• Full Story

Herald ban sets 'extremely concerning precedent'

Print

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:55a.m.

The New Zealand Herald has ten journalists with accreditation and they have been banned for ten days

The New Zealand Herald has ten journalists with accreditation and they have been banned for ten days

By Lloyd Burr

The Press Gallery at Parliament is calling the ten-day ban of New Zealand Herald journalists “extraordinary” and says it sets an “extremely concerning precedent”.

Ten Herald journalists will be kicked out of Parliament for 10 days after their website published an image of the man who tried to leap from the public gallery into the debating chamber.  

The image was taken without the Speaker’s permission by Herald journalist Audrey Young who was sitting at the press bench at the time. She took the photo with her phone and it was published later that day.

Standing Orders, which are the rules in Parliament, forbid images being taken in the public gallery – a rule which aims to discourage protests.

The man was shouting about the plight of beneficiaries and was restrained by security staff during his attempt at leaping over the barrier.

Speaker Lockwood Smith has now banned all Herald reporters from Parliament because of the photo, saying the breach is “of a nature that cannot go unsanctioned if the openness of our parliamentary system is to be preserved”.

The ban has infuriated political media, with Press Gallery chairperson Jane Patterson saying the move is “extraordinary” and sets an “extremely concerning precedent”.

“Reporters are individually accredited and take responsibility for their own actions, but to suspend a whole office on the basis of one person’s actions is unfair and disproportionate.”

She says the ban will affect the “critical role [of the media] in the democratic process” and deprives the paper’s readership in the lead-up to this year’s election.

The Engineering, Print and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), which represents journalists, has also joined in on the fight, calling the Speaker’s ban “heavy-handed” and an “over-reaction”.

EPMU print and media council chair Brent Edwards says the ban will have a “chilling effect on political journalism” and is calling on the Speaker to reconsider the decision. Dominion Post editor Bernadette Courtney, who competes with the Herald, says she will make a complaint to the Speaker.

“It's an outrageous attack on the freedom of the press, it was a news event and the public had the right to see what was happening - you can't sanitise news.

“News organisations know they must obey the rules of Parliament, and breaches are few and far between.

"This was a news event, and news decisions should be made by editors - not politicians,” she says.

The Herald staff have been ordered to hand in their Press Gallery accreditation on Monday.

They will be allowed to return on October 20.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

10 Oct 2011 09:37a.m.

zac wrote:

Where is John Key the darling and the saviour of the NZ media when the NZ Herald needed him? He's already saved News Media with a 43 million dollars of tax payers money against officials advice not to, and of course Coronation Street. So why not for a paper owned by one of his biggest political supporters? Perhaps his ego is still heavily bruised from last week's incident in the public gallery...

09 Oct 2011 02:00p.m.

JohnC wrote:

What is an "extremely concerning precedent" is that the Herald believes it is above the law, and need not follow regulations that others follow!

07 Oct 2011 02:50p.m.

Clarke wrote:

LOL ever hear the old saying "takes one to know one WOlfman?" Beneficiary basher that you are wolfie.... even though you are the first to complain about beneficiaries... you are also the first one in the super line to recieve you state benefit each week I guarantee it. The hyporcisy that comes from your mouth, you and Key wouldnt happen to be lovers would you?. What was it again, you were in the army in the 1960's... making you at least 70 years old and collecting a state benefit... you should stop complaining about beneficiaries when you are one yourself infact pensioners are the biggest mooches of all.

07 Oct 2011 02:49p.m.

HOGED CUSTOMS wrote:

Agree with longtack. They printed that my shop burnt down when in fact it was the neighboring property. Lost a lot of business no apology nothing except passing the blame onto NZ press. The guy who wrote the story wouldn't even face up to me. SCUM !!!

07 Oct 2011 02:32p.m.

Wolfman wrote:

Oh it's so good to see Philin Goofs baggage boy back in town Aye Clarke? Theses sleazeballs from the media deserve everything they get, they sneak around harrassing people then complain when someone jobs them or in this case bans them for 10 days. But again we see Philin Goofs mouthpeice try and turn it against Key, what a moron you are Clarke.

07 Oct 2011 02:24p.m.

Solomon Wise wrote:

The Herald as a News Paper decided to publish the photo against the clear rules.
This was not Audrey Young alone.
They could have avoided consequence altogether if they just said "well that breaks the rules. Let's not publish it"...They Chose the Profit or the principle over the rule.

Audrey Young if she thought it important for greater society to see could have on her own leaked it on the web somewhere. Then it could have become news and only she accountable. But

The Herald wanted the fame.

It got it.

Enjoy it.

Suck up the consequences.

The Herald should take responsibility as a whole.

Despite that I think suppressing protests in parliament is NO reason to prevent the people access to footage and photos from it where their servants work for them whom they pay. Should that not be the most appropriate place of protest in the entire nation!!

What Boss (the people) is not allowed to see its employees working and check as to whether or not they are working properly and obeying the peoples instructions.

But then after all, it is the house of Mis Representatives.

07 Oct 2011 02:21p.m.

Greg wrote:

The rule is there for exactly the reason the ban was applied for. Banning just one wouldn't work as it was the company that committed the foul. If you break the rules expect a sanction, and don't write emotive it's not fair stories when you get what should have been expected.

07 Oct 2011 02:20p.m.

Clarke wrote:

Thats because morons like you excuse his bad behaviour and lack of policy Dodger... John Key just keeps doging reality, as do you which your name already suggests. All John Keys billboards need is a little hitler moustache, then the actual advertising for this election will be more realistic to go with John Keys introduction of a police/nazi state.

07 Oct 2011 02:12p.m.

Dodger wrote:

As the photo was later published, it is right to extend the ban to all Herald jounrnalists. The editor could have stopped the publication and avoid the blanket ban. Fair.
As usual Clarke never fails to write "-" about John Key.

07 Oct 2011 01:55p.m.

Taters wrote:

I'm inclined to agree w/ the Speaker, but I wouldn't have banned all of them, just the one.