Sue Rawson, of Auckland, complained about the Herald's coverage of comments by United States Government sources on the consequences of various remarks by the Prime Minister relating to the war in Iraq and its progress.
It was contended, among other things, that the newspaper had breached "the highest professional standards" of the New Zealand press.
The Press Council does not uphold the complaint.
On May 23, the Herald devoted its front page, beneath a banner headline, PM's comments death knell to trade deal: US, to examining the implications of responses by American officials to various remarks made by Helen Clark about the Iraq war.
Particular prominence was given to the views expressed by an unnamed "US Government spokesman".
The focus of the Herald's reporting was the effect of what had been said on New Zealand's chances of getting into a free-trade arrangement with the US.
Part of Ms Rawson's argument was that the Herald should have made it clear that US farm lobbies will almost certainly block a free-trade arrangement with New Zealand.
The US spokesman was, she suggested, an Embassy officer putting his own interpretation on what had been said by the Prime Minister.
Ms Rawson contended there had been no change in the US Government position so there was no justification for the Herald's focus on the impact of Helen Clark's remarks or for the claim that they had dealt the "death knell" to New Zealand's prospects.
The Prime Minister's remarks had been "blown out of all proportion by the media". The Herald coverage and headline were accordingly "inflammatory, sensationalist and misleading".
The Herald argued that the Prime Minister's own satisfaction with a statement made by the US Trade Representative in November demonstrated that, contrary to Ms Rawson's assertions, the Government believed only a few months before that New Zealand's prospects were very much alive.
When the same official said, after the Prime Minister's comments about the Iraq war, that "some things done recently" had made a deal with New Zealand "harder to carry" in Congress, the outlook for New Zealand had obviously changed.
The story became even more important news when the US Government spokesman said Helen Clark's comments about President Bush had been "beyond the call" and one remark constituted a "coup de grace" for NZ.
The Herald maintained that it has been balanced in reporting the issues surrounding the free-trade proposal.
A major article on 29 May under the headline "We're probably better off without one" (a Free Trade deal) backs up this contention.
In its Letters to the Editor columns the balance in relation to the Prime Minister's remarks was in her favour.
The newspaper rejected Ms Rawson's claim of a pro-American bias by pointing to its editorial opposition to the Iraq war.
The Press Council notes here that there could be little doubt that the whole affair constituted an important news story in the New Zealand setting; other media reacted in similar fashion.
The Herald seems to have given particular prominence to the story because it concluded that its reporter had something of a "scoop" with the comments of the unnamed official.
Those comments, coupled with the "on the record" observations of the US Trade Representative himself, cast a new light on the issue of New Zealand's prospects of gaining a free-trade deal.
The headline, to which Ms Rawson objected, was consistent with the story and, therefore, not misleading. The term "death knell" fairly reflects "coup de grace" used by the unnamed US Government spokesman.
The Herald's coverage of the story was well in line with the role of a free press in a free society.
'Sensationalist' complaint fails
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.