Half-baked media guardians
Thanks God for bloggers keeping their sceptical eyes on the mainstream media! Following what seems to be an erroneous report by the Economist, which identified a company mentioned in the UN oil-for-food report as based in New Zealand, several blogs published not just the name of a New Zealand company and links to its web site, but detailed company searches of it and its staff address book!
The frenzy appears to have started at Sagenz and then spread to Sir Humphrey's and Whoar. Sagenz published a Company's Office search on the company and asked:
NZBC flagged the possibility of a Kiwi connection last Thursday and updated on Friday concluding there was none.
Update: Sir Humphrey's and Whoar have apologised.
Update 2: The Economist has quietly changed its story removing the country identification as New Zealand from Taurus Group. No correction published yet. Meanwhile, Fonterra is not in the clear yet as the government investigates shipments to Iraq via Vietnam. And the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) is in deep sh*t.
The frenzy appears to have started at Sagenz and then spread to Sir Humphrey's and Whoar. Sagenz published a Company's Office search on the company and asked:
It looks as though somebody has their shares in their wives names. How do the wives feel about the fact their money has been made from a corrupt oil for food scheme? I bet they feel good dropping the kids off at school. Sir humps as their email addresses published if you would like to ask them yourselves.Needless to say the New Zealand media were chastised for not picking the story up. This from Sir Humphrey's:
From Sagenz comes this gem, hitherto unreported by our magnificent mainstream media who are more interested in running second hand articles from BBC, Reuters and the Indepenbent. (What an excellent spelling error!)Sir Humphrey's shortly afterwards deleted the company staff list, but left the address up, while the others posted updates. If the Economist is indeed wrong, I think these bloggers owe this company and its staff a huge apology.
NZBC flagged the possibility of a Kiwi connection last Thursday and updated on Friday concluding there was none.
Update: Sir Humphrey's and Whoar have apologised.
Update 2: The Economist has quietly changed its story removing the country identification as New Zealand from Taurus Group. No correction published yet. Meanwhile, Fonterra is not in the clear yet as the government investigates shipments to Iraq via Vietnam. And the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) is in deep sh*t.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 12:09 PM
13 Comments:
I would say it should be the Economist that needs to apologise first.
It isn't about who goes first, Darren.
The Economist needs to apologise, for sure, but it didn't publish the company address book or the names of the shareholders.
Also these sites claim to be media watchdogs!
Fair point Rob
But I guess it was the Economist that sent them barking up the wrong tree!
So, who found out the Economist WAS wrong?
And hence the bloggers?
Darren, fact checking is not normally done by publishing a company's staff contact list on the internet and encouraging people to vent their spleen to people on it.
Call me old fashioned.
hi..as one of the blogs featured ..i'd like to note that i didn't/don't publish contact details of subjects i write about...in fact in the past i have pointed out to sir h that i felt this was not right...(at the time the writer agreed and thanked me for pointing it out..)
as for the timeline of the story....i picked it up from humph..went through to sagenz...and then to the article in the economist ...the economist guys/gals....i wasn't just running with something some other blogger had said without doing my own checking...
and as i say..the economist..i felt that met my criterea...
i also phoned the taurus group in christchurch to ask them about these allegations...
one of the principals got back to me..telling me that definitely they were not that named organisation...and that they would be putting out a press release later on today...
i blogged all this as it unfolded..
i really don't think humph..sagenz ..or whoar can be criticised for relying on the economist as a reliable source...
i concede you have a point re publication of contact details of subjects of stories....that should be a no-go area..
yours in accuracy...:)
cheers..phil u..(whoar.co.nz)
btw...wicked blog name...(go with the period styling ..i reckon...)
Thanks Phil. I guess what mystifies me is the fact most of the blogs involved claim not to trust the media and yet they not only accepted the Economist's word on this, they went way further than the Economist in targeting the company and its staff and management.
A simple search on the term "New Zealand" in the Volcker report would have raised some suspicions.
Also, the company just doesn't appear to operate in any oil-related area. It's an accounting and finance company. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
Also, and perhaps most tellingly, the Volcker report identifies the company as Swiss!
hi rob...i have never claimed '..not to trust the mainstream media'...(that must be the righties you are thinking about..:)
in fact i am deeply reliant on what i consider the quality mainstream media..and always source my stories so readers can check my take..
but also i very much try (esp with regard to international coverage)to bring to peoples attention what i feel is good/interesting writing/takes on subjects..that they will not in the main be getting anywhere else..once again i am reliant on sourcing those stories..usually from the 'quality' mainstream and web media outlets..
i see a large part of my role being very much as an editor/selecter..(the person standing up on the hill going 'fuck..look at that/read that..will you..?")
(apologies for over-long rant..:)
as for passing the sniff test...as the companies cited by volker were noted as being in the background/financiers...(and hiring intermediataries to do the dirty work/oil gig)..i feel it did pass the (initial) sniff test..
(i mean..if they were manufacturers of condoms or some such ilk..i'd have gone "what.?.."..but avowed financiers, i submit, smelt ok...)
plus ..(as i already said)i submit i did not/don't 'target' story subjects..
the name of an organisation is one thing......but..
cheers..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Okay, fair enough Phil. The Economist does have a great rep for accuracy but, as a journo meself, I know it is often something you find in during your background research for a story (ie other people's stories) that gets you into trouble rather than the interviews and stuff you do yourself.
It will be interesting to read the company's press release on this when it comes.
I was intrigued that they thought that a NZ company was responsible for moving 60% of the oil in the oil for food program. Bit of sniff test failure there I think.
no anon....don't let the facts get in the way of a good slur...will you..?
there are 4 different companies..
between them they are responsible for 60% of the oil moved..
so..there's that sniffy sniff...right back at your anonymous self..:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Standards are slipping at the Economist...there's a fairly glaring historical error in this week's edition as well.
Race to spot it! Rob's the judge.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home