Shoved into path of spy agencies
Report reveals the NZ Security Intelligence Service launched a probe into RNZ's 'Russian edits' accusations and says it was necessary.
A report has revealed New Zealand’s main intelligence agency spent months investigated me over suspicions I was an agent of state-sponsored foreign interference while working at public broadcaster Radio New Zealand (RNZ).
It concludes the actions of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) were necessary, proportionate and legal.
According to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Brendan Horsley, the NZSIS probe began on June 10, 2023, one day by after I was accused by RNZ of inserting Russian propaganda into a Reuters story published on its website.
Horsley found the NZSIS actions proper “given the widespread speculation of foreign interference” and accusations in the media. Concluding its probe on August 11, the NZSIS briefed “interested parties”, telling them it had found nothing to indicate I was an agent of state-sponsored foreign interference or a national security threat.
The report, released on April 17, does not explain how Horley reached his conclusions, due to his confidentiality obligations. What is certain is the spy agency acted out of what it believed was necessity, in accordance with its function, due to a hysteria and widespread concern caused by RNZ management’s mis-framing of my sub-editing of international news agency stories as an exercise in Russian propaganda.
It points to the dangers of challenging hegemonic narratives and media executives setting their own messaging in motion, without evidence and with the unmitigated power to do so. For other journalists, dissenters and social critics, it may also be a harbinger of what is to come.
What should have been a reprimand about procedural error and disagreement over editorial standards between myself and RNZ management, following a complaint by Reuters that I’d breached a copy-sharing agreement, turned into a dangerous witch hunt.
For those unfamiliar with the background, on June 9, 2023 I was asked to take leave from my position as a digital journalist pending an investigation after I’d rewritten a contextual paragraph to present the correct antecedents of the Russian invasion. This included changing a reference to the Maidan ‘revolution’ in 2014, instead calling it a ‘colour revolution’ that had sparked a civil war. I’d left in the Reuters reporter’s byline, an inadvertent and isolated mistake.
Hours later, the broadcaster published a short story on its website stating a staff member had been stood down while it probed how “Russian propaganda”, “Russian language” and “events that didn’t happen” had been inserted into the Reuters news story on its website.
It led to a national media frenzy that lasted weeks as an RNZ audit of my work flagged up more stories of concern. International coverage by the New York Times, the BBC, The UK Independent and all of the main international wire copy agencies followed. Self-appointed disinformation experts, defence and foreign policy thinktank fellows, politicians and establishment journalists were platformed to sound the alarm over what they thought looked like Russian Federation infiltration of the national broadcaster.
I resigned amid the furore and defended myself with help from Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, my lawyers and others at hearings of an Independent Review Panel established to look into the circumstances of my sub-editing.
Last year I discovered the spy agency briefed the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Office on the situation and I also had reason to believe at least one Western intelligence partner had been given information.
After raising concerns with Horsley and making an official complaint, he agreed to probe whether the agency had acted lawfully and properly, whether correct procedure was followed by NZSIS when undertaking enquiries into a journalist, whether information gathered was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners, and whether I was still under investigation.
Having consulted with NZSIS staff and reviewed highly-classified documents, the Inspector-General concluded that the NZSIS had followed its Sensitive Category Individuals (SCI) policy when probing a journalist and that its actions were limited to ‘initial’ enquiries, only to determine whether I was involved in interference activities.
We may never know what steps were taken or which interested parties were briefed.
The accusations of spreading Russian propaganda were utterly false. In highlighting the spy agency’s conclusions, Horsley’s report was the second such review to point to this.
The Independent Review Panel report in July 2023 found “no evidence to suggest the individual intended to insert misinformation or disinformation into the stories, let alone engage in some kind of pro-Russian propaganda campaign”.
It added: “On the contrary, it appears to have been an effort on the part of the journalist concerned to add what he considered to be more balance and accuracy into the stories via the sub-editing process.”
The panel found the public broadcaster’s choice of language “unhelpful in maintaining public trust”.
It found only a percentage of the 49 international news stories flagged as concerning by an RNZ internal audit of my work involved ‘inappropriate’ changes, while also noting that “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree on where the lines are between compliance with editorial standards and a breach of those standards”.
By its knee-jerk judgment that I’d acted in bad faith, and by its public pronouncements, RNZ management forced one of its journalists to run the gauntlet, over supposed ‘pro-Kremlin garbage’ as CEO Paul Thompson put it, and into the path of the NZSIS and its Five Eyes intelligence partners.
As Horsley’s report points out, it is “at the very least, disconcerting to discover that you have come to the attention of an intelligence agency, particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed”.
Conflating editorial endeavour that seeks accurate reporting and proper context in news stories with subjective support for foreign enemies is a smear, creates a chill factor within newsrooms and stifles open and informed public discourse over foreign policy and international affairs.
This is a game of ‘dirty geopolitics’, one being played across the West, targeting academics, journalists and anyone challenging Western war narratives written in Washington and other Western centres of power.
With the New Zealand government moving to introduce sweeping measures to criminalise foreign interference in what increasingly seems to be a pre-war environment, RNZ management’s damaging mischaracterisations should be of lasting concern.
It is clear that NZ media outlets are required to comply closely with the U.S. narrative ie the anti- Russian bias when reporting on Ukraine and the pro-Israel bias regarding the war crime of genocide in Gaza. Clearly CEO Paul Thompson was running scared when he blurted out his Kremlin remark - extremely unprofessional.
Perhaps most readers and viewers have given away NZ corporate news and follow independent journalists, geopolitical experts, historians and academics - like Prof Mearsheimer and Prof Jeffrey Sachs. The investigation was a disgrace and Mick Hall is owed an apology - and the issue merits a front page treatment so that NZers know how our news is controlled by U S and UK narratives.
All I can say is how sad it is that RNZ and institutions in general have reached such pitiful levels that something like this wasn’t a simple matter within the organisation (ie robust debate within the office is even over the top on this one) and turned into an investigation of “national interest”. Pathetic and extraordinary at the same time. It’s hard not to conclude the west is f.....