The media used to have gatekeepers.
They were the experienced people who used their intelligence and judgement to decide what was news and what wasn’t.
They knew the difference between what was in the public interest and what the public was interested in.
They knew the fact someone wanted to speak didn’t mean that others had to hear.
They saved people from themselves when a mistaken belief that telling their story would help might have done more harm than good.
It wasn’t censorship, it was discretion and events over the last few days have shown it’s a quality sadly lacking in our media.
What would a visitor to New Zealand have thought had they turned on television for the news on Thursday?
One of our neighbours is having a constitutional crisis, the OECD released a report on our economy, the Prime Minister was in China . . . and the lead item on both channels was a tabloid item about someone who used to work on television who’d admitted assaulting a woman.
Trying to find something to listen to while driving to Dunedin yesterday morning I found the issue leading Nine to Noon, and being discussed on NewsTalk ZB & Radio Live.
It’s also been given prominent coverage in newspapers and their websites.
We’ve got past the mistaken view that some violence can be dismissed as “only” a domestic and is best ignored, but turning the aftermath into a circus is almost as bad.
A report on the plea and sentence might have been news, saturation coverage of he-said-she-said isn’t. It’s merely prurience.