This case raises some interesting arguments. That is, if you can get past the first sentence of the article: ”Lawyers for John Campbell and four other TV3 staff today argued in court they should not be summonsed as witnesses”. (WTF?? I take it basic mastery of past participles is no longer a pre-req for a journo job at the NZH). ANYWAY.
The principle that a journalist does not have to reveal his or her sources is an important one, and one that I think should be protected for sources of across the spectrum of integrity. Otherwise, who decides? Human nature is always about shades of grey - it’s hardly impossible to imagine a scenario where you would have someone of questionable character providing valuable information.
In the last two years of defamation checking articles for gossip magazines I have never once sought to find out the identity of the journalists’ sources - even when privately I’ve had reservations as to the the veracity of what was being written. (Admittedly seeking the source of people who nark on Eastenders stars for porking out on burgers for lunch is not generally a priority for the public prosecutors). As far as I’m concerned the sources are the journalist’s concern and I’m there to advise on limitation of risk - sometimes this might include probing generally the validity of the source but I leave identity up to them.
This case of how TV3 reported the Waiouru medal theft story has raised issues of journalistic integrity in the past. In 2008, media law specialist Associate Professor Ursula Cheer complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that TV3’s “interview” breached broadcasting regulations relating to accuracy. You can read the BSA’s judgment here (given the expertise of the complainant it’s actually reasonably interesting reading, which is a bit of a rarity for the BSA).
It transpired that TV3 had interviewed one of the medal thieves… and had then handed the transcript of the interview to an actor who they then “interviewed” in front of the camera in silhouette, telling the unsuspecting audience that they were concealing his identity and an actor’s voice was used, but not that the person John Campbell was talking to was some failed Shortland Street extra.
Unsurprisingly, the BSA took a dim view of TV3’s weird approach to investigative journalist and ordered them to broadcast a statement confessing their shortcoming - on the harsher end of the scale for penalties that the Authority is empowered or inclined to hand out.
