Post-Napier

1) The following tidbit appears on the front of today's paper under the title "Fact v Fiction":

Details released by the police yesterday make it clear that the Weekend Herald's front-page report on Saturday was right.

Despite widespread claims in other media on Saturday morning that we were wrong and Molenaar was still alive, it is clear that he died on Friday afternoon.

His last communications with his partner and brother were just after 1pm, and a single gunshot was heard at 1.28pm.

From that time there was no further sign of life from the house through phone contact or shooting. As the Herald correctly reported, Police believed him to be dead.

The self-congratulatory tone is bad enough. But it seems reasonably clear that the reason other media outlets questioned the Herald's claim ("GUNMAN DEAD" in giant letters on the front page) was that the police hadn't told any media outlets that he was dead, because they weren't sure. In other words, the Herald smelled a scoop and guessed. This time it paid off - the equivalent of putting everything on red, winning and then boasting about what a great roulette player you are.

2) On page A2, the "Napier Siege" page (four days after Molenaar died), John Key declares that all frontline police will get tasers in the upcoming Budget. At the same time, Key says that he does not support the arming of police. But arming them with tasers is ok? I don't really see it as a huge distinction - but this blog isn't about what I think. More to the point:

Police Association president Greg O'Connor told Radio NZ he hoped the Napier shootings would show those opposed to Taser use that police did need more tools at their disposal.

Meanwhile, at police headquarters:

He [Key] said Police Commissioner Howard Broad had told him there was nothing to show being armed would have prevented other police deaths.

Frankly, I don't see anything that would have stopped Len Snee getting killed in this situation other than:

• not carrying out class C drug busts
• shelling the house before driving a LAV through the front door

But the Herald, having successfully internalised the practice of doublethink, is quite happy to interpret the taser move as justified in the wake of Napier, while reporting in the same article that they wouldn't have made a difference.

As for Key:

"I think there is genuine concern about the widespread retainment [ugh...] of arms on an unregistered basis by New Zealanders, but whether it is possible to control that situation is difficult," said Mr Key.

Too difficult, huh? Oh well, we'll just give police tasers then.

Intermission

Sorry about the delay. There's really only been one thing in the news, and I'm not entirely sure what I want to say about it. Also, I'm pretty sure I caught mono from a monorail.

So, for now, here's Hard News on that one thing in the news.

Alternatively, here's some news about bloggers.

Back soon.

Ur Vuz

I feel like I've been on the wagon for long enough, so let's cut to the chase. I'm going to read "Your Views". And then I'm going to tell you about it.

Will banning patches reduce crime?

Stan Key (Auckland Central): Is the New Zealand public serious! Next they'll expect banning them from wearing socks will cut down the crime rate! How about banning known gang affiliates from wearing any underwear, that way when the cops chase them they'll have difficulty running in tight jeans!

Stan was always the black sheep of the family. While his brother succeeded in the worlds of finance and politics, his comedy career never took off.

Mercy (Mt Wellington): Banning patches is like banning stud collars on dogs. If society has the collective will to regain territory lost to the gangs we could look to the dog whisperer, Caeser, and his technigues to humanely dominate unruly dogs.

I'm sorry, what?

old courage (Waikato/King Country): Why not make it a nation wide ban and should these no hopers flout the law in any way lock the mongrels up for a set period of time at their family cost. Stop them receiving benefits and the like and make them suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

[Blah blah hanging's too god for 'em] The maoris have enough of the country money now and the land so build them there own lock up and let them live there at their cost.

But what if they use their money to build prisons with a pool and heated floors? Uh oh, does not compute!

Lou (Christchurch) The only solution to the crime problem is castrate every criminal sent to jail. We don't want their DNA spread amongst the populous. Now before the limp wristed, dewey eyed, PC academics and vested interests (the legal fraternity in particular, staring a massive lose of income) start bleating.

What can't a eunich do other than other than contribute to the gene pool of the next generation of criminals? They can (shock horror) get a job, get educated, play sport, contribute to the community. Will the politicians do anything meaningful when the vested intersts contribute to their re-election campaigns - dreams are free.

It will be left to a group of vigilantes with plastic cable ties. Quick, clean and 100% effective. Only need to do a few gang members and the fear of losing their manhood will have them disappear into the undergrowth. (For front rowers from each local rugby team would be good starters)

...

Plastic cable ties? Damn bleeding heart liberal.

Mingo (Singapore): Define a gang. Plenty of associations have distinctive uniforms for members.
Hw about the local rotary club? The Freemasons with their aprons? University lecturers on capping day wearing their silly hats? They all wear distinctive regalia when they get together. Will they all be banned in Whanganui too?

You should have seen the violence last graduation day in Whanganui. Those freemasons can really throw a punch.

Anne (Te Awamutu): [...] Maybe they could look at michael laws to control the situation, and we will see if his wind is strong enough to keep his feet grounded.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Is Michael Laws's wind strong enough to keep his feet grounded?

WIll (Auckland Central): They are just going to wear coloured bandanas or something else. It will also make it more difficult to identify them and perhaps result in cases of mistaken identity involving violence.

Those cunning gangs. They will simply blend right in with all the other people wearing bandanas.

Should you be able to describe yourself as a 'New Zealander' on census forms?

NZ-Indian (Epsom): I think it's time we take that question out, by default it should be just New Zealander. simple.

You're a NZ-Indian. We weren't asking you.

dee (Nelson): I just put NZ/Irish/English/Welsh on forms, I have done so for years. Have never had any complaints.

Well then let this be the first: you're a pain in the arse.

Auckland Kitty (Auckland): The census should ask for your skin colour and for your birth nationality. Then you can be a white New Zealander, a brown New Zealander, a green or a purple one, and we can all be New Zealanders together (except for all the foreigners!)

Good, I was just about to pull you up on that mistake.

karen hawxhurst (United States of America): Sonny J, one thing I aren't is confused. [...]

Sorry, I blacked out after this one.

Party on, Garth

If there are two sides to Garth George - a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - then today's piece is back on form for the latter. No longer sated by those Raetihi pies, Garth wades back into the abortion debate, querying the lack of reporting of the Health and Disability Commissioner's finding that certain DHBs have been failing their responsibilities to consumers by not offering women considering an abortion a look at their ultrasound. From what I can tell, and I might be wrong, no one has been stopping women looking at ultrasounds - they just haven't been offering the choice.

The complainant is in this case was the anti-abortion lobby group Right to Life. Yes, you read that right, an anti-abortion group are concerned because women are being offered a lack of choice.

This decision will have national repercussions since a survey last year revealed that a number of DHBs do not offer women considering an abortion the chance to see their scans; they have to ask.

It is important, too, because studies in the United States have shown that inviting women to view their scans causes many, recognising the child's humanity, to decide against an abortion and to give birth to their babies. Pregnancy counselling services report that the number of women who change their minds after seeing an ultrasound scan varies between 62 and 95 per cent.

Pregnancy counselling services, you say? Such as? Why does it vary like that? Here's another explanation of that alleged statistic: 62 to 95 per cent of women are guilt-tripped by the anti-abortion establishment into doing something they are not comfortable with - keeping an unwanted baby. A silly generalisation, but no worse than the condescending claim that women can't make a decision about their bodies without the abortion equivalent of those gruesome warning pictures on cigarette packets.

Meanwhile, Right to Life are also pushing in court - fortunately almost certainly fruitlessly - to have a foetus considered as a person regarding the Bill of Rights:

The Crown, on behalf of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, will, of course, oppose that.

God damn Nanny State, telling me what to do with my body... oh wait. I wonder where Garth gets his philosophical, medical and logical arguments from? Public reason? Democratic consensus? An understanding of the neurological development of the foetus?

I thank God that this dedicated group of Kiwis is prepared to continue to fight the good fight for the sanctity of life, no matter what the cost. They deserve our fervent prayers.

As Monty Python used to say: "Oh, what a giveaway."

Raising their colours

I decided quite early on in the life of EtH to try and avoid talking party politics. It seems that there are plenty of blogs from New Zealand about whether National or Labour's policies are rubbish; another one seems superfluous. So I try to keep the posts related to bad journalism, editing and publishing. Sometimes, however, they seem to overlap. Everyone, of course, thinks that the media are biased in the opposite direction, so you have to be sceptical of your own reaction, and thus wary of going on about it. Occasionally, though, it seems blatant enough that it's hard to ignore.

I talk, in case you were wondering, about the ongoing coverage in the Herald of the Mt Albert beyelection. I've talked before about the sensationalist reporting of splits on the left and Labour Party controversies. Perhaps naively, I assumed that the focus on Labour was just because the National Party hadn't done anything yet, and that the coverage would balance out when they did. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to have happened.

Tuesday's paper ran an article on Ms Lee stealing - sorry, sealing - the nomination from 'grassroots toiler' and last year's candidate Ravi Musuku is, shall we say, glowing.

Of her Labour opponent, David Shearer, she said: "He has been flown in from Baghdad to Balmoral - I know about New Zealand a little better than he does."

Sorry to take the 'bloody immigrants' angle, but that's a pretty bold statement for someone who moved here in 1988. I know that's a long time and it shouldn't matter anyway, but she's made the claim - now let's see David Shearer's response to this ridiculous claim:

Oh, it's not here.

The other interesting story that should have been brought up but hasn't is the question of just how Lee secured the nomination. The favourite of the party hierarchy beat out Musuku, who took on the unforgiving task of opposing Helen Clark in the last two elections, increasing his share of the vote. Apparently the favourite of the local organisation, Musuku seems to have lost out due to central politics. Now, I'm not complaining about this - for one thing, Labour seem to have done it as well. I'm complaining about how, when Labour (allegedly) did it, the Herald were all over them. This article appeared on Monday afternoon, alleging that National knew before time that the candidate would be Lee but, rather than forming the core of an article, is dismissed in two paragraphs at the end of the article.

Today's article on Mt Albert is even more bizarre. "Mt Albert voters run up their colours" says the headline; despite this, the article seems to be less about spontaneous shows of support for the candidates, and more about wandering down the road with Lee and asking people who they would vote for:

But Tony Follaoi, an author, was wary. "I'd have to find out more to actually put my vote that way," he said.

You've certainly nailed your colours to the mast, Tony. Don't be too rash.

Aside from the that, the article is notable for that classic election journalism gambit of the candidate talking to a racist:

White-haired Mt Albert pharmacist David Baird met his first living, breathing politician yesterday - and gave her an earful.

"Hi, I'm Melissa Lee, National candidate for Mt Albert," said the politician.

"Well you won't be getting my vote because I don't think we need any Asians in Parliament," the pharmacist shot back tartly.

Korean-born Ms Lee, a former journalist who has been in New Zealand for 21 years, asked brightly, "Why not?"

Mr Baird said he had his reasons. "They are very difficult people to deal with. They don't spend any money. I don't see that they bring any money into the country. Another problem is their English is very bad.

"You're all right," he told the candidate later. "You are almost 100 per cent. But, seriously, we find it difficult, particularly old people. We have Titus [his Asian assistant] here to talk to them."

That's a good reason not to vote for someone - they don't spend any money. Anyway, if you read the article, and if your thought processes are anything like mine, you start to see a weird correspondence in the talk about colours: are they talking about political colours (red, blue) or skin colours (white, non-white)? Mr Baird talks about Lee's ethnicity, then about how his wife is "red". The article goes on about the immigrant community in Mt Albert; David Shearer is described as a "grey UN bureaucrat" in comparison to Lee. In a final paragraph too perfect to be a coincidence, the article ends:

And a Pakeha mother who declined to be named turned out to be as "red" as Mr Baird's wife. Her simple verdict: "I'm going to vote for him - he's the right colour."

You heard it right here, folks. David Shearer is grey, and Labour voters are racist.

The aftermath

Well, that was quite a day. I apologise for not posting anything with actual content but, because I am so self-absorbed, I wanted to keep my tale of woe at the top of the page. I promise to amend that situation presently. For now, here are a few thoughts:

• Thanks again to my legal advisers, both qualified and 'pub'. From what I can tell, I would have at least an arguable case in court but it would cost both money and time, only one of which I have in appreciable amounts.
  
• In a sudden, rash leap of enthusiasm, I have joined Twitter. I don't really understand how it works, or why people would want to know what I'm doing all the time, but if I say it's for the blog than I can probably avoid cognitive dissonance. Anyway, if you are au fait with Twitter and determined to know my Herald-related goings-on, you can find me as 'EditingLeHerald'.
• I should probably also say that I don't really blame any individuals at the Herald for what has gone on. Mr Elliott is only doing his job, and it turns out that the job of corporate lawyers in cases like this is to threaten. Similarly, although I bag them (because they are the ones with their names on the article), I don't really blame the journalists for the lack of quality at the Herald. Given the massive cuts to newsroom staff over the last decade, it's amazing that they can actually produce a newspaper every day. Still, I suppose that the premise on which I base this blog is that the answer to the ongoing problems in the newspaper industry cannot be continued cuts to staff and quality, and the tabloidisation that brings - that will merely bring death by a thousand cuts. If there is a future for the Herald, it surely lies in a quality, albeit relatively niche, product.

Anyway, thanks for your support (except for you, Anon #1). If you enjoy rubber-necking at journalistic car-crashes, feel free to stick around.

Text-bullying

Here's a headline you won't read in today's Herald (and I know, because I've read it):

"Herald threatens legal action against blog artist"

Yes; APN, the company that runs (into the ground) the Herald, not to mention half the other newspapers in the country, has decided that Editing the Herald is a considerable threat to its media empire. Now, before I get too carried away, it's not directly to do with anything I've written - I don't believe we're in quite that sort of police state yet, although the Herald is doing all it can to bring that about. It's just to do with the banner that was, until today, at the top of my site, which ILLEGALLY used the Herald's masthead, a valuable piece of APN's intellectual property, made up of the following elements:

• the word 'The'
• the name of the country in which said newspaper is published
• the word 'Herald' a name by which no other newspaper has ever gone, not even the Sydney Morning Herald or the International Herald Tribune
• the quasi-Gothic script in which the title is written, and in which it has been written for many decades - that is, many decades before APN bought it
• the blue colour of the font, which I imagine was decided on at great cost by a hotshot team of consultants, and which I am certain multiplied sales manifold.

I know that this must have been confusing for many of you, who turned up at the website, tried to grab the screen and turn it like a page, tried looking for a crossword, spilled coffee on it, etc. And to you, I apologise. Also, the wealth that I have made from exploiting APN's trademark has bought me a flash house and a car with electric windows.*

But my favourite part about Mastheadgate is the courteous and polite way in which APN's legal team dealt with the issue. I've been told that the emails' threats about email confidentiality and 'NOT FOR PUBLICATION' are just a smokescreen that bullies people who don't know the law (98% of people), so here goes:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION [oops!]

Dear James,

I am legal counsel for APN New Zealand Ltd, publisher of The New Zealand Herald. APN New Zealand Ltd is one of the APN News & Media Ltd group of companies ("APN").

It has come to my attention that your website http://editingthe herald.blogspot.com features the stylised logo of the The New Zealand Herald (page shot below) as appears in my email signature below and which is an APN registered trademark. Your use of the trademark is trademark infringement.

You are required to remove the trademark immediately and to desist from any such infringement in the future.

Unless the trademark is removed from the website by 5pm tomorrow 6 May 2009 then APN will commence legal proceedings against you for trademark infringement and damages will be sought. All of APN's legal rights are reserved accordingly.

I would appreciate your acknowledgement of receipt of this email and confirmation that the requested actions will be undertaken.

Yours sincerely
James Elliott
Legal Counsel

To which I replied:

Dear James (and Lauri [someone at the Herald who doesn't exist on Google, was CCed into the original email and, in the fantasy situation in my head, is the one who told Mr Elliott what to do]),

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your legal threat. I will submit it immediately to my legal counsel to evaluate its merit. [They probably thought I was bluffing. It turned out I wasn't.]

Could you please point out exactly how my use is infringing the copyright, and why this has only become an issue now?

Kind regards,
James
http://editingtheherald.blogspot.com

I then received the following:

James,

Thank you for your email.

Attached is a copy of APN's trademark registration, Wilson & Horton Finance Pty Ltd being a company within the APN New & Media Ltd group of companies. Your use of the trademark in the same form that is registered is simply trademark infringement. I will leave it to your legal counsel to explain to you the difference between trademarks and copyright and the consequences of trademark infringement. [Thanks James! He did, and it was both entertaining and informative.]

Your infringing behaviour was only drawn to my attention this morning hence the action we have taken. Your acknowledgement that the APN trademark has been infringed for a period of time will be relevant to a damages claim if made. [Hang on - where did I say I acknowledged infringing the trademark for any length of time? Oh wait, I didn't. Nice bullying attempt though.]

You should be under no illusion as to the importance of this matter. Protection of its intellectual property in general and the trademarks that relate to its mastheads in particular is a serious and non-negotiable matter for APN. If the offending material is not removed by 5pm tomorrow then legal proceedings will be commenced without further notice to you.

Yours sincerely


James Elliott
Legal Counsel

(All emphasis my own.)

Anyway, I don't know if it has ever happened to any of my readers, but it's not particularly nice to be threatened with legal action, especially when a polite request would have worked. I lied before: I haven't actually made any money off the site. Threatening legal action against a not-for-profit blogger (although, as I understand, APN has been a not-for-profit organisation for a while as well - ouch!) who spends half his bloody time doing pro bono work for the Herald is the reason everyone loves corporations so much.

I realise it's not the world's biggest deal. I probably did violate their precious trademark, which I will soon reconstruct in a similar but non-identical font. And sure, apparently most, if not all, newspapers jealously protect their mastheads, although I am unsure of what the loss to the Herald in this case might have been. I've changed the title banner, and I'll pretty much go on as usual, although my legal advice says that I should probably remove my pretty photo banner in case I 'stole' any of them from APN. So the Herald has succeeded in making quite a few people's lives ever-so-slightly worse, while making a bunch of people significantly more bitter/less sentimental about it. Good job.

So yes. I'm sure there's some 'APN bullies blogger' angle on this story if anyone reading this works for, say, Fairfax, TVNZ or 3 News (or just another blog, I'm that starstruck). I will offer you the story free of charge! That's just the kind of person I am.

Finally, thanks to Scott Yorke, an intellectual property lawyer (!) from A J Park and EtH acolyte - not to mention author of the well-worth-reading Imperator Fish - for his legal advice. Hey look, I did have legal counsel after all! Thanks also to, erm, Mr F, a friend from a large law firm that occasionally does work for APN so probably shouldn't be named. No thanks to Mr James Elliott, who may just be doing his job but, like Roger Douglas, doesn't have to make it look like he's having so much fun while he's doing it.


*That is, windows made of electricity.