Slater versus NZ Herald and “inherent dishonesty”

When I posted Slater cleared of hacking claims yesterday I left out trivial side issues that the Herald chose to highlight, like a couple of spelling mistakes in the police report, in Dirty Politics: Police clear blogger over Labour hacking claims.

That seemed to be irrelevant to the story apart from being a dig at the police, and as was pointed out on Twitter, it’s almost inevitable that those complaining about spelling and grammar make mistakes in doing so.

. I mean, if you’re going to take a cheap crack at the Police’s spelling – don’t cock it up.

Embedded image permalink

The article now says:

NZH010815

But there was a more serious mistake according to Cameron Slater. in THE INHERENT DISHONESTY OF DAVID FISHER.

Yesterday David Fisher wrote an article in a newspaper about me.

At the bottom of the article he said this:

Slater – who did not wish to comment – has denied any wrongdoing.

There is a problem with that statement…I never said I did not wish to comment.

I saw that comment. I also noticed later that it had changed to:

Slater, who has denied any wrongdoing, said he would be seeking an apology from Andrew Little over the accusations.

Slater explains what happened:

At 4:19pm David Fisher emailed me for comment.

Fisher-email

I responded to him:

Please provide me a copy of the Police advice to the Labour party, then I will consider a response.

Little did I know that David Fisher had already published the story a mere 9 minutes after he emailed me for comment.

He provides evidence of that:

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 5.01.18 pm

.The article still shows that time of publication, despite at least two edits since then.

Inherent dishonesty? Or hurried and sloppy plus lax editing protocols?

Herald story on poll changes

Newspaper stories aren’t always like the used to be, fixed in print once the presses roll.

David Farrar pointed out in A Labour member complains:

First let’s deal with the headline of the story:

Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

The headline writer should be shot.

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

So 90% of the poll was before the release. So the headline is trying to manufacture a story.

However NZ Herald currently has this headline with the story:

Poll boost for Labour

By David Fisher, Claire Trevett

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

What Farrar probably doesn’t know is that the story has changed since the headline was written, and then the headline was changed.  I saw the original version, as did Keith Ng who pointed out:

Oi . I mathed it for you.

The data was released by Labour with substantial help by NZ Herald six days prior, not a week.

One of the article authors responded:

ha! I was so busy trying to find it in the fine print I didn’t look at the top bit!

Since then the headline and story have now been edited:

From:

Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

However it us unclear how much of the poll was taken before Labour released it’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate agent data, which was a week ago.

To:

Poll boost for Labour

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

Farrar must have copy pasted after the story was edited, but before the headline was edited.

Did Rawshark dump and flee New Zealand?

Ben Rawshark has had another wee splurge on Twitter today and in response there’s an interesting claim – that Rawshark dumped and ran.

I’ve lost a lot of support, followers and ‘credibility’ in the last 7 days since the story broke in MSM. Fortunately the cops are digging.

He can smear any truth tellers that pop up using proxy blogs, analysis of the tellers enemies and rarking them up.

Yes, Scientology does exactly the same thing. You might want to study the history of the movement against them.

He is extremely good at what he does. Look at how they hit Catton. She is wholly light side. It’s the state of play now.

Haha Project Chanology? Or something non-hacktivist? I’m not newborn to Scientologies BS.

 This is stuff that both pre-dates and post-dates Chanology. But Chanology was a decisive moment because you can’t smear Anon.

General chitchat with Daphne Lawless who describes themselves:

Daphne Lawless

@daphlawless

Musician, indexer, translator, political activist, footballer, sci-fi geek… if you are a renaissance woman, start a renaissance (after Ché Guevara)

Auckland, Aotearoa

She’s of political and media interest, with followers like Sue Bradford, Laila Harre, Duncan Garner, Tova O’Brien, Bryce Edwards.

Rachinger retweeted…

Slater is powerful because he’s useful to those in power. The correct strategy would be to end his usefulness.

So ideally one of Slater’s good buddies could be persuaded to turn against him.

…and then exchange tweets…

But that’s the beginning and the end of it. I was burying my grandmother as I dealt with it all. I apologised to QoT.

 Even if you were a serial arsehole as bad as Slater, I STILL wouldn’t dismiss your revelations about Slater.

I appreciate that. I admire your quest for facts, proof and the truth. Don’t push them too hard though. They don’t like that.

Ever thought of doing a Rawshark? Dox dump to friendly journos then skipping the country?

That was tried and it didn’t work .. Whistleblowing under own name doesn’t work. It’s not the facts… It’s what happens after

How friendly was Rawshark to the journalists? Those who were given access to Rawshark data and reported on it were David Fisher of NZ Herald and Matt Nippert of Sunday Star Times.

Familiar names in the current hacking story.

And did they then leave New Zealand?

And a wee search finds that Cameron Slater had an interest in Daphne Lawless, claiming she had non-public information about the Rawshark hacking.

8GB OF STOLEN DATA TURNS TO 2GB. QUESTION: HOW DOES DAPHNE LAWLESS KNOW THIS?

Meet Daphne Lawless, an aptly named hard left political activist who likes to blog like the big kids

She published an article on the Marxist Fightback blog (Struggle! Socialism! Fightback!), a post titled The Whale Oil leaks: Anti-politics from above.

In it, she writes:  

qwqw

The 8 and the 2 keys are not next to each other on a keyboard, so I assume that was exactly what she meant to type.

How does Daphne Lawless know the 8GB stick only contained 2GB data?

She seems to know a bit about Rawshark and friends.

Rachinger denies everything on Williams

Ben Rachinger took to Twitter again to totally deny anything to do with RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams.

The Phone put up as proof on that blog. It’s a Blackphone. As owned by one Mr Cameron Slater.

It’s a sad day when one can bring a story to light after having been smeared repeatedly and parents doxed by a pseudo-anon blog….

… But this is the first credible connection between Mr Slater and the blog LF. This was beyond dirty. Mr Slaters phone should be examined.

I would encourage everyone to lay a complaint with the credible evidence that the LF source has a blackphone, Slater has a blackphone and…

… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

I never dated the victim of that websites actions and nor have I ever contracted to MW. I never messaged those pics to Press Gallery.

I was never involved in some plot to blackmail the victim of that blog. I was never informed there was allegedly a plot involving me.

I respect the space of the victim of LFs posts and don’t wish to have any comment beyond a Wow at depths to which some parties have sunk.

I’ll close with saying… The story came out about TS hack job and suddenly this comes out. A++ Hit Job. Bye.

If this is all true (I’m sceptical at this stage)it makes the apparent acceptance of the story by Williams and Williams supporters (there were no denials nor challenges to any detail that I saw) as very strange.

If true this would mean Slater obtained risque photos of Williams, simulated Rachinger’s phone, and colluded with Lauda Finem to dump on both Rachinger and Williams at the same time.

It would mean that NZ Herald was incorrect in the article they posted and then later pulled down – except that it’s still online via syndication overseas and at the ODT:

Journalist’s private photos published

Intimate photographs purporting to be of a leading journalist have been published online, revealing gaps in laws protecting people from having personal images used against them.

The pictures were understood to have been taken and sent in a private context to an individual not involved in the blog which published the images.

It claimed it had obtained the images when they were circulated with the intent of embarrassing Williams and harming her career but gave no explanation for why it had published the pictures.

A MediaWorks spokesman said the company was aware of “certain matters relating to the publication of private images” of Williams.

“The matters at issue are not ones MediaWorks will comment on. Jessica is a senior journalist with significant responsibility for RadioLive and will be on leave until these matters are worked through.”

The pictures emerged following a story broadcast on TV3’s The Nation last weekend in which claims were made that Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater had paid someone to hack into a left-wing website.

If MediaWorks or NZ Herald thought this story had been a total fabrication by Cameron Slater I would have expected them to deal with it quite differently.

But the media have generally been very quiet on this whole topic, and thee has been a succession of weird turns in this saga, so it’s difficult to know what is the truth and what isn’t.

And it continues in response to others:

Dude, those Photos are damning proof of how easily trust is destroyed with you, hey? You made a massive mistake sharing those.

Where is the source? Where is the Threema ID proof it’s me? I never dated the victim and never attempted to blackmail her.

k.they are spreading the muck thin, if this is the categorical truth then I withdraw my accusation. huge collateral dmge tho

And:

… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

Did you share the pics im question with Slater, Ben? You’re inferring it but should state so I believe, if that is tje case.

Can Mr Slater prove that? Or does he just send whatever he wants to LF and get them to release at his bidding? Where’s the proof?

Just trying to understand how, if Slater had those pics, he came by them? It reads that you are certain he did have them.

And:

Don’t infer anything. I’d like to see the LF source front up and show their evidence/proof and for LF to prove their allegations.

I’m not having a go just trying to understand context, evidence and implications.

And:

Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I have never spoken to Bomber personally and he has never seen any info from me. A smear.

Bomber shouldn’t be getting smashed for what are demonstrably lies. He may have been referring to hearsay unrelated to pics but not to pics.

I could see what was coming (though not this) which is why I tweeted a few weeks ago about that blog post of his.

That last comment is interesting, needs looking in to. There may be more to add on this.

Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I was JW source for the Hager raid. We never dated or were in a BF/GF relationship. Smear on MB.

He provided Williams with what information about the Hager raid? That was in October.

Bradbury has apparently removed that reference from the Daily Blog, according to Disraeli Gladstone:

Quite on the contrary, though, it seems like he was threatening/considering to threaten the current victim (let’s not identify her at all for her sake). How do we know this? At the time, fucking Bomber made a passing comment in a blog post that Rachinger had something to hold over someone (he named the profession, so we know it was most likely the victim).

The fact that Bomber saw the evidence and didn’t do anything about it except make a snide remark (which he now deleted from his blog) is horrible in of itself as well.

Bradbury was not likely to be colluding with Slater.

NZ Herald’s handling of Rachinger stories

Yesterday NZ Herald posted an article on the Ben Rachinger/Jessica Williams/Mediaworks story with some detail and a number of quotes, so David Fisher had put some time and effort into researching and writing it.

Within a couple of hours that article was removed. But in the modern online media world that was too late, it had already been reported and repeated in Australia on at least two news sites.

I know Matt Nippert from NZ Herald had been sniffing around the Rachinger claims on Slater/The Standard since February, but I never noticed them reporting on it except for when they followed up on The Nation’s coverage on Saturday.

This was promoted by the Herald’s media reporter John Drinnan:

Blogger accused of paying hacker nzh.tw/11460942 via @nzherald m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl…

I replied:

@Zagzigger @nzherald Why have different media waited this long and only followed once @thenation reported it?

Drinnan:

Herald have been running stories.

But I searched on Ben Rachinger at the Herald and got no hits apart from Saturday’s Nation followup (Right-wing blogger accused of paying off hacker).

I’ve searched again right now and I get that same article plus a reference in Bryce Edwards’ political roundup on Monday – Political roundup: Dirty Politics ‘done dirt cheap’.

Nothing prior to those two.

I’ve tried some other searches, from NZ Herald and via Google, and can’t find any other reference.

Why did Drinnan claim they had been running stories when it appears they haven’t? I tweeted back to Drinnan disputing his claim but he didn’t respond.

Why did they pull yesterday’s story?

How religious is your neighbourhood?

NZ Herald has a nifty interactive map that you can drill down into to see how religious your neighbourhood is.

See the oddly (and possibly inaccurately) headlined God and money: Interactive map shows rich suburbs have most atheists.

A Herald interactive map, based on 2013 Census data and the New Zealand Deprivation Index, shows that religious New Zealanders live mainly in poor suburbs, with rich Kiwis increasingly turning their backs on God and religion.

The number of Christians decreased to 1,906,398 (48.9 per cent of people with religious affiliation) from 2,082,942 (55.6 per cent) in 2006.

Zooming into Dunedin and drilling down into my own area I get:

Area Unit – Ravensbourne
Deprivation Index: 5
% No Religion: 52.7
% Christian: 37.1
% Hindu: 1
% Buddhist: 1
% Muslim: 0.5
% Jewish: 0.3
% New Age: 0.8
Total people stated: 1155

It looks like I’m relatively deprived of neighbourhood bible bashers (and quiet believers).

One of the poorer areas of Dunedin:

Area Unit – St Kilda Central
Deprivation Index: 9
% No Religion: 47.3
% Christian: 46.8
% Hindu: 0.4
% Buddhist: 1.1
% Muslim: 0.2
% Jewish: 0.2
% New Age: 0.8
Total people stated: 1578

But this proves the deprivation theory wrong:

Area Unit – Vauxhall
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 43.7
% Christian: 50.6
% Hindu: 0.6
% Buddhist: 1.3
% Muslim: 0.6
% Jewish: 0.1
% New Age: 0.5
Total people stated: 3699

And also in Invercargill:

Area Unit – Waianiwa
Deprivation Index: 2
% No Religion: 42.2
% Christian: 54.7
% Hindu: 0.5
% Buddhist: 0.2
% Muslim: 0
% Jewish: 0.3
% New Age: 0
Total people stated: 1842

The Herald probably didn’t test their theory south of the Bombay Hills.

Nor in Auckland properly:

Area Unit – Herne Bay
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 46.8
% Christian: 48.5
% Hindu: 0.8
% Buddhist: 0.9
% Muslim: 0.2
% Jewish: 1
% New Age: 0.3
Total people stated: 2592

Area Unit – Waiata (includes Remuera)
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 31.6
% Christian: 61.7
% Hindu: 1.2
% Buddhist: 2.2
% Muslim: 0.4
% Jewish: 0.9
% New Age: 0.1
Total people stated: 4068

Majority support anti-ISIS troop deployment

The Government is backed by majority sentiment with the deployment of a small number of troops in Iraq, according to a Herald-Digipoll survey.

On the decision to deploy troops in Iraq:

  • Agree 57%
  • Disagree 34%

(the poll wording was not given)

More men (two thirds) agreed than women (47%).

The poll of 750 eligible voters was taken in the lead-up to Anzac Day when there were arrests in Australia of a group suspected of planning terror attacks for Anzac Day. There was also coverage in New Zealand of Kiwi jihadist Mark Taylor’s YouTube clip urging Islamic State sympathisers here to target Anzac Day celebrations.

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee said those were possible factors in the poll. He believed it showed people were increasingly realising New Zealand was not isolated from the threat posed by Isis.

The deployment was opposed by Labour and Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman David Shearer said he believed New Zealanders were more evenly split than the poll suggested.

How would Shearer believe he knows better than the poll?

The Herald-DigiPoll survey of 750 eligible voters was taken from April 17-26 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 per cent.

Source: Kiwis back NZ troops’ Iraq role

Intense frustration among his opponents

Intense frustration among John Key’s opponents is nothing new, but it’s likely to be as high as ever after the ponytail issue and a poll seemingly unmoved by it.

A Herald editorial looks at this – Prime Minister needs to reflect on poll carefully

The result of our poll today could suggest voters will forgive any foolish behaviour from this Prime Minister. If the man himself reads the results that way he would be foolish indeed.

He’s not the only one who should reflect on the poll carefully. A grumpy old Winston is improving his ratings while Labour and Andrew Little are missing in action.

In the meantime, the unusually sustained popularity of the PM is causing intense frustration among his opponents, not so much in Parliament but outside it, on websites and in some academic circles where resentment has become extreme.

These people are doing their cause no favours with their seething hatred of a political figure who everyone else knows to be an economic moderate and social liberal. They are not helping Labour’s recovery, still below 30 per cent in this poll, and the Greens remain around 10 per cent.

Intense frustration is rampant at The Standard, where they sneer at my ineffectiveness as they flog a dead pony tail. Like Te Teo Putake’s latest post I Fought the Law.

While Key has damned himself by saying he is NZ’s most casual Prime Minister, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t put the hours in. Being PM is a tough, demanding gig. Doing that job and fighting protracted legal battles to minimise the damage of things he has already admitted doing is going to hobble him. It’s one thing to defend accusations; another thing altogether defending accusations you’ve already admitted are true. Even if he grimly hangs on Key is now being openly laughed at. Not with, at. That’s gotta hurt. And the rest of his caucus knows that, well, weirdos don’t win elections.

Funny to see Standard authors accuse others of being openly laughed at.

No, I think the best thing for Key, and the National Party, is for him to resign and deal with the legal fallout as a private citizen. But he won’t want to do that because he knows, despite his desperate denial that there is a power imbalance in this matter, that if he doesn’t have the power that goes with being Prime Minister there’s every chance the judiciary might treat him just like any other middle aged man who admitted repeatedly playing with the hair of a young woman against her wishes.

And, well, I’m sure we would all agree it would be a terrific shame if Key missed out on a fourth term because he was serving a first term. But it’s possible, it’s possible.

Overplaying their hand has been as prominent as their Labour leader and party have been anonymous.

Expect intense frustration to continue unabated at The Standard and elsewhere on the left. Repeating the same failed attacks is self damaging, and it distracts attention from appearing like a competent alternative.

Key’s biggest promoter is not Crosby Textor, unless they are co-ordinating the repeated foot shooting on the left.

Herald and Whale Oil defend Glucina

NZ Herald and Cameron Slater are unusual allies their support of Rachel Glucina and her handling of the waitress at the centre of John Key’s hair pulling.

And they are fairly lonely in trying to defend what looks like some very shoddy journalism, something Slater usually hammers the Herald for – in this case journalist connections seem to take precedence over consistency.

The Herald had a torrid day on social media yesterday, battered by their handling of the hair pulling issue in Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’ where via PR consultant and Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina they dump heavily on the waitress.

This had been promoted by editor Shayne Currie:

Exclusive: In tomorrow’s , meet the waitress at the centre of – and she explains why she went public

Attention was given to the blurred lines between the roles of ‘PR consultant’ and ‘Herald reporter’. There was strong criticism on social media and by other journalists, including suggestions it warranted a Press Council complaint.

Brent Edwards from Radio New Zealand tweeted:

@nzherald have confirmed a breach of journalistic standards in What will it do next?

More in ‘Strong stuff': the media’s role in #ponytailgate

The Herald went onto a somersault mode of damage control.

Herald statement

Shayne Currie, Editor of NZ Herald has released a statement on how the story was reported:

That’s at the bottom of Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’ .

Except that the currently published statement is apparently the fourth and significantly edited version as the Herald desperately and obviously too quickly tried to stem the criticism.

Despite all this Whale Oil seems to be trying to paint the best possible picture of the Herald coverage and Glucina.

Whale Oil’s Face of the Day

While Cameron Slater frequently and strongly criticises the Herald he seems to still have some friendly journalists. Or thinks he does. He has teamed up with Glucina on stories in the past.

The timing, and things get messy

The timing of the hair pulling story has been criticised, but that’s nonsense. So what if someone timed it for maximum attention? That’s hardly uncommon.

Sure it could be awkward for Key to deal with the flak while travelling around the world. But it also gets him out of most of the firing line. By the time he gets back to New Zealand the story will have at least calmed down a bit.

Perhaps the story could have been put out in the news vacuum over Easter. That might have reduced attention. Or it could have festered and grown because there wasn’t much else to be indignant about.

The timing is a non-issue.

While the victim is a victim if unwanted physical attention she is a victim. That isn’t diminished by the way the story plays out.

I think she was unwise using The Daily Blog and Martyn Bradbury as her medium for her revelation. It guaranteed a highly charged partisan reaction before any facts were known or confirmed. It’s a side issue but it’s an issue.

The waitress used Bradbury – but Bradbury has used her too. I hope he warned her about the inevitability that her anonymity wouldn’t last long. I hope he warned her how she would be labelled politically by using him.

It didn’t take the Herald long to out the identity of the waitress and her workplace – see Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’.

She has complained about this coverage in detail at The Daily Blog – UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics?

She says she was aware of some of the risks but she has been clobbered.

She claims that her employers and Rachel colluded to dupe her into an interview. But retracting something from the media is futile. Especially once it’s been published.

Out of respect for my employers, and what seemed like their genuine concern for my well-being along with the future of their business (a business doing good things which I fully support), they introduced me to Rachel, by name as the employee behind the story, and Rachel said she would put together a statement for us to proof.

As we waited for Rachel to e-mail the draft proof one of my employers read aloud to the other Rachel’s e-mail address. It began… RACHEL.GLUCINA and alarm bells went off. Sounded familiar, and I felt sick to my stomach – more than you’d ever imagine, a feeling I simply could not ignore.

Rachel’s story changed. RAPIDLY. Now she couldn’t possibly supply us with a proof because she would lose her job. She was absolutely acting in her capacity as a journalist for the New Zealand Herald and claimed that my employers had known all along, which they denied.

I made it absolutely clear that all and any comments I had made were given under false pretences, not to mention completely out of context, and questioned whether her supposed story would still be published if I withheld my permission.

Rachel simply responded that she would come back to us and read to us what was to be published, although she had no control over editors and sub-editors, and that she had to get in touch with the Prime Ministers office, and then they quickly ended the conversation. I later contacted my employers reiterating that I revoked any permission to use my photo or comments for any press release, and my disappointment that I had been mislead to such a gross degree whilst having my identity knowingly confirmed with the New Zealand Herald at the same time.

If she’s correct this is a bad look for the Herald. More collateral damage. What the hell were her employers and Glucina up to?

This could get very messy.

When the Prime Minister is involved behaviour has to be carefully considered. He stuffed up.

When the Prime Minister is involved the media and the victim get embroiled as well in what now looks like becoming substantial side issues.

While I think Key’s behaviour was poor it wasn’t dirty. But it’s triggered what could be a bloody big dirty mess.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,095 other followers