KEY POINTS:
For about two years in the late 60s, early 70s, I was a high-profile political interviewer on a television programme called Gallery.
Though I was not a member of the Labour Party, my personal politics then, as now, were socialist. But I left those personal politics behind when I walked through the studio door. Professionally, I was neutral.
This is a common situation for political interviewers. Their jobs require them to be highly intelligent, socially aware people and it would be absurd to expect them not to have personal political views, to be political eunuchs.
In their professional lives, however, they must be and must be seen to be unbiased and even-handed.
I left Gallery in 1970 and in 1972 nailed my colours to the mast by standing as Labour candidate for Miramar in that year's general election. They have been nailed there ever since. This effectively ended my career as a political interviewer. I was, quite properly, unemployable in that role.
In his book, The Hollow Men, Nicky Hager makes two claims about New Zealand's most celebrated broadcaster and political interviewer, Paul Holmes.
The first is that Holmes acceded to a request by Richard Long, Don Brash's chief of staff, not to interview Julian Robertson, an alleged American backer of the National Party, on his Newstalk ZB radio show, since National wanted to downplay the connection.
The second is that, four days before the 2005 election, Holmes clandestinely took part in a two-hour "media/debate training session" for Brash in an Auckland hotel suite. Hager suggests the training was in preparation for a 45-minute interview with Larry Williams on Sky TV and "a more challenging 30-minute interview with Kim Hill on TV One", both on the following day. (TV3's final Leaders' Debate was on the day after that.)
I have seen no denial of either of these claims. The Herald subsequently reported that Holmes would be questioned by his Newstalk ZB boss, Bill Francis, over the alleged agreement with Long. Francis later said he could see no conflict of interest arising from the training session.
"I have never had cause to speak to him about shutting out a point of view or anything like that, so I'm confident there's been no conflict of interest."
I count Bill Francis as a friend. He is a man of unimpeachable integrity and I accept that he genuinely believes Holmes has always been even-handed in his on-air dealings with politicians.
But that does not mean there was no conflict of interest between his training of Brash and his job as a disinterested political interviewer. There plainly was, and is.
Four days before a finely balanced general election, in which polls show Labour and National to be neck and neck, Holmes, who has been regularly interviewing both party leaders on his breakfast radio show throughout the campaign and will continue to interview them regularly when the election is over, takes part in a "media/debate training" session with just one of those leaders. He does so unpaid.
What then is his purpose? To assist the Leader of the Opposition to give a better performance in exchanges with other political interviewers - Holmes' media colleagues - with a view presumably to enhancing Brash's chances of winning the election and becoming prime minister.
The training session permanently changes the professional relationship between Holmes and Brash. What the listener to any subsequent Holmes/Brash interview is hearing is no longer an arms-length interrogation, it is a dialogue between teacher and pupil.
The conflict of interest arises not only because of the personal bias, inherently demonstrated by Holmes' training of Brash, but because his listeners did not know about that bias, any more than they subsequently knew that Holmes was not only Brash's interrogator but his mentor. They were entitled to that information, in order to make an informed judgment on what they were hearing.
Holmes may well leave his personal politics at the studio door, as I did, but his integrity as a political interviewer has been hopelessly compromised. His problem now is not one of reality but of perception, not that he will actually go easy on John Key or give Helen Clark a harder time, but that many listeners, particularly Labour supporters, will hear it that way.
His colours have been nailed firmly to the mast, not by him but by Hager.
I have sometimes thought that knowing the political leanings of radio and TV interviewers is healthy. Better the devil ... And unashamedly virulent right and left wing broadcasters and commentators are now commonplace in the US, Britain, Australia and even here.
But this is not the image of himself which Holmes has presented or, presumably, that his radio or TV bosses would have wanted or now want him to present.
Indeed, I have little doubt that had an episode similar to the Brash training session been exposed while he was hosting Holmes on TVNZ or chairing election debates, he would have been taken off air.
So how did this happen? One explanation is offered by Francis: "He's never favoured anyone in those terms but if someone's asked him about how to do certain things on television he's always happy to offer his advice."
If you accept this explanation, the Brash training was nothing more than an error of judgment on Holmes' part, a misplaced kindness to a man he may well have liked personally. Had the job not already been taken, he might possibly have offered to do the same for Clark. Possibly.
* Dr Brian Edwards is a broadcaster, media consultant and media adviser to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
