April 20, 2008...1:04 pm
Listener used “tenuous legal claim to bully moderate blogger critic” – media law expert
The Listener has used a “tenuous legal claim to bully a blogger into retracting some moderate and reasonable criticisms,” media law expert and commentator Steven Price says about the magazine’s use of law firm Bell Gully to force the Hot Topic blog to remove a critical post.
“I don’t like it when anyone does this, but it’s particularly ugly when the heavies are acting for the media,” says Price on his Media Law Journal blog in an article titled To die like a blog .
In a move being widely debated in the blogosphere, Gareth Renowden’s Hot Topic blog has published a lawyer-demanded correction and apology to the Listener and its editor Pamela Stirling over its earlier article about the dropping of Listener Ecologic columnist Dave Hansford.
Hansford had earlier suggested he had been let go by the Listener for writing a column critical of climate change sceptics Owen McShane and Bryan Leyland, though Stirling denied this, telling media columnist John Drinnan that Hansford was only ever hired for a short-term position for two months and the column was now being written by a staffer.
Steven Price is a barrister specialising in media law and an adjunct lecturer in media law at Victoria University of Wellington’s law school.
He says the deleted post was “largely a model of fairness. It sets out the background facts. It raises questions rather than making allegations. It even allows that the Listener’s editor may have made the change for other reasons. It plainly expresses comment. Readers can judge for themselves what to think. Bloody hell: how many blog posts merit that accolade?”
Price urges people to read the post, handily linking to a site where it can still be found (it is the one called Climate cranks claim a scalp).
“I hope that the post receives exponentially greater attention as a result of this legal threat,” he says. “I don’t say that because I’m a free speech absolutist, or because I think the internet ought to be a law-free zone. In general, I think people who defame others online deserve all they get. I doubt this is the first time Internet material has been removed in NZ as a result of a legal threat, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
“Nope, I object to this because I think the Listener has used a tenuous legal claim to bully a blogger into retracting some moderate and reasonable criticisms. I don’t like it when anyone does this, but it’s particularly ugly when the heavies are acting for the media.”
Steven Price says the legal action is likely to produce an explosion of interest in Hot Topic’s criticisms of the Listener.
“I would have been much more persuaded by a thoughtful and factual response from the Listener’s editor on the blog itself setting out the magazine’s version of the story. It would have been much cheaper. And much more in keeping with the Listener’s commitment to open inquiry.”
10 Comments
April 21, 2008 at 10:14 am
My view, which I posted at the Hot Topic site, was that Hansford had been less than forthcoming with the circumstances of his dropping. FOr instance we never knew he was a temporary columnist until Stirling revealed it. I consider that was an essential fact about his dropping and should have been revealed in the original post.
When I challenged Hansford on his omissions and questioned his interpretations of some events (He claimed a Heartland Institute letter called for his sacking which it didn;t), he refused to engage, questioning my bravery and suggesting I was someone else - I beleive he thought I was a leading member of the CSC Chris de Freitas - despite having previously made a number of comments on the thread.
I also can’t see how the original article can be considered “…largely a model of fairness. It sets out the background facts. It raises questions rather than making allegations. It even allows that the Listener’s editor may have made the change for other reasons.” as Stephen Price says.
He seems to ignore that the headline was “climate cranks claim another scalp”. No question mark, no qualification. Presented as pure fact. Hardly a good start for an article that is apparantly a model of fairness. Headlines rightly are given a lot of weight in judging stories.
As for them “allowing that the change might have been made for other reasons”, it was a pretty a small element in an article making some significant claims of pressuring of and caving into pressure.
All of this leads me to conclude that Hansford and Hot Topic have deservedly got their arses handed to them on a plate.
I’d note that it is not just a common blog, but is part funded by AUT Press, part of a public body, and frankly they should know better.
All the more worrying is that these guys are supposed to be leading environmental writers.
April 21, 2008 at 10:17 am
(Only tenuously on topic)
Meanwhile Listener finds that a picture of Herr Schickelgruber on cover (with trite little history space-filler) sells…
How dumb can these aging baby-boomers be?
yrs sincerely
Grumpy War-baby
April 21, 2008 at 10:30 am
Insider: “Headlines rightly are given a lot of weight in judging stories.”
Are you serious? Headlines are used to catch the readers attention, read a newspaper, a magazine, any number of blogs. Expect the headline to sensationalise, that’s the norm!
As for “allowing that the change might have been made for other reasons” compare that to blog norms, visit Andrew Bolt, or the Standard, they’re almost all highly pejorative in supporting their own perspective and rubbishing other possible explainations.
April 21, 2008 at 10:57 am
Andrew
I expect the headline to fairly reflect the content or at least a key theme.
If you check media law reports and training material, or even Press COuncil decisions, headlines are viewed as very important. If a headline is misleading, it can be given far more weight than the content of the story. (There were two recent stories about misleading women’s magazines headlines but I can’t find them sorry.)
I believe that in this case the headline did reflect the story, because I was in no doubt what the views of the writer were. I didn;t see it as a balanced story.
April 21, 2008 at 11:14 am
Steven Price makes the point that in opinion forums a story is not required to be “balanced”, my observation is that they rarely are.
If the headline was the problem, why didn’t The Listener and Bell Gully object to it?
Perhaps Gareth should have finished the headline with a question mark, but again, I would argue that it should be taken the context of the whole story, a point Price makes about another part of the article.
As a comparison (but not wishing to divert) do you think the title of Ian Wishart’s new book is a fair description of Helen Clark’s power? (And I’m no fan of Ms Clark)
April 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Re: the headline. Don’t know what happens at the Listener but usually the person who writes the story doesn’t write the headline. It’s a frequent source of tension, in many publications, when the sub editor (or editor) put a headline on the story at odds with the story.
And A Hitler on the cover of the Listener this week?
Excellent.
Usually I have to check out the History Channel to see what he’s been up to lately.
April 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Rob
Sorry you may have got confused, we were discussing the blog post at Hot Topic (I called it a story in my old world way). I’m assuming Garth REnowden wrote both the text and the headline.
April 21, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Insider
D’oh!
Mea culpa
April 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Interesting that The Listener felt the blog post to be significant enough to warrant legal attention.
April 22, 2008 at 1:15 am
MAybe they thought it was wrong and offensive? Is it that hard to imagine?
Leave a Reply