This morning I received the following email from Radio New Zealand Communications Manager John Barr:
Hi Brian
Your latest blog post re political interference at Radio New Zealand appears to be based on John Drinnan’s Media column in Friday’s Herald. Radio New Zealand has requested a retraction from the Herald and John Drinnan.
Radio New Zealand provided the following written response to a question from John Drinnan on February 16th in relation to this story. The response was ignored and Drinnan’s subsequent piece suggests political interference in Radio New Zealand programming decisions. This implication is repeated in your blog post. Any suggestion that Radio New Zealand CEO Peter Cavanagh instructed anyone to interview Mr Brownlee is wrong.
I would appreciate it if you could correct this perception.
Radio New Zealand Response to John Drinnan Question of February 16th
Re The Panel and Mr Brownlee
As I understand it Gerry Brownlee was listening to The Panel segment discussing the Christchurch recovery effort and phoned in to contribute to the discussion. He wasn’t immediately able to get through to the programme producers however and was subsequently put through to the CEO via Reception. I can confirm that all communication to the programme was via Reception.
After a brief conversation with Mr Brownlee, the CEO spoke to the manager responsible for the programme and let him know that the Minister was available and keen to make some comments in relation to the Panel discussion but had been unable to speak with any of the production staff. The manager spoke to one the programme’s producers who advised they would be happy to have a chat with Mr. Brownlee before the programme finished.
It is absolutely clear that at no time was there any instruction from the CEO to anyone that Mr. Brownlee should be interviewed. Mr Cavanagh did not arrange for him to be put on the programme.
Regards
John Barr
It is clear that this version of events is entirely at odds with Drinnan’s version in last Friday’s Business Herald on which I relied for my post. So which version is correct?
Later this morning I received this email from John Howson, Networks Manager at RNZ:
Hi Brian…
I’m the manager referred to in John Barr’s email. I’m responsible for Afternoons and other non-news day-parts on Radio New Zealand National. I can assure you that John Barr’s explanation of what occurred is 100% accurate. It was sent to John Drinnan in response to his query of February 16 and that he chose to totally ignore it is inexplicable.
Regards
John Howson
Networks Manager
I’m told it is not the Herald’s intention to meet RNZ’s request for a retraction of Drinnan’s piece. However, having now talked to several of the principals in this story, I’m reasonably certain that Drinnan got it wrong. He could perhaps be excused for that. I have so many differing versions from those involved of the sequence of events and of who said what to whom, that I barely know the truth myself. With that proviso, this is what I understand happened:
*Brownlee, who had been listening to Lianne Dalziel on Afternoons, rang Radio New Zealand asking to be put on air to reply;
*He was unable to get through to the programme;
*He explained his concerns to RNZ reception and was put through to the office of the CEO, Peter Cavanagh;
*He told Cavanagh he wanted to appear on the programme;
*Cavanagh declined to give an instruction to that effect, and passed the matter on to the Network Manager responsible for Afternoons, John Howson;
*Howson contacted the producer of the day and asked him whether he could accommodate Brownlee on the programme. He claims that he gave no instruction to do so;
*The producer replied to the effect that he would see if he could fit Brownlee in;
*Brownlee duly appeared.
If these are indeed the facts, then I owe an apology to Radio New Zealand CEO, Peter Cavanagh, of whom I was harshly critical in the post. Neither he nor Radio New Zealand has asked for such an apology, but I proffer it anyway. I based my criticism on a second-hand report without checking with the parties concerned. Poor journalistic practice.
Having said that, I find it hard to regard Mr Brownlee’s approach as anything other than an improper attempt to use his ministerial position to get air time on Afternoons. And I think it regrettable that Afternoons acceded to his demands. I stand by the principle I espoused in the post that Radio New Zealand must remain ‘free from political interference in matters of programming and editorial control, particularly in the field of news and current affairs’. I regard that principle as inviolate.