Who Watches Mediawatch?
Last night I listened to Colin Peacock's Mediawatch programme on Radio Left Wing. You can hear it on the RNZ website if you have a spare twenty minutes.
There was a segment dealing with attribution of copy, a subject which, along with plagiarism, has been dealt to by a number of blogs. Some bloggers and commenters have indicated annoyance with an apparent fixation with this subject. Time to move along, they suggest
Accordingly I was surprised to hear what seemed to me to be a Mediawatch beat up on The Bay of Plenty Times. It was almost as if the leftie journos of RLW were going to give the BOP Times it's just deserts for daring to come out in support of the National candidate recently. The give away was in the tone of the interviewer who has learnt to insert the breathless giggle into any question which is overly aggressive. Kinda like "I was only joking really. Don't take this personally, I don't really mean it." It's the same little giggle Helen Clark uses when she's telling public porkies.
The story revolved around the media coverage of the execution style murder at Te Puna bridge. The BOP Times chappy was complaining that the big city journos had swarmed into town (I'm not sure whether literally or just via their internet screens) and had pinched material from his paper and published it without acknowledging the source. Mediawatch kept trying to put words into his mouth - in one instance he said 'You're really accusing them of going to 'your sources' aren't you?" Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes, Nine To Noon - Harrington of TVNZ slagging Keablog. These state funded journos seem to have the notion that they 'own' sources. The BOP Times editor had to waste half the programme continually correcting this fool who had decided what the story was going to be before the interview, no matter what his victim said.
In point of fact, it seems none of the BCM (Big City Media) actually unearthed any news which had not already been covered by the BOP Times. They took pictures and copy from the BOP Times and used them. The only complaint from the BOPT was that the BCM did not recognise the source. All they had to do was acknowledge the fact that the material was first published by the local newspaper. But no, they wanted to look as though they had done it all themselves.
Why did the puffed up pompous Peacock go for the BOPT instead of the BCM? Thet's where the real story was. Lasy jounalists, mendacious editors and unconcerned senior management. Oh and of course it's much more fun if you're a leftie journo to attack a small country paper which supported the National canditate because he was a good candidate and one who won fair and square.