Andi Brotherston was offended

Back when the Herald on Sunday first reported that Andi Brotherston was fielding questions regarding an angry phone call that she made to me, during work hours, to defend Martin Devlin's honour, after i cracked a joke about his weird behaviour, Andi was most offended that i was referred to only as "blogger" in the news item. She would have preferred that i was referred to as "former P addict and prostitute" in the media, and sent emails to complain about this.

I wonder how she is feeling now that The Press Council have taken the word of a former P addict and prostitute over her word, and not upheld her complaint regarding my perception of the phone call that i received from her, and how that was reported?

I'm thinking it would be a tad demoralising to be the PR Manager for TVNZ and have less credibility than a former P addict and prostitute. I am kind of thinking that it would probably be slightly less embarrassing to have less credibility than a blogger, but hey, she wanted me referred to as former P addict and prostitute - she got it.

Maybe it is about time that Andi acknowledges that people can and do change their lives. People make mistakes, and can and do recover from those mistakes. If they didn't then we would all have no choice but to believe that Andi is quietly a racist, but just doesn't have the guts to say it out loud.

I truly hope all those months of nasty hand wringing and insults were worth it Andi. It sure does seem like an awful lot of nasty trouble to go to, over something that no one would have even paid attention to in the first place, had you not done such a huge over reaction. I'm no PR genius but it doesn't seem like rocket science to recognise this was a bit silly.

It's enough to make one wonder...

And on that note - if one, little, 100 word piece on like page 10 was worth this complaint to Andi, just imagine what she would have done if she had been in my shoes back when Fairfax Media incorrectly, and completely falsely reported that i spent 3 k a day on P or that i had been rearrested in December 09 - on the front page.

The mind boggles.

Herald on Sunday: Press complaint upheld

A complaint against the Herald on Sunday by Andi Brotherston, wife of TVNZ's Rugby World Cup front man Martin Devlin, has been substantially upheld by the New Zealand Press Council.

Brotherston, a TVNZ staff member, complained that an article in the paper, about her behaviour towards a blogger who had published a piece on her husband, was inaccurate and lacked fairness and balance.

Background

The Herald on Sunday published the story on June 5 under the heading, "Wife in strife at threats."

The article said Brotherston was facing questions over how her work hours were spent following an "online spat" between her and blogger Jacqui Sperling.

Complaint

Brotherston claimed the story was incorrect and said she was not given the opportunity to provide comment prior to publication. She received a text about 9.15pm the night prior to the story from the reporter, which she read the next day.

She did not realise it was a formal request for comment.

Brotherston said a comment from her employer was taken out of context and gave the impression that she had behaved in an unprofessional manner. It implied that she was in trouble with her employer, which was incorrect.

She said an email exchange between her and the blogger contradicted the image portrayed by the article. She said the emails showed she did not threaten the blogger with legal action and that the blogger said she would take the post down immediately as she had written it as a joke.

The Herald on Sunday conceded the headline was misleading and offered to run a clarification in a later edition but Brotherston said that did not go far enough. She also alleged the Herald on Sunday had colluded with a rival paper, the Sunday Star-Times, over the article.

Response from the newspaper

The editor for the Herald on Sunday acknowledged the headline was neither fair nor accurate but stated that the story itself was correct.

He said that the blogger believed that the story accurately reflected her interaction with Brotherston and he provided a copy of emails between her and the reporter. They said she believed a threat of legal action was implied by Brotherston should the post not be removed.

The editor also said that no one in management at TVNZ had complained about their comments being misrepresented.

Decision

The Herald on Sunday acknowledged that the headline was neither fair nor accurate. Despite the fact the newspaper did offer Brotherston a published clarification, it is important that a headline accurately reflects the article when it is published.

The inference in the headline and article was that Brotherston was "facing questions" at work over "how her work hours are spent" because she had contacted the blogger during work time. There was no evidence in the article to substantiate this inference. In fact, the article quoted a TVNZ spokeswoman who stated, "It's not an issue of consequence", which belied any such inference.

In regard to the alleged threat of legal action being taken against the blogger, though Brotherston stated she made no such threats, the perception of the blogger was that a threat was implied during what she saw as a heated conversation. The newspaper was using information from the blogger and this was her perception.

In describing Brotherston as "angry" in her interaction with the blogger, the Herald on Sunday used information from the blogger herself. This was confirmed by the blogger in an email to the newspaper in which she outlined her feelings.

Brotherston may not think she came across as angry and intimidating, but this was clearly the perception of the blogger.

Brotherston's complaint regarding inaccuracy concerning her interactions and behaviour with the blogger are not upheld.

The Press Council, however, does not see a text sent at 9.15pm on a Saturday, when the newspaper was to be published the next morning, as a reasonable attempt to seek comment. If a newspaper intends to publish unfavourable comment about a person, they should make a reasonable attempt to contact that person prior to publication. The wording of the text was not adequate.

While there was some public interest aspect in the story, the headline is incorrect and the story could have been better reported by the newspaper.

The complaint is upheld on the grounds that:

* It contained inferences relating to Brotherston's employment situation which were incorrect.

* The headline did not reflect the information in the story and this is acknowledged by the newspaper.

* The newspaper did not make a reasonable attempt to contact Brotherston for comment.

One for Andi