Cactus Kate continues her fascinating story about APN’s reluctance to print stories about people who are likely to sue them. Of course it was nicely helped along by Tim (nice but dim) Murphy engaging with Bloggers on at least three blogs. The poor fool must either be lying his teeth off or out of the loop.
Cactus comprehensively destroys his fantasy that was posted all over the internet and on the Herald’s own site yesterday. noticeably he ignored blogging etiquette and failed to link to Cactus’ story to which he was referring. But being new to blogging we can forgive Tim (nice but dim) that little faux pas. All he did by bursting forth was give Kate’s story legs and credibility. Even Trevor Mallard picked it up, but then again it was a nice story by a leggy blonde so of course Trevor was always going to pick that up.
I am now receiving emails from disgruntled staffers proving that such an edict does in fact exist and suggesting that the 66 page Bell Gully document is a figment of poor Tim (nice but dim) Murphy’s fervent imagination or at least a convenient exucse to try and fob off and bury the story.
Given that Cactus Kate is a lawyer and Tim (nice but dim) is an Editor I tend to believe that Cactus has her facts straight. The wording that she has provided certaily doesn’t look anything like a Bell Gully legal advice letter. It looks and sounds like the shonky writing that usually fills the pages of APN publications.
When I worked for a major Bank we had what was called the Book of Instruction. It was the bible of banking process if you will. If there was ever a problem the BI could solve it. These documents look very similar to the BI. They are written so even the dimmest newbie journo can understand the new rules at APN. DO NOT PISS OFF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MEANS TO SUE US.
What that means is that no APN publication can now be trusted to be anything but repeaters of PR spinner material. News media they aren’t. Of course Tim (nice but dim) Murphy could always publish the 66 page Bell Gully letter to see if the wording is indeed the same.
The fact remains however from Cactus Kate’s summary that any mish-mash that occurred with the Bell Gully document occurred out of the Sydney Office of APN. A quick check of Bell Gully’s website shows that they have just two offices and neither of them are remotely near Sydney. It is highly unlikely that APN in Sydney would have sought the legal opinion of a law firm in Auckland and Wellington when writing an edict to not piss off rich people because they can’t afford litigation.
So that means that Tim (nice but dim) Murphy is either out of the loop in the management of APN or telling lies.
Popularity: unranked [?]
{ 2 comments }
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wouldnt be the first time the ‘Editor’ ( in reality only a middle manager) isnt up with it.
Usually when they ask , what the hell is going on, they are then asked to leave the office and car keys on the desk on the way out of the meeting.
Its the well established Murdock/Packer approach . Treat them like mushrooms
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is pretty clear that such an email existed from Sydney as did guidelines as described in precise details by CK. The real quesiton for APN to answer is under what circumstances were the guidelines sent. In response to what? Cactus herself states there are very senior staffers on the list. Why did they need reminding of what some people have called such very obvious Journalism 101? You don’t send these sorts of things out unless someone has either fucked up or the policy has changed.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }