Social media broadcast 25 Feb 2025 headlines and supporting material
Headlines
Judge: Mr Farrow (Stuff Reporter) sought photographs of difficulties Mr Wood (neighbour) described:
Do we have any pictures from previous years of the shit that’s gone on ‘cause that would be really, really good.
Judge: Mr Farrow (Stuff reporter) indicated he used such enthusiastic terms as a strategy to obtain the most impactful information from Mr Wood (neighbour).
Farrow and Wood spoke as follows: Farrow: I’ve got 500 or 550 words and as you said we’ve gotta discuss the angle and what points we’re actually locking on to.
Jeni McManus (journalist expert): In terms of angle, the what “we’re” going to focus on, reinforces the idea that ...
he and Mr Wood have a common interest on the same side of the dispute.
Jeni McManus A responsible journalist will never discuss angles with their sources.
In fact, Mr Farrow proactively was wanting to discuss a specific angle.
The McManus expert opinion was not seen (or heard) by the jury as the judge decided they did not need to see it.
Supporting material
Extracts from Judgement of Johnstone J of 31-January 2024.
In the judgement, the judge cites numerous passages of a recording between Stuff reporter Gary Farrow and his source Daniel Wood (an opposing neighbour of the festival).
In [22] below, Farrow discusses with Wood about agreeing an angle. Below that, Jenni McManus (Expert journalist), an experienced journalist, gives her view on the matter.
Cao v Stuff defamation case - Judgement of Johnstone J
[21] Mr Farrow’s 14 September interview of Mr Wood lasted around 90 minutes.
During the interview, which was recorded, Mr Wood outlined and indicated that about 20 neighbours shared his concerns about the size of the event and the flow-on effect on the neighbourhood. Mr Farrow sought photographs of difficulties Mr Wood described occurring in previous years. He did so by saying:
Just sorry, just before I forget, do we have any pictures from previous years of the shit that’s, yeah, gone on ‘cause that would be really, really good to like, ‘cause this is probably gonna be front page on Monday.
[22] When giving evidence before me, Mr Farrow indicated that he used such enthusiastic terms as a strategy to attempt to obtain the most significant or impactful information possible from Mr Wood. In a similar vein, he and Mr Wood spoke during the interview as follows:
Mr Farrow: This is the thing, like only so much will fit in the article, like I’ve got 500 or 550 words so as you said we’ve gotta discuss the angle and what points we’re actually, we’re actually locking on to. So I mean part of it is that, you know, just they have made the application but not provided all of the required information as part of that and yeah they’re basically not gonna get consent.
Expert brief of evidence Jenni McManus (Expert journalist)
The most concerning part of the interview is that Mr Farrow was actually discussing an “angle” with Mr Wood (his source). In fact, in terms of the angle, he talks to Mr Wood about the need to discuss what “ we’re” going to focus on, reinforcing the idea that he (the journalist) and Mr Wood (a source) have a common interest and are on the same side in this dispute. It is highly unusual (and unwise) for a reporter to discuss potential angles with sources. This is because the focus of the story might change once the reporter has spoken to more people, and a better angle might then emerge. Or the editor might prefer a different approach. A responsible journalist will never discuss angles with their sources, and if they were asked to discuss that, I would have expected the journalist to simply shut it down and say that they are still talking to people to find out more information and see where the story is heading. Mr Farrow in the recording did not do that. In fact, Mr Farrow proactively was wanting to discuss a specific angle.
The McManus expert opinion was not seen by the jury as the judge decided they did not need to see it.
