This RNZ story is probably more complicated than first thought
Friday, 16 June 2023
This story was republished on August 2 following a report by independent panel that accused RNZ’s leadership of over-reacting to the revelation of pro-Russian bias in its news stories. The report said RNZ’s response “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage”.
A reference to “Palestinian gunmen” changed to “Palestinians”; Something Israelis and Ukrainians “said” becomes something they “claimed”. A reference to a church’s “alleged Moscow ties” is quietly removed.
The surreptitious edits to wire copy posted on RNZ, allegedly made by digital producer Mick Hall, have caused a headache for the state broadcaster which is reviewing thousands of stories.
Most of the edits found thus far in a rolling audit – which has now identified more than 25 inappropriately edited stories – are subtle, a word or two that nevertheless changed the story’s tone or framing.
Some edits were more significant, altering entire sentences or adding new paragraphs, always in the same ideological direction.
When this story broke, some suggested the changes may be related to overseas disinformation. But it’s probably a little more complicated than that.
**READ MORE:
* Expert panel in charge of RNZ pro-Russian edit investigation revealed
* RNZ saga may be related to disinformation from overseas, says security analyst
* RNZ orders external review over pro-Russian story edits
**
A review of all the discovered edits, combined with descriptions of Hall’s political views from people who have interacted with him, suggests he was not necessarily motivated by sinister intent but by a sincere objection to the coverage he was tasked with uploading to RNZ’s website.
Rather than a pro-Russian operative pumping propaganda into wire copy, the edits – which appear to span various issues – suggest a more nuanced ideology.
Hall – who has not responded to requests for comment – is originally from Belfast in Northern Ireland and is said to be outspoken about his staunchly left-wing views and his disdain for injustice.
That was channelled into his reporting on the Abuse in Care inquiry and the experiences of people with serious illness, a group that included Hall himself – he had been diagnosed with Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, in 2019 and 2021.
His foreign policy views are more nuanced.
They broadly align with “tankies” – people who either support or downplay aggression from authoritarian governments with a history of communism, usually as part of a broader opposition to the US and its allies.
Original reporting was not Hall’s primary focus at RNZ. As a digital producer, he processed wire stories from the likes of Reuters for the RNZ website.
This may have allowed Hall to influence the framing of news stories that appeared under other reporters’ bylines, without their – or RNZ’s – knowledge.
Analysing those edits shows how those minor changes tilted individual stories to align with Hall’s views.
(RNZ said in a statement that its editorial policies, standards and processes applied to all staff. Its audit was ongoing, and it remained in contact with Hall as part of its people process.)
Opening lines
The opening line of a news story is the most important; it’s the only one everyone will read (if you’re reading this, congratulations - a depressingly large chunk of readers dropped off almost immediately).
The first line contains the most crucial information within the inverted pyramid structure many journalists use.
Several of Hall’s edits involved changing the first line. Consider this story about Taiwan and China.
The first line of the Reuters version read like this: Taiwan will not allow 'repeated provocations' from China, the island's defence minister said on Tuesday, as China's foreign minister said Taiwan was the 'first red line' that must not be crossed in Sino-U.S. relations.
Translation: Taiwan is telling China to back off, while China vaguely warns against US interference.
The altered version on RNZ read like this: China's foreign minister is warning Taiwan is the 'first red line' that must not be crossed in Sino-US relations, as sources claim President Tsai Ing-wen plans to meet US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
This version removes Taiwan’s view, foregrounds China’s, and adds specifics about the US’s supposed interference. A story about a defiant Taiwan is now about China warning against a meddling US.
These changes are not errors, or necessarily even “disinformation” (which is typically defined as false information deliberately spread to deceive people), but they shift the story's perspective in a way that could affect how a reader understands the issue.
Let’s look at another edited story about missile strikes in Syria.
The first line of the Reuters story read: The Syrian army said an Israeli missile strike had briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of strikes targeting Iran-linked assets.
This was changed to: Deadly missile strikes have briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of attacks by Israel.
Even without analysis, it’s apparent the edit is tougher on Israel. Attribution to the Syrian army is removed, making the claim seem more definitive. The reference to “Iran-linked assets” (meaning the airport), ostensibly the justification for the strikes, is removed.
A reference to “strikes” is replaced with the more emotive “attacks” and the word “deadly” is inserted in a potentially misleading way - two Syrian soldiers were killed in other strikes, not the one that hit the airport.
Finally, a story about Russia.
The Reuters story opens: Ukraine extended its hold on recently recaptured territory as troops marched farther east into areas abandoned by Russia, paving the way for a potential assault on occupation forces in the Donbas region.
This became: Ukraine says its troops have marched farther east into territory recently abandoned by Russia, paving the way for a potential assault on separatist-held areas in the Russian-speaking Donbas region.
Ukraine “says”. “Occupation forces” becomes “separatist-held”. The Donbas region is “Russian-speaking”. “Territory”, not “areas”. Each one is a subtle shift to friendlier ground.
Additions and omissions
If you were being kind, the above examples could plausibly come under the description of sub-editing. Others less so.
In the most egregious example, a story about the destruction of a dam had a major edit: A lengthy section detailing the views of Ukrainians was replaced with the views of Russians.
Similar additions and subtractions appear commonly in the edits, albeit less overtly.
In a story about Western sanctions against China for its abuses in Xinjiang, several paragraphs were removed from the RNZ version.
The original included these lines: The foreign ministers of Canada and Britain issued a joint statement with Blinken, saying the three were united in demanding that Beijing end its 'repressive practices' in Xinjiang.
Evidence of abuses was 'overwhelming', including satellite imagery, eyewitness testimony, and the Chinese government's own documents, they said.
Elsewhere in the original story, a line begins: The EU has sought to avoid confrontation with Beijing…
On RNZ, an addition: Unlike the United States, the EU has sought to avoid confrontation with Beijing…
A story referring to a former Bolivian president read: In 2019, Mexico briefly housed former Bolivian President Evo Morales who fled the country amid unrest following a disputed election.
The RNZ version adds several words: In 2019, Mexico briefly took in another ousted leftist leader, former Bolivian President Evo Morales, who fled the country to avoid violence after election results were questioned by right-wing opposition.
”Took in” instead of “housed”; “violence” instead of “unrest”; a “leftist leader” and “right-wing opposition” added.
Finally, consider the story that led to Hall’s detection, which is most representative of the edits as a whole.
The RNZ version adds this paragraph: “The conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian elected government was toppled during Ukraine’s violent Maidan colour revolution. Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, sending in its armed forces to the Donbas.”
This is clearly the Russian view of events, which is not challenged elsewhere in the copy because it wasn’t there in the first place.
All the identified edits, in one way or another, correct a “tankie” complaint: That in demonising Russia, insufficient regard is given to the West’s support for Ukraine, a country that hosts far-right elements; that the US is provoking countries such as China through aggressive foreign policy; that the Israeli state, supported by the US, oppresses the Palestinian people.
It shows how a news story’s meaning rests on fragile foundations, easily shunted with a minor change of words.
Some readers may prefer Hall’s edits and feel the original text was slanted; others might be appalled by the changes and feel the original copy was slanted differently.
Politics can affect how a journalist approaches a story but also how a reader interprets it. Such is the difficulty of conveying events in a truly neutral way.
Even the ordering of words – which perspective is mentioned first, where and how much surrounding context is included – privileges one voice above another. Given words have to be placed in sequential order, it creates an unavoidable problem, where accusations of bias are inevitable.
This is partly managed through bylines, which allow readers to judge the reporter’s work – their interests, style, biases – and to rely on that information when viewing their other work.
Any dispute can be channelled towards an identifiable person.
That is impossible when changes based on political ideology are made by a hidden hand and inserted into material written by other journalists without their knowledge.