press conferences etc).
As for third party campaigning, the issue is avoiding caps by negative campaigning. All partisan campaigning comes under the cap, the EB practice of running a negative (anti-Labour/Green) campaign was a subversion of the cap. That’s only closing off a loophole.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Slightly off track but earlier in the afternoon I heard on radio that Peter Dunne was accusing the media and particularly the Royal New Zealand Herald of bias in reporting the rort of taxpayers funding for election advertising.
Here is Mr. `so called squeaky clean’ Dunne showing the very highest level stupidity.
He was lucky the focus was on Labour and in my view United Future has got off lightly publicity wise. Best to shut up and pay up I would think!!!
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
PDM:
The charge of bias against the Herald is not contested, surely. Putting the slogan “Pay it Back” above the news reports doesn’t leave much room for doubt.
Of course the Herald has the right to campaign on an issue, but can hardly then claim that it is not doing so (and I don’t think it has made such a claim).
GPT folow-up: The best I can do is an article in the … Herald (arf, arf) quoting Scott Optican and Prof Philip Stenning. Not as useful as a table or something comparing various countries, but that’s all I can find online at the mo.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=546&ObjectID=10343277
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I am not married to that woman, but press freedom is overrated. Get over it, I say.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Hey llew,
Shame about the internet. You guys have taken away our right to defend our democracy in court, to feel safe in our own homes, etc etc but taking a bit longer on the free speech front. Your taking a long break from the labour party conference – when you get back there can you ask them is if they’d like to give the taxpayer a break and screw porcupines instead? Oh wait on, perhaps they’ll resurrect the policy of taxing cow burps? Wake up you guys please, wake up for goodness sake.
Porc
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
On a related note, you know those corruption ratings fro each country that come out every so often – how do we do so well in them?
Can anyone point me to the latest one for NZ?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Probably downward – Transparency International for one said they had had not noted the practice of anonymous donations to political parties. But the governments intent to end this, may keep the rating high.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Heh heh… Porcupine… you know not of what you speak.
I’m Don Brash’s love child, it’s on the web somewhere, so it must be true.
(Actually, if you look carefully you’ll find a bio of me which states I’ve been Keanu Reeves stunt double for the last few years & had a fling with Madonna, so that must be true too.)
but nowhere will you find anything saying I’m a member of the labour party, and probably nothing even defending them on any issue.
You may find me taking exception to, and taking the piss from, any number of people from both extremes of the political spectrum. Especially those who assume that anyone who appears to disagree with anything, relevant or not, that they believe, is either a right wing, or left wing nut job, depending on their position of course.
That looks to be you in this instance.
And are you accusing me of inventing the internet? I think that was Al Gore. Before he got all Greenie on us.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Bernard Darnton: “I think that because RSF’s concerns are quite narrow – press freedom rather than free speech in general – they have looked at Parliament interfering in the running of TVNZ and given NZ a black mark regardless of the need to protect people giving evidence to select committees”
Is Parliament interfering with the running of TVNZ – it seemed to me quite the reverse was going on actually. A dysfunction at TVNZ was being played out in front of the Committee. In scrutinizing the performance of TVNZ the MP’s represent our interests as the “owners” of TVNZ as a public entity.
Regarding the privilege extending to verbal statements by submissioners and verbal evidence by witnesses, the media are the major beneficiaries of this. It would seem strange that just because TVNZ is a media organisation it should be free to menace its employees because of what they say to a Select Committee.
BTW I do agree the State should be out of Broadcasting ownership.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
There is hardly a consensus agaisnt state ownership of television and radio in the Commonwealth.
Even the Americans have forms of it.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Ive just had a look on the web and we came in 2nd= at in the CPI (corruption transparency index) but I really dont know how objective that is – I need to understand it better.
http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_data.html
“CPI 2005 Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, and country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt)”.
Very difficult to see how we got it. I believe there’s quite alot of bribery out there with user pays and all.
I did find a government website saying that NZ public servants are among the least corrupt in the world so that gives me a bit of confidence.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
The CPI rating was 9.6/10 BTW. then again all the so called first world nathions are bunched high near that figure. Very difficult to see how we can maintain that now with the events of the past few months. Perhaps we could still hope for 19= if we manage to show we can deal with corruption when we do uncover it?
Perhaps it anyone else is heading back to the cocktail circuit or the Rotorua party they could ask our political masters if they have any strategies for dealing with corruption other than ignoring it? Any takers, cause they don’t really answer my enquires? perhaps even a journalist could ask? Free press and all.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
In the Corruption Perceptions Index, corruption is defined as “the abuse of public office for private gain”. There is currently only one MP potentially in the gun for that, and it is doubtful that that single case, if proven, will reduce NZ’s overall high rating. After all, the Awatere-Huata case didn’t affect it.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 12:12 am
You can find the current and historical data for the Corruption Perceptions Index here at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
The official website is here:
http://ww1.transparency.org/cpi/2005/cpi2005_infocus.html#cpi
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am
“After all, the Awatere-Huata case didn’t affect it.”
But then, in that case it was acted on immediately by her collegues and then by the Law.
In Field’s case the Govt set up a sham inquiry that unexpectedly grew enough teeth to expose the corruption of a cover up, which is ongoing. Also, the scandal is now appoaching a year and that dosen’t look good. And now, a year later, we have a police search?
So now you put these threads together, salt them with a bit of David BP and a less than glamourous picture emerges. It’s the process of corruption, cover up, weak inquiries, media exposures and general dragging of the chain that could interest an international onlooker.
JC
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Reading the press of things such as Awatere-Huata (and there’s many many more) and just getting out and about a bit we all know whats going on. So that really ws my point – how in (*&*&^ did we get that high rating. I smell a politician.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Reading the press of things such as Awatere-Huata (and there’s many, many more) and just getting out and about a bit we all know what’s going on. So that really was my point – how in *(%$^*$^&* did we get that high “no corruption” rating. I smell a politician.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
And What about the PRESS GULLIBILITY INDEX. Did they really think Helen was in the running for UN secretary general? Or we they trying to see how gullible we are?
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
zwtcnkdxh cljefs avfwtuz wxoujhnt jyduzcl ykmpaxh uvfnbxpe
Vote: