Running Cowards Press
After "sleeping on it" the yellow press of Taupo Quay have told an advertiser that they don't want his money.
After discussions between the directors and a viewing of LawsWatch, they have decided they want to avoid all the controversy. Of course, the avoidance of controversy is the first and highest calling of any decent newspaper.
Clearly, Wanganui is not well served by this quivering, timorous, cowardly organ.
Comments on this post are now closed.
57 comments:
They print the Vision 'PARTY" tune, and we're all SO happy in Wanganui .. boys and girls ...
Yes, they're not interested in controversy, but they'll print Dot's essays. Since when was controversy bad for sales?
By RCP's logic, all Michael needs to do to stifle debate is anonyously abuse himself or his team. Smart cookies, those RCP lot.
Be fair on Rivercity Press. They're running a commercial business in a small town and advertising is their only source of income. We can goof off and it means nothing to us. They goof off and its goodbye time.
Whats to goof off, its only an ad. It didn't mean they were endorsing the blog spot. They bowed to pressure from the vision team. do you think that is acceptable behavior from any newspaper. We should expect better standards than that
Hear hear. It makes Council look pretty bad, too. People here are saying Helen Lawrence called RCP. Whoever it was, by what authority? When, excuse me, did we the electorate authorise Council to instruct local newspapers what they can or can't print?
"Potentially defamatory?"
The same argument could work against any news organisation at any time if they all employ the same standards. What will their competitors make of it, I wonder.
The RCP deserves our support. They are a small paper (wonder who the owners are) being bullied by their local council. $200k they reckon, to go to court over defamation. So you'd better win big.
Now then, about bullying. Stop it.
Matt, sorry to correct you, old chum but ... at what point is this YOUR council. Thought they gave you the bum's rush a few weeks back.
I think the problem here is that the blog is anonymous. The owners of the aforesaid can't go public because that would expose their identity. As long as our hosts remain cloaked, council can argue the defamation line. And small publications like RCP are in the firing line, not us and not LawsWatch. Be fair to them.
Also on controversy ... the RCP don't sell their paper. They get advertisers who make their priduct free. Its advertisers who hate controversy. Imagine the effect if RCP did buy a scrap with council.
Matt, sorry to correct you, old chum but ... at what point is this YOUR council.
By the direct debit that goes from my bank account to theirs. By my right to vote.
The bum's rush? I'll let you all in on a hardly kept secret: the CoC procedure achieved every single thing I hoped it would. Let's just be clear about that. My fellow complainants no doubt may not agree. I can hear the snorts of derision forming in anon's nostrils right now. Well, there you go.
But this thread is about censorship not me.
RCP will get advertising dollars regardless. The businesses who employ their services need to take a good hard look at themselves before they start following Council down a censorship path. Council, I'll remind us again, serves us.
What did the Code achieve except to put six decent souls up for public ridicule?
You have to figure that out for yourself.
I'm a bit disturbed to hear the CoC was some part of a master strategy. Custer had a similar one, I think ... "those poor Indians ... we've got them surrounded".
What the Code did was win the rednecks who'd voted Chas onto Laws' side - all those who hated the Sarjeant extension and the liberal arts by definition. To start with I was hopeful but by the end, Matt, it was a bad dream. Laws rode it for all he was worth.
Small point: it also pissed off the Chronicle who I reckon we had on side until then.
Are you a fifth columnist, Dutton?
Think of Carol and Bill for a change.
I disagree with your pessimism. Carol and Bill, I'm sure, have their own ideas about this. As will Jay Warwick and Val.
Would we be here now without it?
What about the RCP and council? Censorship on the rates?
Do they list that as a separate category in the accounts:
56. Ensuring the correct version of events is reported.....$300.00
The Diva goes on about his right to free speech, even at the expense of Wanganui's good name, So why would he not 'allow' this blog to be advertised, surly it's pretty harmless.
Be fair on Rivercity Press. They're running a commercial business in a small town and advertising is their only source of income.
Indeed it is. Yet they turned away a man with money in his hand wanting to buy an innocuous advertisement.
So are you saying even more money was at stake? Has there been a threat or a promise surrounding Council advertising in RCP?
Or have commercial advertisers with links to Council threatened to withdraw advertising if the LawsWatch ad runs?
If so, that's corruption. If not, then they have nothing to lose. They cannot be sued for defamation for publishing an ad that isn't defamatory. They cannot by any stretch of the imagination be held responsible for what is published on a website which is clearly not under their control.
The Diva doesn't get to say anything about what gets published anywhere, except in his capacity as a publisher. The courts can make rulings on it. Council, likewise has no power in this regard.
The RCP were pressured by Vision because they dont like this blog. We should be worried about this. What right does the vision team have to try and influence the media. Worse still the RCP buckled. I haven't read anywhere that any advertiser complained.
What is to be done about this?
Ooohh, I know, a Code of Conduct complaint!!!!
Ha ha ha. Very good.
There's no proof anyone pressured the RCP. They made a business decision not to be involved in controversy and, I repeat. That's fair enough given that they are a freebie reliant upon advertising and advertisers hate controversy. It doesn't sell them any widgets.
Im surprised that even Vision supporters are not concerned by this. We may have different opinions but this is about freedom of speech, and a political party trying to put a stop to it.
On the up side it shows that this blog is working
"There's no proof anyone pressured the RCP."
Oh, right. Everyone back to normal, nothing to see here, move along move along
There's no proof anyone pressured the RCP.
Wrong. By their (RCP's) own admission, "the Council" pressured them by saying they were "not happy with the ad", claiming (erroneously) that it was "potentially defamatory" and threatening to withdraw Dotty's column, and possibly other unmentionable horrors.
No, RCP told you that to justify their commercial decision. There's no proof that they required/forced/demanded that the LawsWatch advert be withdrawn.
We're not dumb out here - this blog stated that the reason was because - quote - they don't want to be caught in the middle.
But I go back to my first point - what do you expect if you stay anonymous??
Let's put an ad in the Chron.
And the Midweek too.
That would be an interesting test. Also very expensive.
The Chronicle may reject on the basis that the blog is anonymous. Same problem.
Yeah, I've put adverts in there and they require you to ID yourself.
considerably less than one hours work per week, and the price for satisfaction? Roughly the same expense as the original ad. in fact.
And though I'm not him I know who the advertiser was because they told me his first name while saw them today.
Anonymous said...
The Chronicle may reject on the basis that the blog is anonymous. Same problem.
9:49 PM
The advertiser would not be. The Chron has already published the URL, and Council censorship of a newspaper is News to high heaven already. News news news news news.
Yeah but the placement was great in RCP. You pay for placement in the Chron/Midweek and it IS expensive. And they won't let you advertise certain places.
Also - hasn't the council done a $100K-plus advert deal with the Chron/Mweek. Read it in the council agendas.
But I go back to my first point - what do you expect if you stay anonymous??
We agree they can't accept ads from anonymous people. But the advertiser is not anonymous to the RCP. He walked up to the counter, handed over his ad and proffered his money. And they'd accepted ads from him twice before. So anonymity is not the issue. Pressure is.
So who was the benefactor?
John Martin or Rob Vinsen?
So who was the benefactor?
We honestly don't know. Not either of them, unless he was using a fake false name. But we do know he's spoken to national media today, so you may find out who he is tomorrow, when the Diva's ham-fisted attempts at censorship are exposed.
Not me neither, though I'm sure as hell gonna stump up for the next one.
Anon said:
"Im surprised that even Vision supporters are not concerned by this."
Are you really? Given their manifest disdain for anyone with an opposing view? I think this censorship articulates the Vision quite clearly.
They havent censored anything you wankers. On your own admission it was RCP's call.
Yes, I think "censorship" is the wrong word here. The Council does not have the power to censor anyone. They hold no commercial contracts with RCP (unlike the Chronicle) and therefore were unable to exert any pressure there either. It's not like they said - "RCP withdraw that ad, or we'll withdraw ours!".
The RCP made a business decision. They decided that discretion is the better part of valour and didn't get themselves involved in any controversy. If you recall, they didn't print the mayor's press releases that dealt with attacking Code complainants either.
Tet again, LawsWatch. More hyperbole.
At what point did "Council" make this commercial decision? When was the instruction passed to Colin Whitlock?
I'm sorry but I don't know. The Info was in the minutes of council that I read. They;ve done a $100K advert deal with the Chronicle & Midweek.
"RCP withdraw that ad, or we'll withdraw ours!".
It has been alleged that "Council" threatened to withdraw Dot's column. "Council" is not a business. What are they doing applying pressure to RCP about anything? The RCP were happy with the ad until "Council" telephoned them.
It doesn't matter to you that your elected representatives are more interested in managing the news than they are in abiding by the LGA ("we don't need it" "stupid")?
Not the commercial decision to run the ads, the commercial decision to threaten RCP?
Let's say, just for arguments sake, that some of the Watchers buy tickets/get invited to the River Queen knees-up? (Assuming it's in Wanganui that is)
If they turn up and proceed to say, join the press interviewing "the stars", will "Council" oppose their inclusion? If so on what grounds? Will Watchers be invited to any accompanying press conferences, assuming they apply as members of the meeja, that is? How far is Council's ban on Lawswatch to extend?
Let's be clear about this - "Council" is upset about things said about Dot? Or is Dot upset? Who pays the legal fees for any defamation suit? Council ie: ratepayers, or Dot?
What is "council" playing at?
The RCP made a business decision... and didn't get themselves involved in any controversy... they didn't print the mayor's press releases that dealt with attacking Code complainants either. Tet again, LawsWatch. More hyperbole.
Back to remedial reading for you too, it seems. Leaving aside the inappropriateness of Council pressuring a commercial entity, our major concern has always been with RCP's "editorial" decisions.
We certainly didn't say they shouldn't print the Diva's attacks on the CoC complainants unless that spiel was defamatory. Aside from the fact that his outbursts say much more about him than they do about anyone he's attacking, yes, Mickey has the right of free speech too.
If RCP can't provide that to him, us, and anyone else who comes knocking, they should, to coin a phrase, pack up and p--- off.
I think you need to remember that the Dot thing is a red herring, used to try to distract the poor old RCP from the fact that this is the Diva pulling Helen's strings. After all, she's not called the Spin Fairy for nothing, is she? And lying IS acceptable, isn't it? Must be, I read in the Sunday paper.
Is that the same Sunday paper that ran the Diva's photo next to Brent Todd's and a strange quote from him (Diva) saying that if Toddie told him he wasn't involved in the drugs scandal, he (the Diva) would believe him? That's okay, Toddie, mate, lying is acceptable so why not call Mickey now and tell him what he wants to hear?
Does Marty Lindsay, broadcaster, feel OK with this pressuring of local news outlets? Does Sue Pepperell, publisher?
Helen Lawrence, how dare you try and bully Wanganui firms.
Colin Whitlock. You are Helen's boss. Take appropriate action please.
Build a bridge and get over yourself!
If this is Wanganui then God help your mayor dealing with all you intellectual pygmies. You're obsessives - you know that, don't you. There is medication you can take.
There is medication you can take.
Yes, yes there is. And it's your round, so get some in.
Post a Comment