As per the terms of the settlement between Vic and Salient, I can't comment on the case. I'm pretty sure that what I would have said wouldn't come as a surprise, anyway.
The settlement allows me, however, to talk about everything but the case.
Now that we've settled, we'll no longer be a test case for media law. However, we have done our best to demonstrate what happens when an organisation tries to injunct a media outlet - however small - and we have spared no effort or expense in doing so.
We've done our little bit for press freedom in New Zealand, now I hope that you, dear Public Address readers, will be willing to help us cover the cost of fighting this battle. Anything you can spare would be greatly appreciated.
If you are able to help out, please write out a cheque to the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association and send it to Salient Defence Fund, C/O VUWSA, PO Box 600, Wellington. Or deposit the money into VUWSA's account, 06 0606 0008285 00.
[UPDATE: Generous contributor Stephen tells me that donations to VUWSA are tax deductible.]
A special thanks to those who have already contributed!
Anyway, now that the scythe has passed over our collective heads, I think it's safe to reveal that I was only a co-writer of the story. The other writer was my able deputy, Nicola Kean, who I hope will take over my job next year. The story was uncredited for her protection while the legal shitstorm approached, though I was pretty happy to revel in the chaos.
A lot of people have asked me why we didn't just go ahead and run the story without checking with the university. We were aware of the consequences of seeking comment from the university, and we were aware of the option of bypassing it altogether. We chose not to.
I'm generally not one for doing things the hard way when there's an easy way. But this wasn't about doing things the hard way, this was about doing things the way we wanted them to be done, and if anyone was to get in our way, well, we'll fight that battle on that ground.
And I have absolutely no regrets. As it is, I can stand by our article as a solid piece of reporting on a good story, right down to our attempts to balance the glaring numbers with the context that the university could've offered (but didn't). Hell, we even presented the university's case reasonably, in their absence.
We did our jobs. The university management and their lawyers did theirs. The issue came to a head. The outcome, which I can't comment on, speaks for itself.
And it's good to finally see the full version of the article bask in the light of day. (Or at least what was left of a very cloudy late afternoon today.) Still, I'm feeling a bit sheepish, since the hype had overtaken the substance of the story a long time ago, and the story has become a bit of an anticlimax as a result.
Seeing the MSM pick up on the question of whether there's a widespread trend of fee-rise around the country, though, made me feel that the article had done its job (even before it was published).
Strange, crazy world.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank Salient's in-house counsel, Graeme Edgeler, who has guided us through some pretty treacherous legal waters, and has had the perseverance and tenacity to restrain me from breaking the law on many, many occasions. He got us through those crucial first few days, before we even hired a lawyer, and his tireless work and level-head advice (poised against my sound strategies of total mayhem) since then has been a critical part of Salient's multi-pronged attack/defence.
We couldn't have fought the juggernaut without him.
He's currently looking for a more lucrative post than Salient, so if there's a law firm looking to hire, just drop me a line and I'll pass his details along.
Now, all we have to worry about is putting out next week's magazine...