Headline v substance
April 30th, 2012 at 2:48 pm by David FarrarThe headline:
Key questions Pullar ACC recording
The lead para:
A recording of a meeting between ACC management and whistle-blower Bronwyn Pullar that reportedly clears Ms Pullar of threatening the corporation has been questioned by Prime Minister John Key.
Further down:
Speaking to TVNZ’s Breakfast today, Mr Key raised questions about the recording.
“Yes there appears to be a difference of opinion although, as we know with recordings, that it might not be the entire recording,” he said.
“I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, I simply don’t know, but the important point there is that there are three investigations going on … and I’m sure they’ll look at all of the information that’s there.”
I have to say I take that not as “questioning” the recording, but just stating the obvious – relying on media reports based on recordings is not the same as a first hand inspection – as the Police and Privacy Commissioner will do.
April 30th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Jeez – the NZ Hoorald puts a spin on something.
They just won’t let facts get in the way of their story.
Quelle surprise.
Vote:April 30th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
To be pedantic, Key is definitely leaving open the possibly that he has not heard the full conversation on tape and to that extent may be questioning whether the recording gives the full picture but this is simply incidental to the main point and does not deserve to be the “sensation-seeking” headline that it is.
Vote:April 30th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
It could always be worse… imagine:
ANOTHER AUDIO TAPE DEBACLE FOR KEY, anyone?
Vote:April 30th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
I just don’t get this. The article in the Dompost says it verifies Pullars claim that there was no ‘blackmail’.
Vote:But the extract quotes Boag warning ACC that headlines in the press would be ‘embarrassing’ for the minister.
Sounds like blackmail to me.
Seems the recording confirms ACC side of the story.
April 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
I have to say I take that not as “questioning” the recording, but just stating the obvious – relying on media reports based on recordings is not the same as a first hand inspection – as the Police and Privacy Commissioner will do.
Key was not saying that media might not have played the whole recording. He was implying that the whole recording might not have been released. The headline accurately reflects this.
Vote: