Martyn Bomber Bradbury has been banned from Radio NZ for criticising John Key.
Media Watch (about 26 mins into the programme) this morning confirmed the was banned for an unacceptable breach of Radio NZ’s editorial policies of fairness and balance.
What did he do? On Thursday’s The Panel segment on Jim Mora’s afternoon show, he criticised John Key for appearing as host on Radio Live for an hour at their invitation pretending it wasn’t political. He also criticised the Prime Minister for his behaviour in parliament this week in blaming Labour during the well publicised incident where a man tried to jump from the public gallery into the House. Both issues have been widely reported in our media.
Bomber is a bit out there.
Like other commentators across the political spectrum he tends to speak his mind rather freely. He’s a “left” commentator. Not attached to Labour or any other party directly that I know of (maybe Mana).
He expresses his views stridently. Presumably that’s why he’s on the programme regularly. Along with others who are also fairly strident at times.
I’d like to know what editorial policy was being breached? And who made the decision to ban Bomber Bradbury?
And to be reassured that there was no external influence brought to bear on Radio NZ management and editorial staff to make that decision.
I think it’s valid to ask that if they can make this decision how come commentators from the Right haven’t been banned on a regular basis for regularly criticising Phil Goff on the Jim Mora Show, on Nine to Noon’s political slot and other RNZ shows? If I trawled through Radio NZ’s afternoon show I wonder how many times I’d find a commentator who lambasted Phil Goff and the Labour Party for this or that action or policy.
I’m not suggesting other commentators should be banned. Yes I’d like to see more commentators on Radio NZ and other media who didn’t regularly bash the Labour Party. But I’m not complaining about it because it’s Radio NZ’s right to choose their commentators. And all NZ should trust them to do so with fairness and balance.
But once they choose the commentators, banning one for criticising the Prime Minister is a bit rich.
As we head into the election it’s important that the coverage is fair and balanced. But that doesn’t mean media outlets should prevent criticism. Especially shutting down criticism of the government of the day.
Our state broadcaster should know better than that.
The Radio NZ charter includes these principles:
Programmes which provide for varied interests and a full range of age groups within the community, including information, educational, special interest, and entertainment programmes; and
Comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs, including items with a regional perspective;
What Bomber Bradbury said was not news. It was commentary, on a programme, on a section called The Panel where people are invited to vent their spleen about an issue they care about and is bugging them.
Wisdom and experience is what’s needed by our media organisations during an election period. We need to know it’s there. And to trust the judgement calls being made.
PS: Why has the relevant part of The Panel been removed from the Radio NZ website? It’s ironic because the Prime Minister’s spot on Radio Live got taken off Radio Live’s website last week after a complaint was made to the BSA and the Electoral Commission.
Bomber is the Matthew Hooton of the left.
When they have Bomber on The Panel I usually switch off. He’s just a whingey student that has failed to grow up and tried make a career of it.
He was good when he wrote for Canta Magazine – although I was much younger then.
Curious. Are you saying that Bomber should be banned but not Hooton?
Bomber has made a good point on his blog about all this.
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/10/banned-from-radio-nz-for-criticizing.html
In the same week as I was banned from RNZ for criticizing the PM, the Herald was banned from Parliament for 10 days and Key got his Radio Live freebie. If Helen Clark had pulled any of this in her time as leader, the voices from the right so quick to denigrate me, would be in full voice for the support of freedom of speech. Their hypocrisy should surprise no one.
Where are David Farrar’s Billboards in support of Bradbury – comparing the current regime to Mugabe? This is a freedom of speach issue – Farrar claims to be all over that issue like stink on a monkey.
Radio New Zealand knew before the programme started what Bomber was going to talk about. What changed from that point till later which got him banned? Was it a call from the Prime Minister’s office?
Whaleoil said: “Seriously you think way too much.”
That says it all really. To think too little or to think too much. I guess that’s the question now.
Bradbury needs to lay a complaint with the Employment tribunal.
On grounds of unfair dismissal.
Until RNZ release the grounds for Bradbury’s banning and dismissal, the damaging inference left in the public arena is that Bradbury’s claims on the PM’s behaviour were untrue.
Bradbury could rightly claim that the dismissal and banning are damaging to his professional reputation as a media commentator.
Bradbury also needs to lay a complaint with the broadcasting authorities, of unfair and unbalanced behaviour by RNZ.
Too right Jenny! Sadly by the time any response was forthcoming Steven Joyce would be the Boss and Sir John would be off somewhere exotic.
@ Jenny
Bradbury couldn’t rightly claim anything as he is not employed by RNZ, therfore cannot be dismissed.
Furthermore, he has no ‘professional reputation’ as a media commentator to damage.
Demagoguery is not regarded as a profession.
Poor Bomber
Clare – From TV3 a statement from Radio NZ
“A spokesperson for Radio New Zealand released this statement to 3 News this afternoon.
“Mr Bradbury’s invitation to take part in The Panel discussion segment was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory.
“Mr Bradbury’s comments were inconsistent with information he had provided to programme producers before going on air.
“Mr Bradbury later apologised to the programme’s executive producer. It was made clear to him that while his invitation to appear as an occasional guest on The Panel was being withdrawn, it was not a ‘lifelong ban’ and it did not apply to other Radio New Zealand programmes.”
That last paragraph says it all. Bradbury, as is his usual way, forgot to engage brain before speaking and got called on it and “apologised”. No censorship here, even if you squint hard enough, its a non-event. Its not often someone apologises if they are the ‘wronged’ party.
Hmm. Absolutely no surprises there then. With regards to Bradbury, perhaps Clare will be more reticent to pile in boots and all in future.
“Mr Bradbury’s invitation to take part in The Panel discussion segment was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance
You’re talking b—–t Dave because that statement clearly shows it was a political decision. RNZ bosses panicked because what Bomber actually said about Key (not how he said it which is open to criticism but not enough to warrant a ban)) was true, and they didn’t like it.
@Anne, thanks for the profanity, you just ooze class. All this shows is a company not prepared to lower their principles to Bradbury’s level. If you have evidence, real evidence that influence was used on the Station, please provide to for us all. Otherwise this is just one of the many fantasies of a deluded individual. Please provide evidence, not supposition, evidence, not your opinion, evidence, that this is true then i will acquiesce to your “version”. If, as I suspect, you cannot, why would you make things up and ‘fib’?. This would be especially ironic given your propensity to accuse others of doing the same.
@Anne
I would say that that statement taken in the context of the whole press relaese says exactly the opposite.
It’s telling that you cut off the last sentence re potential defamatory comments.
That is the crux of the issue; RNZ are protecting their editorial and legal interests by not indulging Bradbury.
Criticism is fine, defamation is not.
No story here.
Given the alleged defamatory part of the statement was not made available online, how does anyone know whether it was or was not. Conjecture is all.
I received the full statement I think it bears posting to give everyone as many viewpoints as possible.
“Thank you for your recent email.
Radio New Zealand has monitored and noted the on-line, email, and blog discussions over recent days relating to The Panel and Martyn Bradbury’s performance last week. There are several points that need to be made.
Mr Bradbury has not been banned from Radio New Zealand. He was told that his invitation to appear as a future panellist on Afternoons with Jim Mora had been withdrawn, but there was no suggestion that it applied to other programmes.
This decision was entirely based on Radio New Zealand’s own editorial policies and standards. There was no external influence on that decision whatsoever.
Radio New Zealand received many complaints from listeners regarding Mr. Bradbury’s comments on The Panel last Thursday.
The decision to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to take part in future editions of The Panel was made by the programme’s Executive Producer immediately after the programme. That decision was supported by the senior manager responsible for the programme and subsequently endorsed by me as Radio New Zealand’s Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief.
Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory. The segment in question was removed from the Radio New Zealand website because it was considered to be potentially defamatory. As a publicly funded broadcaster, Radio New Zealand has a duty to protect the organization against defamation proceedings.
Participants on The Panel on Afternoons with Jim Mora are given a great deal of latitude to express personal opinions – but there is a very clear expectation that their comments will conform to Radio New Zealand’s editorial policies and broadcast standards. A relationship of trust and confidence between the programme presenter, producers, and panellists is essential for the programme to be effective.
Mr Bradbury’s comments on The Panel last Thursday were inconsistent with information he had provided to programme producers before going on air and Mr Bradbury later apologised to the programme’s Executive Producer.
The Executive Producer made it clear to Mr. Bradbury that while his invitation to appear as an occasional guest on The Panel was being withdrawn, it was not a ‘lifelong ban’.
I hope this information clarifies some of the issues that have been raised over the last few days.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Cavanagh
Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief”
Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory.
There you have it clear and simple. Bomber Bradbury didn’t say anything that hasn’t been said elsewhere by other journalists and commentators. Any defamation cases in the wind? No, and there won’t be. What they actually didn’t like was the way he said it. Fair enough. Haul him over the coals, give him a warning, but don’t cow-tow to a small bunch of conservative listeners who had a collective paddy cos they don’t like Bomber Bradbury. I am willing to bet on it RNZ have had just as many (if not more) complaints in the past from liberal minded listeners about some of their ultra right wing guests but they never felt inclined to act on them. The difference is they’ve just been bailed out (as I understand it) to the tune of several million dollars by the Nat. govt and that’s the real reason for their over- reaction. They’re never going to admit it of course.
And btw, I once worked for the former Broadcasting Corporation, so I’m not coming at it from an inexperienced perspective.
Here’s the link to RNZ editorial policy
http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/pdf_file/0007/914398/Editorial_Policy_May_2007.pdf
Perhaps an OIA of RNZ is in need, to reveal the legal opinion upon which they based their fear of defamation?