But it has always been absolutely important that a publisher stands by their reporters and columnists – that anything put out under a banner has the total backing of the people who ultimately pay the bills.
This is an incredibly essential part of the whole news media machine, especially when it all turns to shit. Good journalists tend to write stuff that is going to piss off people, and often piss off people in positions of power, who will use that power to shut down the story, and the journalist themselves, if they can.
And if it all gets a bit legal, the publisher has to stand with the journo in court, and back them until the end. This is a vital ingredient of the news media industry and always has been.
The only exception is if the journo engages in completely unethical behaviour. If they're guilty of something like plagiarism or caught out writing outright lies in a straight news story, there isn't a publisher that won't cast them loose, while also taking on some of the responsibility for letting that situation happen in the first place. The machine that published the work has to bear the authority of that work.
This relationship has been generally rock-solid in NZ's media history, but has started to look a little shaky in recent months, thanks largely to National Business Review publisher Todd Scott and his current legal action involving a former columnist and a National MP.
The details of the case are as mind-numbingly dull and childish as you would expect, and the case initially seemed to have NBR standing behind Hooten. But now a side-action has been taken against the columnist by the publisher, casting him loose completely, and leaving him potentially liable for any damages that may arise
Scott – who has a worrying tendency to blurt out anything on his mind through Twitter - has defended this decision by saying he had to take this action after Hooten 'cut a deal':
To those who have questioned my motivation for filing a High Court action against Matthew Hooton: I did it because he cut a deal with Steven Joyce, which meant Mr Hooton would be dropped from the proceedings. NBR wants to defend the claim, but can't if Mr Hooton is dropped.— Todd Scott (@ToddScottNBR) May 30, 2018
Scott is still portraying the NBR as a plucky underdog, fighting against shady back-room deals, but if the publisher had the balls to put out Hooten's claims, it still needs to take full responsibility for it, or it shouldn't have published it in the first fucking place. If anybody in any part of the editorial process had raised objections, none of this legal bullshit would have happened. Nobody forced them to publish potentially defaming content, but they did it anyway.
Scott may say he has very good reasons, but he could be setting a dangerous precedent. The closest he came to actually working in news was a stint reading out Lotto numbers on the telly, but there is the chance his lasting legacy will be the irreparable erosion of the relationship between the publisher and the people who produce its content, with a legal precedent saying it\\that it's okay to throw a reporter under a bus.
And if the bigger fish start thinking like that, we're all screwed. In a worst case scenario, journos won't take on jobs that could hit them personally, because they could be ruined without anybody to back them up. Nobody will say the things that need to be said.
We have to be in it together, or there is no use being in it at all. Reporters can't do it on their own.
- Katherine Grant
Posts
