Feature
Talk this way
by Matt Nippert
Should working journalists be taking payment to act as media trainers?
Should journalists be allowed to media-train those they may encounter in interviews? At the very least, should those who do have to disclose the fact?
Controversy over Kiwi journalists moonlighting as corporate lobbyists has been around for 15 years. It led to a loose proposal to set up a conflict-of-interest register – similar to the one required of Members of Parliament.
In 1993, Press Gallery chair Richard Harman received complaints from two Cabinet ministers that raised considerable concern: “The particular case I was made aware of involved a minister giving a briefing and then having a corporate entity coming to see him some days later and saying: ‘Well, as our lobbyist’ – and he named the journalist – ‘told us after his briefing with you …’”
The allegation appalled Harman, who now runs independent production company Front Page and produces TVNZ’s Sunday morning political interview show, Agenda. He raised the subject at the gallery’s annual meeting and tentatively suggested establishing a conflict-of-interest register. The idea lapsed, however, after his term as chair finished.
“I think we were preoccupied with shifting the Press Gallery offices at that point,” he says.
Yet, concerns over journalists and conflicts of interest have continued to bubble, and calls for a register have recently resurfaced.
Audrey Young, New Zealand Herald political editor and another former gallery chair, wants to restart the discussion, and she points to the disclosure regime in place in the UK. Since 1986, UK Press Gallery members have been required to register any income in addition to their salary if such work stems from their access to Parliament. “This is something we really need to consider,” says Young.
Long-time political editor Barry Soper says he’s open to the idea. He owns a company called Gallery News, which manages his contracts with TVNZ, Sky, Prime, Newstalk ZB – and public relations firms.
“I do stuff for PR companies – it’s fairly minimal, but normally involves media training,” Soper says. He confirms he did media training for Government agency Sport and Recreation Council of New Zealand (Sparc) last year: “Sparc’s so removed from the Government, in terms of sports coaches, that I don’t see them as a government department.”
Soper says he avoids potential conflicts of interest by refusing to give advice to MPs. “I have never advised one politician on how to handle the media.” He says if he trained MPs, “I would be in conflict because I deal with these people every day”.
Asked why he does media training, Soper says: “I believe that people should have a good understanding of the media. Okay, I get paid – that’s a nice byproduct – but my belief is that people should understand how the media work. We’re not a secret society, we simply want answers to questions. And a way to facilitate those answers is to have people like me in there telling people how to be honest with the media. If you go to anybody who I’ve ever talked to about the media, honesty is always my theme. There’s no point in trying to hide stuff. If you start hiding stuff, you get found out.”
So, are journalists themselves hiding a secret?
Long-time broadcaster Brian Edwards, a veteran media trainer himself, claims that one enterprising broadcast journalist – whom he refuses to name – earned $10,000 for a day’s work. Edwards says the individual who received the lesson in being interviewed was “astonished because the person doing the training also apparently interviewed them in his or her role as a current affairs interviewer on numerous occasions”.
And TV3’s political editor, Duncan Garner, reckons that Edwards’ claim is “probably true. I wouldn’t be surprised at all.” Journalists wearing two hats – interviewer and interview-trainer – are commonplace in Wellington, he says. “I know a couple of high-profile broadcasters in this city who do it.”
But Garner is also unwilling to name names, despite labelling the practice “totally dodgy and shady”.
Questioned further, he confirms that in 2003 he did some paid media training for the New Zealand University Students’ Association (NZUSA). “Years ago, I helped students,” says Garner, who adds he didn’t interview them on air. “For me, that’s contact building.”
For a profession that prides itself on openness, truth and transparency, journalists seem uncharacteristically unwilling to expose the mysterious $10,000 trainer. For his part, Edwards wants others to solve the identity riddle.
Certainly some pre-eminent broadcasters moonlight as media advisers for clients ranging from charities to corporations. Even Edwards, during his latter days at National Radio, had a similar sideline.
TVNZ’s political editor and Agenda interviewer Guyon Espiner sums up the stance of journalists who keep clear of the practice: “I don’t do any media training, and I think it’s completely unethical to do so. I would never do it.” This attitude is echoed by Campbell Live host John Campbell, Radio NZ political editor Brent Edwards and Close Up host Mark Sainsbury.
Radio NZ National’s Morning Report co-host Sean Plunket says, “I have done it in the past, and may do it in the future.” The only journalist to volunteer some clients’ names, Plunket says they have included government agency the Maritime Safety Authority and the NZUSA. He says, “Strangely enough, I’ve never media-trained a politician or anyone I’m likely to interview. So I don’t do a lot of it.”
Page 1 
