Brian Edwards is being threatened by the Sunday Start Times because he blogged about some questionable journalistic practices in that rag. The SST took offense and unleashed its lawyers. Given that they do not refute anything Mr. Edwards blogged about, that smacks of corporate bullying.
I am not a big fan of Mr. Edwards’ politics but on this one the call is easy: I stand in solidarity with him for daring to responsibly exercise his right to free expression by challenging the accepted narrative of a corporate media outlet. Not only does the SST hire sleazy “journalists” while exploiting other honest hacks and firing more reasoned commentators. It also takes a page out of the “new management” handbook and tries to lawyer up and threaten to legally outspend those in a relatively (financially) disadvantaged position regardless of the merits of their case (I saw this approach first hand in my dealing with Auckland University regarding my employment dispute). For that reason alone they need to be repudiated. As for the merits of the story that Mr. Edwards blogged about, you can judge for yourself by following this link to the original source.
Suggestions as to how to engage in counter-hegemonic direct action against the SST are welcome.
Buy the Herald on Sunday instead?
On second thoughts, no. That is just too much to ask of anyone.
Ha! That was my initial thought. The reason I ask for suggestions is that the STT is already losing circulation and taking a beating from the (not quite as bad) HoS. The Fairfax editorial team have destroyed the credibility of the SST so advertisers are leaving anyway. So what, short of a molotov through the corporate office windows, can be done to make the fools at the top realise that corporate bullying and attempts at censoring others does not substitute for quality journalism and editorial content, and that laying off or part-timing decent journos while retaining National Enquirer-type muckrakers is not the solution to their predicament?
One way to piss them off would be the bad publicity of your standard facebook/viral “How dare they” pages.
The internet and social media for the win, I wouldn’t expect rival media organizations to do or say much as a challenge to the power of one of them is taken largely as a threat to all of them.
It is quite easy to “quote” someone, especially if desperate for a lead story. If the “quote” is correct, then Jonathan Marshall could have printed it in retrospect proving the actual quote was made. Since there is no forthcoming on that, then SST is clearly in the wrong.
As to the email sent to Brian Edwards from the lawyer for SST, I am surprised they had the nerve to send such, in email form, and not the usual formally written down on paper and signed. I do not think emailing a ‘threat to sue’ to be a very professional way of communicating something as serious as that.
I also find it hard to believe Brian Edwards is being taken to task. His two blog posts on the Hotchin issue is fair, balanced and opinion professional, as one would expect of a seasoned journalist as Edwards.
With no follow-up to the May article by Marshall, is quite appalling. To accuse Brian Edwards of poor journalism, is even more bizarre. I congratulate him on his professional reporting.
“counter-hegemonic direct action”?
Spat-over-nothing between left-leaning newspaper and left-leaning blogger highlighted and enflamed by right-wing bloggers.
Left-leaning blog fans feud flames
Eyebrow wearily raised.
Danyl: You have to be a commie to understand that phrase. Perhaps regular reader Red Dave can elucidate its meaning for you.
ak: are those quotes from somewhere? I do not see the issue as Left/Right, or in any ideological terms for that matter. I wrote the post simply because I am against corporate bullying.
from Pablo immediately above,
” Danyl: You have to be a commie to understand that phrase.”
Ho hum. Rabid Left-leaning blog fans feud flames.
Eyebrow wearily raised.
peterquixote: this will be your final warning. If you have nothing substantive to contribute and persist with this type of trolling, you be banned. Wise up or piss off.
Pablo 14:14 – Heh, that would explain my confusion
Pablo 20:44 – I have been blogging since 2004 and the comments on this blog are the most coherent I have ever seen pq make. Methinks you are wasting your time.