NT News sets yet another new low level

Wednesday's NT News provided yet another example of the depths to which it's prepared to go to ensure it maintains it position at the bottom of the bottom of the gutter of Oz newspaper reporting.

Its pages 1 and 2 coverage had to be seen to be believed. Perhaps the paper is doing its best to get another mention on ABC TV's Media Watch.

NCV won't upset any apple carts or scare any horses by providing a blow-by-blow coverage of the item in question. Most of it's not for for human consumption.

Below are snaps of those pages.

Yet again, I'm indebted to my mate Elwyn for a heads up.

Credit (not so sure that's the right term to use, given the nature of it) to NT News

The Northern Star today

The scoreboard at the Star today reads:

Advertising Department 1, Newsroom nil

It seems "juxtaposition" isn't in the dictionary at the Star. Shame, shame, shame!

 

Images  from today's digital edition of The Northern Star

Daily Examiner's policy on letter writers' names?

Was Grafton's Daily Examiner pulling its readers' legs last Wednesday?

The Examiner kicked off with a photo on its front page that featured youngsters who shared the same given name and then referred its readers to a piece on page 7 about baby's names. (See below)

Then. lo and behold, it printed a letter to the editor that displayed only the writer's given name.

C'mon DEX, lift your game!

Today's APN reading competition

A court report appearing in an APN newspaper today makes one wonder what was deleted from the report. Readers who work out the answer might forward it to the editor of The Northern Star The Daily Examiner.

NCV suspects the editor probably has some prizes for readers who provide the correct answer. (Hint: find ****)

NCV apologises to The Northern Star for having previously stated that it carried the blooper. Having seen its print edition NCV acknowledges that the Star doesn't carry the blooper; however, the piece which was written by a Star journalist appears in the Examiner (see below) with the colourful language.

Image credit: APN

The Daily Examiner erects Coward's Castle

On 20 September 2013 The Daily Examiner published this rather silly and misleading, but otherwise unremarkable, letter to the editor:

Snapshot taken from The Daily Examiner digital edition

The letter’s subject matter did not indicate insider knowledge with regard to a contentious local issue or reveal circumstances of a highly personal nature to illustrate a point, which might perhaps at a stretch justify "Name supplied".

What this letter signalled was that the newspaper was abandoning the long held media policy that anonymity was not the default position in print editions. 
Anonymity via avatar/pseudonym may have become the default position for comments on a newspaper website because that is the default position of the Internet, but it clearly has not yet become industry policy for newspapers one holds in one's hand.

So anonymous political comment was again rearing its ugly skull where it shouldn't have been found - under a venerable print masthead. 

At least two readers^[1] independently wrote to The Daily Examiner about this letter to the editor and set out below are one of these emails and the reply received, with gleeful identity redactions in mock homage to the newspaper's new policy.

Because it turns out that the only criteria for being granted anonymity is that one be “a regular contributor” and “well known to The Daily Examiner”.

On that basis most regular letter writers could ask for anonymity.

Never one to let an opportunity pass me by I have since submitted a blanket request for anonymity myself, in order to participate on a level playing field within the confines of Coward’s Castle.

I suggest Fred Perring, John Edwards, and a slew of other regular print correspondents, all apply to have their names and addresses withheld.

After all, The Daily Examiner relies on correspondence from such people to create a regular letters section six days a week, so why should they be denied that which was so freely given to another.

Even the rather notorious Zussino might once more grace The Daily Examiner letters page under this very liberal policy, as he would no longer have to dream up so many pen names and fancy titles.

I’m sure many in the Clarence Valley would enjoy the ensuing confusion and endless identity guessing games at the breakfast table.

So what is actually known about the letter to the editor in question? It was sent as an email, the sender was not a Daily Examiner employee, he/she is a regular contributor of unspecified content, didn't want to be identified by readers - and he/she lacks a spine.

One wonders if this person is aware that anonymity may not last for long in a valley with closely linked communities.

One also has to wonder why APN’s Regional General Manager NSW would pen the weak excuse set out in the aforementioned email exchange:

From: Brent Rees [mailto:Brent.Rees@apn.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013 4:36 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: Shannon Newley; jenna.cairney@dailyexaminer.com.au
Subject: RE: Letters to the editor policy and anonymous publication of political comment

Dear Ms [redacted],

Your email has been forwarded to me (Regional General Manager NSW).

APN’s rigour around validation of Letters to the Editor is bound by our code of ethics with regards accuracy, authenticity and respect of sources.

In the case of the letter you are referring to, I have established it was written by a regular contributor who on this occasion requested their name be withheld.

Given they are well known to The Daily Examiner, the request for anonymity was granted.

I trust this satisfies your enquiry.

Kinds regards,

Brent

	Brent ReesRegional General Manager NSW
	53 Moonee Street | Coffs Harbour | NSW | 2450 M 0417 200 090 F 02 6624 7265 brent.rees@apn.com.au | www.apnarm.com.au

From: [redacted]
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013 11:00 AM
To: Shannon Newley
Cc: Jenna Cairney; Judy Lewis; Reception WilliamST
Subject: Letters to the editor policy and anonymous publication of political comment

Shannon Newley

Acting Editor

The Daily Examiner

20 September 2013

Copy to:

Jenna Cairney, Editor

Judy Lewis, Operations Manager

Peter Cosgrove, Chairman APN News & Media Board

Dear Ms. Newley,

Re: APN News & Media-The Daily Examiner publication policy in relation to Letters to the Editor and anonymous publication of political comment

I am seeking clarification of The Daily Examiner’s formal or informal policy concerning letters to the Editor, in light of the anonymous letter published under the heading “History of Women” in the 20 September 2013 print issue at Page 12. [See letter snapshot from the digital edition below]

I further ask:

(i) what is newspaper’s current formal or informal letter publication policy;

(ii) does this letter met the newspaper’s current policy;

(iii) does the newspaper’s current policy accord with any overarching APN News & Media policy concerning anonymous publication;

(iv) did the letter writer request anonymous publication; and

(v) what reasons if any were given if such a request was made.

I respectfully request a written explanation in reply, as a reasonable person could entertain the idea that this particular anonymous letter was written by an APN employee/The Daily Examiner staff member and, was published with the express intention of inciting further debate on the subject matter in the newspaper’s regular letters section.

Such a motive would not live up to either the ethical or good governance standards expected by readers of APN New & Media publications.

In anticipation and appreciation of your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

[redacted]

[1] It is my understanding that the second reader was promised feedback on her issues regarding the anonymous letter to the editor, but to date hasn't heard a word from The Daily Examiner.

"Name supplied" - readers invited to guess who penned the letter

There are definitely times when newspapers publishing letters to editors shouldn't publish writers' names. However, today's edition of The Daily Examiner is not one of those times. One has to hope this was an oversight by the Examiner.

 

DEX blooper - reprints old race fields

The only things correct in the four-page racing lift-out in today's Daily Examiner are the paper's name and the date. Today's Examiner reprinted the race fields for Saturday 8 September.
The events at Warwick Farm, Doomben and Flemington have been well and truly run and won, so the very least readers could have been provided with was a new lot of tips from the paper. But, oh no, the paper had the temerity to print its original, and in most cases losing, tips.
Who went to sleep at the wheel steering the good ship DEX last night? Was it the night helmsman or the captain? C'mon, who's going to put their hand up and claim bragging rights for this little ripper at the annual Xmas party? Perhaps a stewards inquiry is needed.

Now that North Coast council elections are over we can expect to find a lot of airborne pokers being reported by the media with a straight face.....

....as new councillors test our credulity.
So just to remind everyone what mockery for slipshod reporting looks like, h-e-e-e-e-e-r’s Aunty ABC's Media Watch:

If you like reading scrambled editorial comment, this one is hard to beat

Readers who have a preference for tortuous editorials that have all the hallmarks of a dog's breakfast, this week's piece cobbled together by Coastal View's Graham Orams is a fairdinkum ripper. Orams started with a bit about the Do Not Call register (yes, Mr Orams, most readers would endorse your remarks) and finally concluded, after dragging his wife into another of his tales yet again, with remarks about voting for candidates in the local council election on the basis of their gender.
Truly, it read like a six, or perhaps more, schooners' effort.

On the page before his "Comment", Orams had a "news" item about the council elections. It rehashed information that has been in the public arena for at least two weeks  and had nothing new to add to the topic. The piece was a classic piece of lazy journalism.

Whatever this bloke gets paid for his rubbish, it's too much.

NRMA's Open Road: dodgy promotions

    

A Yamba resident contributed a tear jerking yarn to the latest edition of the NRMA's Open Road about her new puppy escaping from her yard. But, thanks to her NRMA Pet Plus policy, the story had a happy ending and she was reunited with her puppy.

It was a great yarn, but there was just one small problem with it. The contributor also happens to be a part owner of the local NRMA business.

So, the question must be asked: why didn't the NRMA observe its duty of disclosure and tell its readers the full story about the contributor having a significant financial interest in the story and the NRMA?

Earlier this year the local newspaper in the Clarence Valley, The Daily Examiner, ran an article about the Yamba NRMA relocating to a new office. The article stated (in part):

Proprietors (names deleted) operate the Yamba NRMA office.

The move next door comes after more than a decade at the old site and proprietor (name deleted) said she was looking forward to welcoming customers to the new location.

"From our new office we'll continue providing the local community with all their NRMA insurance and roadside assistance needs," (name deleted) said.

"Customers can expect to see the familiar, friendly faces in the new office and we're celebrating the move by running a competition."

Sources: Open Road, July/August 2012 and The Daily Examiner, 3/4/12

Editor has a lend of his readers

Northern Star editor David Kirkpatrick is prone to s-t-r-e-t-c-h things a bit, but today's piece is going way too far.

Under the heading 'Striving for balance and accuracy' Fitzpatrick wrote: "If I had a dollar for every time this newspaper was accused of bias I'd be a millionaire by now."

Now, come on David, how long have you been at the Star?

One million times! That's 1,000,000.

Kirkpatrick went on with the male bovine excrement when he added, "... we journalists live by a code of ethics. We have ours printed large on a poster in our tea room. I'd also be a millionaire for the number of times a journo has come to me for advice and I have referred them to that poster for the answer."

Seriously, how does the bloke get anything done at all!? If he's not reading and/or hearing comments about bias he has journos queueing up to seek his valuable advice.

Kirkpatrick has, according to his own count of things, known of or been involved with two million (yes, that's 2,000,000) events associated with either perceptions of bias or providing advice to other journos.

The best part in Kirkpatrick's piece was at the end where he wrote: "It's all about telling a story in the most interesting way we can find. Like song writers and their fans, I'll leave our readers to draw their own conclusions about our stories." Oh, how true!!!

Here's a bit of advice for Kirkpatrick - take your hand off it.

Read the AJA's Code of Ethics here.

After reading the code of ethics, take the next step and read 'How to be a journalist in one easy lesson'.

Daily Examiner's leading opinion piece contains errors of fact

Without commenting on the merit or otherwise of the damages claims a number of persons have launched against the State of NSW in relation to the so-called 2010 Valentines Day Yamba riot, it needs to be pointed out that the local newspaper, The Daily Examiner, has started things off rather poorly with an opinion piece in today's paper. Written by Tim Howard, the piece contains errors that should be corrected.

According to Howard, the criminal trials were conducted "last year".
Wrong - the trials commenced in 2010 and concluded in 2011.

Also, according to Howard, the trials involved "a judge and his associate, the police prosecutors, eight barristers and two solicitors".
Again, wrong - the trials were conducted in the local court before a magistrate who did not have assistance of an associate. The adult defendants were represented directly by seven barristers and three solicitors. A fourth solicitor appeared as an instructing solicitor for two of the barristers.

Elsewhere in today's paper, Howard has a piece "Damages claims over riot arrests" where he wrote:

"Coffs Clarence patrol commander Superintendent Mark Holahan said he was aware a number of people were taking action against the police force.

He said, as the matters were the subject of legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate for him to comment on them.

He said court was the best place for these matters to be dealt with."

Perhaps Howard should take the Superintendent's advice. Otherwise, Howard and the paper may have to answer to a case or two of their own.

Source: The Daily Examiner, 24/5/12

What do they teach in journalism 101 these days?

Remember the days when newspaper reporters told their readers the important bits of information about their stories? Well, could someone please remind some of the young newshounds at The Daily Examiner that its readers are not happy. This reader turned to the back page of today's paper to read about a football match played in Grafton yesterday (yesterday's paper had a pre-game report that took up the best part of a page).

The heading was "Uni Shield hopes are over", so I thought, "Gee, now I'll read the detailed account of the game."

But, what a shocker! The all-important piece of information, the final score, was nowhere to be seen.

Good riddance of bad rubbish

The Port Paper is closing its doors today ... how sad! Not too many tears will be shed over that bit of information.
The paper, which paraded under a banner of so-called independence, has been nothing but a mouth piece for local National Party stooges.

Update on the National Party's very friendly Port Macquarie newspaper

Comments flowing from National Party sources about the independence of  The Port Paper don't stack up.
Although the paper parades with the banner "Your 100% locally owned and totally independent newspaper" some very elementary investigations reveal that the paper's website is owned and administered by Rob Nardella, who (like the paper's editor Sharon Davidson) has serious form in The Nationals' camp.

 Nardella, a former councillor on Port Macquarie Council, is now a policy adviser for NSW Nationals leader Andrew Stoner. 

The information Nardella provided when setting up the domain portpaper.com reveals he's not real strong in Australian geography. He located Port Macquarie in the Australian Capital Territory!


PS Stoner has a few problems of his own on his plate. Stoner had a prominent member of the local branch of the National Party fast-track his solar bonus scheme application. Read a report in today's edition of a Sydney newspaper about that scandal here.

How could anyone believe anything that appears in this cellar-dwelling rag

Thanks, ABC North Coast Radio, for alerting listeners to a very bodgy newspaper that had a free, below the belt, shot at Rob Oakeshott, the independent member for Lyne.

The piece in the rag was written by its editor Sharon Davidson.

Davidson has extensive form in The Nationals' camp. She spent a bit of time at a desk at a Grafton local newspaper, but she's spent a lot more time in the company of  North Coast National MPs.
Davidson's CV lists, among others,

1. Former MP for Page Ian (Bull) Causley

2. The do-nothing MP for Clarence, Steve (One-Too-Many-Trips-to-the-Boxing-Ring) Cansdell, who said  Davidson was one of his "gals" in his inaugural speech , and

3. Luke (Tilting at Windmills) Hartsuyker

Memo to Clarence Valley Review: don't publish advertisements and pretend they're news items

This week's Lower Clarence Review provides yet another example that it doesn't know the difference between news items and advertisements.
What it's doing is publishing advertisements and trying to pass them off as news.
Shame! Shame! Shame!
Here's a snap of part of this week's page 5, but there's no mention that it's an advertisement!

Students studying juxtaposition 101 will readily see the classic irony of the piece appearing immediately below the above item.

NEWS FLASH: Examiner in damage control mode, pulls out the big gun

Phew! It's been a big week at the Daily Examiner. First, it was its chief-of-staff. Then, it was its media sales manager. Now, its big gun, general manager Judy Lewis, has thrown herself into the fray and added her two bob's worth.

Gee, there must be some interesting discussions had around the water cooler at the Examiner. Wouldn't you just love to be a fly-on-the-wall. It'd be worth an admission price to get a ring side seat there.

However, the main protagonists, Howard and Smajstr, are based in separate locations, with the former in Grafton and the latter in Yamba. Perhaps they'll have to settle their differences with a duel at dawn at a neutral venue. Choice of weapon ... pistols or pens?

Credit: Thanks, Daily Examiner! 

PS: This reader is looking forward to the next instalment of this mini drama series.

The paper hasn't provided so much entertainment for a long time.

Chip Le Grand creates a climate change sob story

The Australian published a s-s-s-so-sob story:

IT is not easy watching one of your reporters get done over by Media Watch. Particularly when you have worked with the bloke for the best part of 20 years and not once had reason to question his journalistic integrity. But there was something about last Monday night's mauling of Stuart Rintoul more troubling still.
Rintoul has done some great work over the past month examining the vexed issues of sea rise projections and the response of coastal councils to the risk of future inundation.
He exposed ludicrous planning laws stifling development at Port Albert, a fishing village on Victoria's Bass Coast. Those laws are currently being torn up by the Baillieu government.
He brought to national attention research by NSW researcher Phil Watson showing that sea levels around Australia over the past 100 years haven't risen as quickly as scientists would have expected them to as a result of global warming.
For the first story he received the gratitude of a frustrated coastal community. For the second story he was pilloried, first in obscure, left-leaning blogs and finally on national television, for misrepresenting scientific research for "partisan political" purposes….[my emphasis]

Take a well-deserved bow Deltoid (then and now) – as well as every other blog (including NCV here) who commented on Rintoul’s ‘opinion’ piece before Media Watch administered the coup de grâce on 1 August 2011.

Editor made use of internet sources, but he forgot to thank them

The front page of today's Daily Examiner carries a report written by its editor, Peter Chapman, about the disqualification of a jockey whose urine sample tested positive to a banned substance.

Racing NSW stewards disqualified the hoop for 12 months on the basis of an analyst's finding of an opioid in a sample taken from the jockey after he completed trackwork in July.

According to Chapman, "the test revealed traces of the prohibited drug, Buprenorphine, in his system".

No, Peter, stewards did not reveal to the public just what the jock's sample contained.

Chapman proceeded to provide readers with the duck's guts about Buprenorphine.

Although it made for interesting reading, Chapman didn't say that the information provided about the substance was lifted from any one of a number of sources on the internet. And, of course, he didn't acknowledge the source/s.

Even more interesting, was what Chapman (with all his editing skills) elected to leave out about the substance's adverse effects.

In addition to the effects stated, the source/s Chapman 'borrowed' from also stated that the substance had the potential to affect a chap's love making.

Thanks, Peter, for sparing the readers those details!

Read Chapman's piece in The Daily Examiner's here.