Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The question of whether the media is only legally allowed to tell you what They Want You To Hear will remain unresolved for the time being.
I was holding off mentioning this, but the documents 'removed' from the web were actually still somewhere. Critic had taken their article down from the archive but it was still available in their technically wizardish 'virtual critic'.
And then there's the wonders of Google's cache, where they were this morning but seem to have gone now.
Also, the ever thoughtful No Right Turn has been providing a kind of clearing house.
Celebrity media lawyer Stephen Price was on Linda Clark's show and helped clarify what Vic thought it was on about. Apparently the media do have to be able to justify it in terms of "legitimate public concern" if they break other people's confidences. This is probably news to journalists.
The risk of bullying via injunction, even by institutions which have a social duty written into their charters, remains.
Oh, and I note that the url for the Critic story had made it as far as today's Capital Times (bit sad it doesn't work anyomre), as well as the relevant pre-injunction-released facts featuring on the TV and radio news and a Bill English press release.
Update: Or maybe not. Apparently, as of the mid-afternoon, all the people who might know where the magazines actually are had gone to ground. What this means is that Vic have effectively lost the magazines they stole. DICKHEADS! UTTER GORMLESS MALICIOUS DICKHEADS! This lapse of collective memory on Vic's part was apparently cured about 5:15 by the application of two TV crews and a Dom Post cameraman. Keep an eye on the news this evening.
One Last Update: Mr Nippert has What They Didn't Want You To Read. He's allowed now. Highlights: Salient knew legal action may have been coming when the put their shit on the ASPA wire. Cheeky without being contemptuous. Also, headlines aside, they cover every option under discussion without sensationalism. And gave truckloads of time to the objection (which effectively qualify the importance of the leak) from the administration. Good journalism, frankly, if about an obscure phase of a dull issue that only students normally care about.
(Oh, and apparently the delay with getting the magazine was at least partly due to them being stored off-site.)
Now, I'm not going to link to Hamish's new post, cos he's a bit of a larrikin to. You find it yourself. If it stays there. Even without it, there's ample evidence some Vice-Chancellors still don't understand where the stable door is.