TV3 Campbell and cronies facing the music

[Happy Ronin NZ]

Its been a while since the Waioru medals were stolen and now the police want TV3 to reveal the theives identity.

Of course TV3 don't want to and put up in my opinion a flimsy argument.

This from NZ Herald
"TV3 director of news and current affairs Mark Jennings said it was not for the media to get involved in debate about the public good.

For media the concern is that if TV3 hands over the identity, it will send a bad message to people that anonymity is not assured, Jennings said.

For journalists it was about keeping promises of anonymity, promises made before entering conversations in which they did not know where they would lead.

"We are not an arm of the police, we are the Fourth Estate, and if you do not agree to confidentiality your sources will dry up," he said."

Personally I think the actions of TV3 smacked of arrogance. They thought they were being clever and it backfired. If they want to protect the identity of criminals then I won't be tuning into their programmes.

If they had been smart they wouldn't have interviewed the assholes in the first place. Surely they can see the difference between a criminal and whistleblower.

[FaceAche]

Wasn't the whole interview BS anyway?

[Brianemone]

Originally Posted by FaceAche

Wasn't the whole interview BS anyway?

I think they re-filmed it with a different person.

[NOL LUV DI]

I think there should be a high degree of caution about forcing news media to reveal their sources.

This has been a long established right.

Once that goes the next step is compelling for instance website owners - you make a comment on your website that you know someone who pirates games - maybe you even interview them - now you are compelled to reveal who they are.

The step after that is compelling you as an individual to dob people in.

Again both these things can occur to some extent now - you can be subpoenaed as a (hostile) witness but this is done rarely.

These rights do not come out of a vacuum they come out of good historical reasons. Nazi Germany is the most obvious example, facist Italy is another and there are plenty of examples where once you start down this road it is individuals who pay the price.

I would much rather see the courts reinforce this right and have much more investigative journalism take place.

[Brianemone]

Originally Posted by NOL LUV DI

I would much rather see the courts reinforce this right and have much more investigative journalism take place.

I agree with you Nol, but I also need to add that i hope it doesn't impede on their ability to perform live crosses.

[Soulless V]

I'm for the right of animinty. Think of times in the past such as 'deepthoat'.

[Happy Ronin NZ]

Originally Posted by NOL LUV DI

I think there should be a high degree of caution about forcing news media to reveal their sources.

I agree to the extent that some people deserve anonymity. I think a line was crossed in this example. They are protecting criminals who stole national treasures. This wasn't good investigative journalism. This was trashy showmanship of the worst kind. Remember these people were part of an active police investigation and TV3 used this as an opportunity to show up the police.

I'm for the right of animinty. Think of times in the past such as 'deepthoat'.

Yes but deepthroat revealed criminal activity, he wasn't the subject of it.

[NOL LUV DI]

Originally Posted by Happy Ronin NZ

I agree to the extent that some people deserve anonymity. I think a line was crossed in this example. They are protecting criminals who stole national treasures. This wasn't good investigative journalism. This was trashy showmanship of the worst kind. Remember these people were part of an active police investigation and TV3 used this as an opportunity to show up the police.


Yes but deepthroat revealed criminal activity, he wasn't the subject of it.

Except that in the Watergate case having and releasing the information deepthroat had was a criminal offense. If he could do it lawfully and openly they would not have needed to do this anonymously. They were criminals also and could have been arrested and thrown into jail for a long time. This was true well after the investigation and Nixon's resignation.

You then get into having to define which criminals you will release your sources for and which ones you will not and so back to square one.

Whether or not Campbell should have interviewed them is a different issue.

[Happy Ronin NZ]

Originally Posted by NOL LUV DI

Except that in the Watergate case having and releasing the information deepthroat had was a criminal offense. If he could do it lawfully and openly they would not have needed to do this anonymously.

I think this is the crucial point. In the deepthroat case releasing the information was in the public interest and it was releasing the information that made the informant a criminal. He needed to be protected in order for others to be brought to account.

In the TV3 case the "informant" was directly implicated in the criminal act and speaking to TV3 didn't change this.

[Vivasanti]

I dont think JC and crew are going to have to come clean.

[NOL LUV DI]

Funnily enough look what this current government has just put up to Parliament:

Sleeping Dogs here we come! Daddy state is much worse than nanny state.

Libertarians slam new law forcing witnesses to speak up
4:00AM Saturday Jul 04, 2009
By Rachel Tiffen

A new bill that would force people to reveal relevant evidence will leave citizens without protection and give the state total power, say civil libertarians.

The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has labelled the Search and Surveillance Bill - recommended by the Law Commission and tabled in Parliament on Thursday - a "chilling piece of legislation" that takes away a person's right to silence unless convicted of an offence.

But Justice Minister Simon Power said the reforms, which update statutes up to 50 years old, would help investigations into drug offences and organised crime.

He said the bill comprised a "complex statutory test" that did not just determine whether a person had "crucial information".

"It is a matter of how they got the information, that it is right for the type of investigation and that the information would be evidential material," Mr Power said in a written statement.

But Council of Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott said New Zealand courts would become like the "Star Chamber" court of law in 17th Century England, where "silence often amounted to literal suicide".

Advertisement Click here to find out more! Advertisement

"The rack or thumbscrew has been replaced by imprisonment, nevertheless this is still an example of the state using its coercive power to extract information from its citizens," he told the Weekend Herald yesterday.

Mr Bott said that under the bill, anyone who had committed trespass could be forced to provide evidence.

"The trigger for an examination order [legal order to provide evidence] in a "non-business" context is that an individual or a group of three or more is or has committed an offence punishable by imprisonment."

Given that trespass is punishable by three months' imprisonment, this would make campaigning peace groups - such as the anti-Springbok Tour group in the 1980s - subject to the clause, he said.

The new bill carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment, or a fine of up to $40,000 for a body corporate, for an interviewee who refuses to answer questions without a reasonable excuse, or provides false information.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the reforms gave witnesses the protection of being compelled by law to talk. He said people were often afraid to speak up because of what the alleged criminals might do to them.

He said police would not be able to force people to give evidence without a court order and rubbished suggestions evidence would be "packaged" or given "spin" for the benefit of the judge.

"Civil Libertarians would say that. They need to look at the rights of all New Zealanders, not just criminals, particularly victims of crime."

Mr O'Connor said the bill would help police clamp down on organised crime, particularly professionals in the business side. This might be accountants employed to legally channel proceeds of methamphetamine operations, he said.

Criminal Bar Association president Anthony Rogers had not read the bill but was concerned by "any encroachment on a person's right to refuse to be interviewed by the police".

MAIN CHANGES

* Introduction of "examination order" power, where people believed to have material information about offending can be forced to answer questions.
* Police able to detain people while scenes secured and searched.
* People in charge of computers/networks obliged to help in searches.
* Police able to stop and search vehicles without a warrant.

[Brianemone]

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[NOL LUV DI]

Originally Posted by Brianemone

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Really even this one.

"Police able to stop and search vehicles without a warrant."

Or explain what protection you get here in the bill.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the reforms gave witnesses the protection of being compelled by law to talk. He said people were often afraid to speak up because of what the alleged criminals might do to them.

Now you have a choice between being beaten up by the crims or being put in jail by the police - great choice methinks. What real protection will you get once you have testified if you are unfortunate enough to live next door to some crims.

[nzBrowncoat]

Originally Posted by NOL LUV DI

Really even this one.

"Police able to stop and search vehicles without a warrant."

Police can do this already based on "reasonable belief" under other powers of legislation for drugs, weapons, firearms, persons at large and stolen property etc anyway, its nothing new. It has to be done right though, because it then gets tested in court.

To Ronins point, Would TV3's high and mighty position on protecting its informants (or Offender in this case) if the crime was different.
IE.they knew who had beaten and killed a small child.....would you expect TV3 to tell the police then.

[Brianemone]

Originally Posted by NOL LUV DI

Really even this one.

"Police able to stop and search vehicles without a warrant."

Sure, what are they going to find? The toys that my kids drop on the floor. Also, yes if I lived next to crims and saw something happen I would tell the police, them in jail = them not living next to me.