Paper’s apology misses problem, says academic

An apology by Sunday Star-Times editor Cate Brett over a hoax story accusing the SIS of spying on Maori groups is satisfactory but does not adequately explain basic journalistic mistakes, says a journalism expert.

Jim Tully, head of the Canterbury University school of political science and communication, applauded yesterday's front-page apology for giving the climb-down equal prominence to the original story in November.

"It is a good attempt to acknowledge they made a significant mistake, and do the right thing for their readers," Mr Tully said.

But he said Ms Brett's insistence that the paper was only trying to bring the spy matter into a public forum did not address one major problem - "the Sunday Star-Times went to print with a story that wasn't right ... and didn't conduct the adequate checks".

In the apology, Ms Brett said that on November 21 the paper alleged that the SIS had been involved in a widespread and probably unlawful surveillance operation of Maori iwi organisations.

She accepted two reports - one classified, one for public release - by the Inspector General of Security Intelligence, Paul Neazor, which concluded the paper's allegations were not true.

Ms Brett said she regretted that the paper had been used, and its readers misled, by a group of men who deceived the paper "for as yet unknown purposes".

She said the paper had been criticised for not testing the credibility of its sources rigorously enough, but said there was probably no journalist in New Zealand who knew more about one of the sources, Jack Sanders, and his intelligence connections than Sunday Star-Times journalist Anthony Hubbard. She did not say if that was then, or now.

"The original presentation of the front-page story should have made it clearer to readers that these were, as reported in the copy, claims and allegations, not facts," said Ms Brett.

"We should also have made more explicit the possible alternative explanations, including that of an elaborate hoax. We hired outside consultants but we should have spread the net further."

Media commentator Russell Brown said yesterday's article was a clear apology to readers and the SIS.

"I suspect they may have detected a less-than-favourable reaction to the apparent suggestion that they had done their public duty [by publishing the story]."

He said the paper pushed the story further than it could justify.

Wayne Hope, associate professor of communication studies at Auckland University of Technology, said there were two basic theories: that the paper was set up by a fabulist, or that the paper made the mistake.

"But as with most intelligence issues, there's not enough information."