KEY POINTS:
Little good would be served if two broadcasting companies permanently remove the sports presenter Tony Veitch from their programmes to try to bring an end to controversy over his assault on a woman. The initial reactions of TVNZ and Radio Sport were to stand by him over this "personal" matter, allowing him time off to counter media allegations. The radio station has now suspended him as it finds out more about what happened during the assault.
A premature move to dismiss him, though, would be seen as being for one reason only: to help the broadcasting companies' images, not the welfare of the victim or their audiences. It could never represent the closure they might seek and should not in any case be the last word when the police have begun inquiring into what could yet be a case of causing grievous bodily harm.
Sackings or negotiated departures seem to be the norm in these incidents of high-profile people involved in highly personal embarrassments. They are, as Newstalk ZB host Leighton Smith observed yesterday, the easy way out of a crisis. They are often achieved under the nonsense that a newsreader or sportsperson is a "role model" for the public, especially the young, and the controversy has affected that role-model role. The myth of the role model has never been more evident than in this case. Veitch, for all his ability to talk, could never have been regarded thus. Nor, for that matter, could the errant All Black Jimmy Cowan and numerous others whose personal failings have spoiled their professional facades. Could anyone seriously name a child or adult who looked up to these individuals in any kind of aspirational way? Veitch reads out sports news items for 10 minutes a day on national TV and comperes a niche breakfast show on radio. In his broadcasting he is not, and does not need to be, a saint and performs the sports talking tasks with enthusiasm.
This assault is something else again. It goes way beyond the conventional crisis management devices, the role model excuse and the usual exercise in out-of-sight, out-of-mind rehabilitation. If sacking him now is the answer then someone is asking the wrong question. Veitch's case needs resolution by an authority far higher than the employer. His former partner reportedly suffered breaks to her back from being kicked on the ground, was temporarily confined to a wheelchair and off work for a considerable period. Veitch has admitted "breaking" and "lashing out" on the night of the incident. Rightly, the police have now appointed an officer to review the matter and consider his admissions. They should make every effort to interview the victim - who this year was party to a confidentiality agreement involving payment to her by Veitch of as much as $170,000 - to reassess her decision not to report the matter to the police when it occurred two years ago. She cannot fail to be aware now of the view the community takes to domestic violence, should she choose to prosecute.
The police cannot force a victim to lay a complaint but one of the woman's existing fears, of the potential of damaging personal publicity, has been overwhelmed by this week's revelations. Veitch, too, should accept that the best and only way for his actions to be judged is by a police inquiry into what happened, how and why. The excuses offered in mitigation at a press conference on Wednesday may well be mitigating factors in a criminal case.
Removing the broadcaster from the airwaves before any of this is concluded would be literally firing first and asking questions later. If charges are laid and a case proceeds, then standard employment procedures would probably see him suspended then until resolution. In the meantime, he could continue in his limited public role of talking sport. It is not as if he is lecturing in morality, integrity, decency and respect for others.
