What our readers think

I like to be informed of matters of consequence but not of salacious nonsense. I am occasionally concerned that grieving families are unreasonably exposed to the nation with journalism that pries deeply into matters which are not what I would call of public interest - indeed they often seem to me to be intensely private.

Matters which I consider ought to remain outside the public arena are:

* Sexual orientation of victims/casualties/offenders unless it is directly related to the incident.

* The degree of sexual promiscuity of the above.

* Close-up photos of grieving families/friends at funerals.

* Anything which exposes innocent children to the glare of the media (photos, names etc) - this is not something that they may wish to look back upon in the future.

* Persistent revisiting of crimes/ %issues in such a way that the innocent are not able to avoid media glare.

It behoves you to be as objective as possible.

Sue Crawford.

* * *

State the facts. There are a plethora of journalists' opinion columns.

With regards to the people involved in the incidents: unfortunate, but the public should be kept as fully informed as possible, without unnecessary harassment of people in crisis. Show as much respect for their privacy as is possible but report the facts as far as possible.

Unnecessary harassment probably starts when the facts have been discovered and the reporters do not go away.

People who put themselves in the limelight have to expect that they will be scrutinised more. People who defraud the public should be fully scrutinised and as much as possible of their fraudulent deals be uncovered and reported. Bad people should never be glorified; the reporting should be critical of their [lacking] scruples.

The Press can assist greatly if reporting highlights problems and resolutions clearly.

Jennie Goldsack.

* * *

My hope is that the Herald can be much more even-handed ideologically and not present material on the assumption that the new right must always be right. I'd like to see more news as well as opinion from people and organisations who have not found that a corporate-dominated globalised economy produces the sort of society New Zealanders want.

I'd also like to see more news and views from neglected parts of our society . . . the left wing, trade unions, the poor, literature and the arts. Beyond the confines of the market-oriented few, other kinds of economic endeavour such as cooperatives, green banks and science, including geneticists opposed to GE.

I'd like to see hard-hitting, well-researched investigations into corporate businesses and their managers and practices - what are they doing to us and how and how close to the edge of the law is it?

In short, a newspaper for all New Zealand, not directed at the comfortable minority.

Bernard Gadd.

* * *

When your charter is agreed, make it real. Keep the words simple and meaningful.

You have great expectations to satisfy your readers, but just don't get buried under the detail where the devil thrives. Keep it simple, realistic, focused and acceptable to the morals of most rational New Zealanders. Forget the fringes as you will never want to meet their standards.

I request one simple philosophy in decisions between proper investigations and unnecessary intrusion. At times of grief, how would you feel if answers were demanded of you and you were photographed within minutes of a catastrophe or tragedy. Give respect to the right of private grief. That photograph can wait.

Murray Hunter.

* * *

Your We Got It Wrong column is a necessary first step, but it deals only with questions of fact, such as a misspelled name. Equally important are the abstract issues such as emphasis or relevancy which can affect the way in which a reader views a story.

The abstract standards that I as an interested layman believe are appropriate are those contained within the Journalism Code of Ethics and which are codified to form the basis of the Australian Press Council's complaints regime.

Adoption of the Code of Ethics by the newspaper should also ease the problem of staff "buy-in", since the code is part of their union rules.

Interpretation of this Code of Ethics, as with any code of ethics, relies heavily on judgment of experienced journalists. The acid test of how well that judgment is exercised will be how the public's trust in the Herald holds up compared with other information sources over time.

Ian Andrews.

* * *

As a long-standing Herald reader, I have become concerned about the increasing "tabloidisation" of the paper.

I hope the Herald's charter encapsulates the following concepts:

* The Herald should publish hard news, not manufactured news

* People have the right to grieve in privacy - report a tragedy but don't milk it for all it's worth.

Anna Radford.

* * *

The media in general have immense power over our daily lives and forming of opinion. Therefore, if they cannot demonstrate standards and ethics above those they choose to castigate, where does that leave us?

For example, the continuing campaign to liberalise the libel laws to enable the media to avoid being held accountable for incorrect and damaging statements about individuals could be seen as being just as threatening to democracy as the alleged withholding of information.

The boundaries between proper investigation and intrusion are difficult to define. Investigative journalists need first of all to have a high skill level.

They (as opposed to opinion writers) need to be able to be objective and leave their personal prejudices at the door. Above all they need to be factual.

A good test for a journalist, or any other person for that matter, is to think for a moment "how would I feel and act in the other person's position".

So what do I expect from you?

In general news I expect accurate, intelligent, reporting.

Opinion columns I expect to be wide-ranging and diverse.

In investigative journalists I expect depth, truth and completeness.

P. Bull.

* * *

Investigative reporting is to be commended but, I suggest, not at the expense of proper, unbiased news reporting.

There also needs to be a balance between honest investigative reporting and witch-hunting and intrusion. By this I mean that your reporters must be open minded before, during and after the investigative work is reported. I believe that there have been instances where preconceptions have been evident in some stories.

Please leave the Hollywood gossip to the women's magazines and gossip rags where it belongs and give your readers in depth, factual news reporting.

The instances of improperly spelled words being used are increasing significantly, as is the use of poor grammar.

Penny Birchall.

* * *

One useful guide for a newspaper is to treat everyone as if he or she were rich and famous and likely to sue the paper for defamation. The paper should also be able to make a distinction between "following up" a story that has already been aired and "gratuitous hounding".

Instead of a Readers' Charter, you should have an interviewees' or reportees' charter. The charter would remind people of their rights and it would point out that their remarks may be selectively quoted.

One important right is that an article as published should carry the same emphasis as the interview on which it is based.

I approved of the Herald publicising some material that might normally be regarded as confidential; an example was the table of school fees charged by state schools.

Some material in newspapers will inevitably fuel discrimination and hatred, but a newspaper cannot be too squeamish: you can't be held responsible for all the antisocial reactions of your readers!

The Herald should continue to give the names of journalists who have worked on particular articles. It is easier to be socially irresponsible if you are a "faceless reporter".

Arch Thomson.

* * *

I speak for myself but believe that standards have fallen as technologies in recording and communication have improved out of sight.

I believe that commercial interests have come to override all others, especially personal privacy. My perception is that there is a different approach to privacy when relatively unsophisticated people are involved, as compared with dealing with, say, lawyers.

Daily sensational and superficial human interest articles figure highly and prominently and there is less and less in-depth investigative journalism.

A lot of your most thoughtful and interesting articles are of the dialogue variety, not from within your organisation at all and I think that is a bit of a shame, in terms of your nurturing standards and quality in an up-coming generation of your journalists.

Yes there is human interest, we all respond to it, but it is not the same as public interest, society's interests, or necessarily protective of privacy.

Joan Chapple.