Last month, we learned that John Key had been talking out of both sides of his mouth (again), telling us he was concerned about the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, while telling business audiances that he wanted to see kiwi wages drop. Key was at a loss to explain the story, claiming he would never have said such a thing, and alleging that he had been misquoted, but the newspaper (the Bay Report) and the journalist stood by it, issuing their original transcript of the interview to show that John Key had said exactly that. But today, we have the Herald issuing a correction for its sister paper, saying that
The Bay Report will say it accepted that any impression its report gave that Mr Key wanted wages to drop was incorrect.This is just extraordinary - not just one paper issuing a correction for another, but also its nature. An apology for giving an incorrect "impression"? They quoted Key accurately, faithfully, and in context, and let his words speak for themselves. Any impression is due to Key, not the Bay Report. And when they've stood by it for so long? What changed their minds? John Key's direct complaints to APN chief executive Martin Simons, perhaps? As the EPMU notes, this raises strong questions around management interference in editorial matters, and also of political pressure by the opposition on the media - something which ought to sound alarm bells in election year.
