A politician's son: in the public interest?

"For my money, however, I don’t think the GayNZ story met that test."

Doesn't that make you an outrageous hypocrite for repeating their story and giving it far more visibility than they did? Frankly I think these 'is this story in the public interest' pontifications are a clumsy and transparent way to cover an ethically dubious story while still pretending to occupy the moral high ground.

GanNZ should be disgusted in themselves for getting all 'hot under the collar' about a 14 year old boy's views.

He may be a teenager, he may understand the subject he is talking about but let's be honest - how much life experience has he got? And more importantly - why is GayNZ so upset by the views of a 14 year old boy? Are they so insecure in their sexuality that a 14 year old's views upset them? They need to get a life and leave the underage boys alone.

Danyl: No, it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that once a senior politician reaches for his lawyers and starts criticising an article and once his leader starts claiming that he has been targeted for political ends, it's become a story whether I like it or not. At that point I would be doing readers a disservice by ignoring it. We played the story straight and didn't embellish it in any way. I don't occupy any "moral high ground'' - I was simply trying to explain the process by which these stories come about, and how the media examines them.

Colin - Fully support you in your response to Danyl. Excellent article.

The original article (in GayNZ) probably wasn't newsworthy. But when you get to a point of an article on an article and then an MP making public comments about seeking legal advice, then **that** aspect of the matter is newsworthy. True - it requires a reference to an un-newsworthy item, but that is only to place the actual story in context.

GayNZ have every right to be upset by those comments. I find them offensive. But rather than simple retaliation, a mature organisation would have simply had the page removed.

The difficulty we face here - and this has nothing to do with who posts the items - is that there is a balance between "free speech" and inciting violence and racial/sexual hatred.

Perhaps you`d like to look into the rsponse by GayNZ to the publicity. They are trying to say that the story was written because of English's non-reponse - but not only English's response, but the fact that his staff didn't respond in the way that GayNZ wanted them to.

Because of that, they say it is a story.

Since when has a parliamentary staff member been responsible for what their leaders' kids do? Apparently, yesterday.

I hardly think your readers would have been struggling to make sense of their fractured and chaotic new world had they never read your story. It's a trivial issue of far more prurient interest than public interest, and as the political editor of one of the country's largest papers, it's disingenuous to claim that coverage of the story is out of your hands.

The real danger here is the precedent that's been established: when Ian Wishart/Private Investigators/Whoever start following around MPs' kids and dishing the dirt on them then they can loudly protest that they are only doing what GayNZ and The Press did to Bill English's son.

Danyl, it's not up to me to make determinations as to how my readers make sense of their world, fractured and chaotic or otherwise. I fully agree with you that the original story in GayNZ was a trivial issue of little public interest. I'm not so sure that a well-established gay lobby group attacking a senior conservative National MP is a non-story, however.

And I'm afraid that many stories are completely out of my hands. There are plenty of issues that gain a head of steam that I can't control. I can't not write about them just because I don't like the subject matter.

To be fair, I think if you read the story The Press ran (which also appeared on the Stuff site), it's pretty mild and hardly prurient.

Rest assured, though, we won't be following Wishart into the gutter.

<i>Perhaps you`d like to look into the response by GayNZ to the publicity. They are trying to say that the story was written because of English’s non-reponse - but not only English’s response, but the fact that his staff didn’t respond in the way that GayNZ wanted them to.</i>

Dave:

I'm trying to think of a tasteful and publishable way to describe my reaction to that 'response'. I'll just say it could easily appear over Ian Wishart's byline in the (sadly) non-absorbent pages of Investigate Magazine as a justification for his next tawdry exercise in grubby sin-uendo about a politician he doesn't approve of. Just change the names.

And if that offends Jay Bennie, tough - because the distaste is mutual.

Colin, with all due respect (and you have a lot in my book), I pretty much agree with everything you've written, but it's a bit hollow if you don't practise what you preach. After all, it's fair comment to say Fairfax NZ titles have strongly editorialised on subjects such as under-age drinking, so-called "boy racers" etc. Is it now fair game to start muck-raking about your children, or preferable that the editorial stances of <i>The Press</i> and its stablemates are debated on their merits (or otherwise), rather than supposed purity of the children of senior Fairfax staffers?

Danyl...get a life, he's 14 yrs old. This is a story that GayNZ have used to bolster their profile. Can you honestly see them trawling and 'exposing' other 14yr olds who say bad things about gays, if their parents are shopworkers, traffic wardens, butchers etc etc?...NO, of course not...purely looking for a headline!

But in NZ nowadays it's the 'minorities' that have the majority, it seems.

Now go lie down and take a Panadol, and I hope you'll be feeling less 'enraged' over nothing tomorrow morning....or perhaps they'll be a headline stating that one of Clark's neighbours saw her not recycling - you never know! :)

Craig, fair comment, but as I explained above, it's a matter of each case on its merits. There are some circumstances where I believe the actions of an MP's children would be newsworthy. Sometimes it's a line call. There are no absolutes in this business. The only reason this story became newsworthy in my opinion - and the only reason we decided to run it - was because Bill English responded to it. Up until that point (late yesterday afternoon) we were not planning to run anything on it at all.

Cheers

Colin