Sunday 28 May 2017

Dear Fairfax why did you refuse to post my comment? Part 2 - The New Zealand Press Council response – "go to hell"

Ever feel as though the media doesn't like one commenting on their well constructed and carefully tuned news pieces? The answer appears to be yes.
This essay outlines the New Zealand Press Council (NZPC) response to the Stuff (Fairfax) moderation of two comments I placed on their online articles 21 February and 5 March 2017.
The first part of the story is in this blog post:

The Press Council process and 27 April Council meeting

The NZPC considered the matter at their Thursday 27 April meeting. Their executive Mary Major advised that there would be no decision for three weeks, and apologised that it is usual practice to have the decisions typed up and verified by two weeks. I was provided with a draft of their decision mid May and wrote a further note to the NZPC, though there was no acknowledgement of their receiving it or reading it.

As my earlier correspondence was received I assume the NZPC had the benefit of my thoughts on their decision.
The NZPC decision is available for online reading at the NZ Press Council website - they do not deal with the merits of my case at any point! The rule on matters of jurisdiction or their right to deal with the matter. They further and comment on the case without addressing the truth of my assertions:
The Press Council say a bit in the decision without addressing any of the content of my concern – the media misrepresenting reality and that they limit the ability of the public to assert alternative factual material to the narrative available from Stuff and NZ Government websites. Here's how they approached it;
Overview
1. Although somewhat long and discursive, the essential element of Mr Rzesniowiecki’s complaint is unfair moderation by Stuff relating to the posting of online comments submitted by Mr Rzesniowiecki, and their refusal to link to a number of external sites.
2. The Council has already rejected similar complaints from two complainants on the basis that the complaints are analogous to non-publication of letters to the editor. In those cases, no adjudication was issued. Given that this matter has the potential to lead to ongoing complaints, we have considered it appropriate in these circumstances to accept this complaint and set forth the views of the Press Council.

Jurisdiction versus Merit - deny jurisdiction then comment on merit - Process Denied

Here note that the Councils says they have no jurisdiction, however, “Given that this matter has the potential to lead to ongoing complaints, we have considered it appropriate in these circumstances to accept this complaint and set forth the views of the Press Council.” So despite having no jurisdiction to act or determine, in this instance they were compelled to make it clear that the NZ Press Council member news organisations are entitled to maintain what ever guidelines they determine. Then they go on to make a qualitative statement about the merits of a substantial element of the complaint in point 10 of their decision, “The Press Council has no jurisdiction over such terms and conditions. However, we do see those Terms and Conditions, particularly those relating to links to unchecked sites, to be a reasonable position for a publisher to take.” Here's the full decision component of the complaint report.
The Decision
10. At the outset, we make it clear that the Stuff Terms and Conditions relating to online comment are a matter between Stuff and its readership. The Press Council has no jurisdiction over such terms and conditions. However, we do see those Terms and Conditions, particularly those relating to links to unchecked sites, to be a reasonable position for a publisher to take.
11. The matter of letters to the editor is covered by Principle 5 which, where relevant, reads:
Letters for publication are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest. Abridgement is acceptable but should not distort meaning.
12. It is clear this means that whether or not a letter is published is within the prerogative of the editor. They are advised to be guided in doing this by the principle of accuracy, fairness and balance.
13. Mr Crewdson is correct to point out that as early as 1999 the principle was cited, and for some considerable time the Council has rejected complaints about non-publication of letters from the public.
14. In the decision cited by Mr Crewdson, Case 2470, the Council stated:
An editor can both decide which letters and opinion pieces to publish as well as when to close the curtain or close a discussion topic within his or her publication.
15. The critical question in this case is whether online content (sourced from the general public) can be seen as analogous to letters. We are satisfied it can.
16. As Mr Crewdson pointed out in his response, there are limits on what content will be published, both through editorial discretion and through adherence to the published Rules for Letters (in the case of newspapers), and the Terms and Conditions between the media online sites and their readership (in the case of websites). We consider it would be artificial to suggest that they are somehow different. Since the advent of newspapers, readers have had the opportunity to forward letters commenting on various topics to the newspaper for publication. Our Principle 5 makes it clear that the publication or non-publication of such letters is at the discretion of the editor. We see no difference between the invitations to the readership of online media content to comment on various matters that are published online and the traditional letters to the editor. The earlier form of letter was received by way of envelope and postage; the latter form of online content is received electronically. But that physical difference does not change the fact that both give readers the chance to comment. In that sense, we are satisfied that online comment is clearly analogous to the letters to the editor, and in the view of the Council should be subject to the same principle.
17. Accordingly, the Council is satisfied that online comments are analogous to letters to the editor, and their publication is at the prerogative of the editor, pursuant to Principle 5. Therefore, the complaint is not upheld.
18. We reiterate that the Terms and Conditions for online comment are a matter between the online publisher and its readership. It is not a matter for the Council, nor do we have any jurisdiction to interfere in it.
19. We note Mr Crewdson’s comments relating to the potential for a very significant increase in the work of the Press Council if this complaint was upheld. (Indeed he suggests to unmanageable levels). We have put those comments to one side. They are irrelevant to our consideration and the work load factor, on its own, would not have been a ground not to uphold the complaint.
20. In those circumstances, complaints about the non-publication of comments in online forums established by parties subject to the jurisdiction of the Press Council will not be accepted.
This is more interest. In clause 19 of the decision they state, “We note Mr Crewdson’s comments relating to the potential for a very significant increase in the work of the Press Council if this complaint was upheld. (Indeed he suggests to unmanageable levels). We have put those comments to one side. They are irrelevant to our consideration and the work load factor, on its own, would not have been a ground not to uphold the complaint."
OK the increased workload from a flood of new websites to fact check is not a concern of the Council. Their final decision follows;
"In those circumstances, complaints about the non-publication of comments in online forums established by parties subject to the jurisdiction of the Press Council will not be accepted."

NZ Press Council process

The NZ Press Council process is of note for the benefit of the reader the Press Council rules for a complaint require a complainant to waive any appeal rights, the decision of the Council is final. The Press Council principles are here, which establish what the Council takes into consideration when making a determination. The Principles are the guidelines which supposedly the news media industry in NZ follows:
On 9 April I received an email from Mary Major Executive at the Council;
I have attached the editor’s response to your complaint. As well as his response the editor has included the full correspondence between you and the editor over these complaints.
You now have the opportunity to provide the Press Council with a brief (around 200 words) comment on this response.
Patrick Crewdson's thoughts on behalf of Stuff are available to read online or download from dropbox:
My response to his comments is here:
And reprinted in whole below;
Wednesday 12 April 2017

Greg Rzesniowiecki
xxxxxxxxxxx
To: Press Council info@presscouncil.org.nz


Shifting paradigms in media thinking – what is truth and what is the role of the press?

Dear NZ Press Councillors,
To share information today requires savvy in relation to the market for ideas. That market is concentrated in the internet.
I'm not media savvy - I'm wordy in a sea of brevity – are my musings less worthy?
I was born in 1958 which makes me 58 now. I've got life skills and critical thinking capacities. I can build anything (carpentry, stone, mud brick), prune plantation and orchard trees, pick fruit and now analyse and decipher bullshit. I've done the former and now attempt to systemically do the latter – one attempt is the link I provided in my complaint:
Patrick Crewdson makes the point that I am free to offer the benefits of my critical thinking in my blog.
My blog reaches a couple of hundred folk including a few in nations afar, but nothing approaching Stuff's enormous reach – perhaps mass media means press freedom to circumscribe the discourse?
With Stuff utilising the latest news room technology they will have no difficulty separating fake news from more credibly sourced material - and without pulling the comment guideline bubble so tight that it effectively refuses material from without (rest of the world), and those within who are not part of the Fairfax/Stuff/NZ Government url club, “we allow only URLs we can trust.”
The 'Fake News' beat up is a convenience brought on by November's US Presidential election raffle. Stuff announced their altered comment guidelines as recent as my 58th birthday December 7 2016 – also Pearl Harbour WW2 anniversary is synchronicity (see 9/11 stuff below):
Intellectual snobs sneer at the views that don't mirror theirs, but the democratisation of media is one of the great positives of the internet age. Gone are the days when media gatekeepers controlled the conversation. Why should politicians, celebrities and media personalities be the only ones to have their voices heard?
And a little further down;
We believe genuine debate on the news of the day - thoughtful, constructive debate with a range of views - can help society. It's healthy to allow alternative viewpoints to be aired, not to mention democratic. The diversity of the comments section provides a partial antidote to the bubble effect of social media, where you see what you already think reflected back at you.
That so many media outlets were blindsided by Donald Trump's US election victory shows the danger of operating in an elitist cocoon, divorced from your audience. Comments help us stay connected and, importantly, accountable. When we make mistakes, our readers will let us know immediately. And when our journalists see the responses their stories generate they're reminded who we're really reporting for - our audience.
Ah! the Trump factor - 58th POTUS inauguration. As if Trump is a poorer representative than a host of past Emperors of the free world? Can anyone recall Bush's War on Terror, Clinton's intern predilection, or even Obama the drone assassin king?
And as every argument might be relative in this post truth world...
Press Council principle 5 can be applied to assist my case too, especially where the relevant 'comment guideline' is limiting in comparison to the above 'mission statement' intent, thereby rendering it unbalanced and odious to public interest for peace and genuine security:
Letters for publication are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest.
Moderation is no biggie - folks like me who Stuff might have already flagged as a 'toxic' (upset the paradigm) commentator, so perhaps we get an automatic flag? My score 6 comments out of 13 posted, is not great.
I imagine there wouldn't be much difference to the present resource requirement – given the internet of things (from 2014, first para for the guts):
In fact the benefit is - it requires the moderator to inform herself of the world outside the 'bubble paradigm'. And if the Fairfax defence to this suggestion is that the moderators are already informed - then why close the discourse down?
My point is made about the public's right to source and reference their 'factual' material from a variety of sources – 'On Liberty.'
It appears our Stuff/NZ Government url club is already establishing a bubble of public opinion to support another attack on a nation in someone else's war, this time Syria – what does the rest of the world offer?
The author of the Syria piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Patrick_Lang
I've elsewhere listed some US military adventures – see the sourced link Patrick Crewdson holds up as a problem: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051 Where's the inaccuracy?
On Syria our NZ propaganda club appears hell-bent on following the US military lead, whatever external intelligence/urls might reveal.
The murdering personnel with intersecting interests in the bankster-security-industrial-military-oil-(MSM)-government complex are always at it - ex US General Smedley Butler gave us the insight - his speech to thousands on his 1930s national tours, 'War is a Racket' maybe you've heard it?
Short audio recording of professional speaker reciting Smedley's speech:
Full audio recording of professional speaker reciting Smedley's speech:
Greg on a rainy day in Auckland...Please read this, my paper offered to the FADT select committee in relation to the TPP treaty examination process, "US - Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?" covers US militarism and developments on the road to the (preordained) 9/11 event:
History appears to repeat, and one would think that with the acuity and science of investigative journalism in all its forms, the world would have had revealed to its awestruck masses, that 'War is a Racket'. However this simple fact is occulted - go figure...
Thank you for your careful and critical consideration of the recommendations in my complaint.
End.
-----000-----

Out takes and conclusions - Independent Press and Press Council? or,

Manufactured narratives predetermined and institutionalised - Catch 22

I guess one lesson is that one cannot hope to win every battle merely because one thinks they know or hold the truth – or at least can prove logically a story more in keeping with the real world.
At the heart of my complaint is the problem of the 'overtone window' or bubble from which the mainstream media appears to accept acceptable (colludes with the narrative) opinion. The strategy of disallowing comments outside of the NZ Government and Stuff websites is in direct contradiction of Press Council Principles. This from the Principle's Preamble;
...An independent press plays a vital role in a democracy. The proper fullfilment of that role requires a fundamental responsibility to maintain high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance and public faith in those standards.
There is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression. Freedom of expression and freedom of the media are inextricably bound. The print media is jealous in guarding freedom of expression, not just for publishers' sake but, more importantly, in the public interest. In dealing with complaints, the Council will give primary consideration to freedom of expression and the public interest.
Public interest is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so that they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others....”
I agree with all of the foregoing, however the rules governing Stuff's commenting guidelines are structurally not fit for the purpose if they are meant to reflect this principle.
So we get to a Catch 22 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22 ) situation where there is no way through by way of institutional processes of complaint.

What to do about it? How to solve that puzzle  :)