On the RNZ website, of all places, pro-Russian edits have been inserted into Reuters and BBC reports.
Extraordinarily, this has been going on for years.
As RNZ trawls through thousands of stories, it has emerged changes were also made to reports to be more sympathetic towards Palestine and the militant group Hamas and China’s position in its treatment of the Uighur people.
RNZ’s list of problematic stories also includes an article about a North Korean ballistic missile launch and one about Serbia accusing Ukraine of bomb hoax threats on Air Serbia planes. Others relate to Syria, Taiwan and Israel.
RNZ, unsurprisingly, is aghast.
In its earnest way, RNZ endeavours to report news and current affairs according to basic journalistic principles of fairness and balance. While some might accuse it of being too "progressive", it does a fine job overall. This lapse in standards for its international news is out of character and should be viewed as such.
An RNZ journalist has been placed on leave while his role is investigated. A high-powered independent panel has also been set up with a wide brief.
The stood-down journalist has said he has edited stories in "that way" since he started working for RNZ five years ago and was never spoken to about it.
Some of the edits are egregious. Some are subtle.
Hopefully, a culture had not developed where it was fine to make significant changes, even if not to the extreme that has become apparent with that journalist.
After all, agreements with agencies, like Reuters, stipulate that any editing must not "distort the meaning" of reports. Many of the edits that have come to light did just that.
The inquiry will also investigate a complaint to the Minister of Broadcasting from the Ukrainian community in October last year. It would seem RNZ did not pursue this matter rigorously enough.
Much play has been made about the falling trust in media and the extra damage this episode could inflict.
While what has happened is shocking, the public is intelligent enough to see that mistakes can and do occur and that one employee’s approach does not represent the ethos of the organisation.
The fact the stories were processed by one person with no checking and no oversight has raised alarm. The processes and story flow will be among the matters examined by the panel.
Minimal "sub-editing" has become standard in many parts of the media in the face of economic pressures. Because international reports are already well-edited and pretty much ready to publish, it is easy to see why the handling of them is kept to a minimum.
When there are serious slip-ups sometimes the matter is sheeted home to one individual and sometimes to system failures. There might be a combination of both.
What often results from inquiries is a long list of recommendations. These can sometimes be impractical and costly and sometimes sensible.
There is only so much that can realistically be changed to cope with someone who acts in bad faith or in a totally misguided way. Examining processes, checks and systems is appropriate. Overreacting, though, will not be helpful.
RNZ’s strength is through its New Zealand stories, which receive wide distribution. Fortunately, given what has been revealed, its website coverage of overseas news appears not to be closely read by the public.
The Otago Daily Times has a report-sharing arrangement with RNZ, as do several media companies. RNZ’s reporting is competent and at times excellent. Phil Pennington in transport and other areas, for example, has revealed several critical official failings.
The appearance of "pro-Kremlin" garbage, as RNZ chief executive and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson said earlier this week, and various other edits need only be an unfortunate, albeit significant, blip.
The call by Act New Zealand leader David Seymour for the Broadcasting Minister to commission an inquiry is over the top.
RNZ has responded with vigour, urgency and openness to the revelations. Its staff will be feeling at least as bad about what has happened as many others.
