Backlash against Whale Oil continues

Two things significantly affected Whale Oil over the last couple of months.

One is obviously Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics – for all it’s flaws the book seems to have initiated major reassessments on the risks of being associated with Cameron Slater, especially by media and journalists, and also apparently by the National Party.

Another is the prolific banning of commenters at Whale Oil, often for seemingly very trivial reasons.

Slater keeps repeating that “Dirty Politics” was just a plot to silence him. He tweeted about it yesterday:

it’s a slogan designed to try to shut up opponents, and its not working

A slogan like “Politics is mean, it is dirty, it is often like wrestling with pigs and more importantly nice guys finish last”? (from Why the saying “play the ball not the man” is gay)

that isn’t a slogan, it is the truth

Apart from the obvious irony about trying to shut up opponents Slater also contradicts himself. He plays mean, he plays dirty, but if someone tries anything similar against him it’s unfair.

There’s another garbled post by Slater today – In times of trouble you find out who your real friends are, often they are the ‘enemy’.

What was most interesting about ‘Dirty Politics’ was most of my calls for support and checking on my health and well beings while under the cosh from a politically motivated criminal conspiracy were from members of the opposition.

The ones who have previously curried favour, sucked up and generally used my acquaintance were nowhere to be seen and still aren’t.

More interesting was the lack of support from those who had built their careers off the back of my tips, sources and accurate information. Watching them scuttle and lie to defend themselves has been amusing. Unfortunately for them one must tell the truth to inquiries and more importantly provide evidence, there really is no hiding from the evidence.

That said I have been very and pleasantly surprised by those who rallied for support, often despite being political foes, and those who cut and run.

I will remember that support in coming years.

He seems to be wallowing and floundering.

Reading between the lines it sounds like MPs may have been warned that continued relationships with Slater may have a negative impact on political prospects, and some of his business has subsequently dried up. Vague threats are unlikely to reverse that.

And comments on Whale Oil indicate that Slater is losing the support of those who remain able to post there. This in General Debate today from ‘la la land’:

I have mulled over the latest posts etc this weekend and have come to the decision that I don’t want to stick around to watch Cameron go after John Key like he did Dotcom. John Key is our Prime Minister not some German crook and I for one still rate him. If it goes badly for him further down the track well that’s that but I don’t want to be a part of bringing him down. I have really enjoyed reading this blog and all your comments. Thanks and goodbye.

It is significant that this has so far received 30 positive ticks. It was responded to by yet another lengthy defence by moderator Pete Belt which received some replies:

The decision to put Key under some scrutiny was taken before the election. As a blog, we wouldn’t be honest with ourselves and our audience if we continued to artificially suppress what we want to talk about. We did so to get past an election. That’s pragmatic enough. But we’re not a National Party mouthpiece. In spite of many rumours to the contrary, we neither receive money nor do we work for them. At times the National Party and Whaleoil’s aims align. At that point, it looks like we’re working together. Funny that.

To Jason Ede’s eternal frustration, he couldn’t control a bloody thing about Whaleoil. All he could do was make us aware of certain stories in the media or perhaps a poll that was coming up – that sort of thing – and we would pick and choose what we were interested in.

(Now there is a shocking revelation!)

The alternative is to end up at a point where it all comes out anyway (as it will), and people will look to us and go “well, you kept THAT quiet, haven’t you?”

If you’re scared of the truth, then perhaps it’s better to go hide. John Key isn’t a saint. He’s a good bloke, but he can do with a bit of scrutiny. I honestly don’t see why we should pretend he poops diamonds to keep people like you in your comfort zone.

Nobody cringed when we get stuck into Hekia Parata or Murray McCulley, but somehow John Key is untouchable?

No way. Not on this blog.

kiwibattler:

As long as any questioning of John Key is done in a manner that doesn’t appear just plain vindictive then I think most readers of the blog welcome some insight into the inner workings/ possible issues within the National party. No one is exempt from informed criticism.
With Cam’s connection to Judith Collins it all comes down to how this criticism of Key is delivered.

Mrs_R

Criticism of Parata and McCulley didn’t raise eyebrows because it was justified based on their performance. I would expect very few here would complain if negative revelations concerning JK were brought to light if they were factual and truthful. The real concern is that if it is only a smear campaign without substance, then many will see it for what it is and make a decision accordingly.

Pete Belt:

How can they not be factual and truthful? This is the same problem the left have with this concept.

Factual and truthful = things you agree with
Smears = things you don’t agree with, yet still factual and truthful

This was all triggered by a post on Saturday – Beware the cult of personality, and the legacy they leave – addressing criticism of John Key.

Apparently my audience will be affected negatively by criticising John Key. He also is the saviour of the National party and without him National would be stuffed.

Ignore the fact that he shamelessly used one of my private emails to conduct a personal hit on a friend, and ignore the fact that he thinks I should just accept it as “mo hard hard feelings”. I say ignore those because they have absolutely no bearing on my criticism of John Key.

I criticise him because I am alarmed that National is falling into the same traps that Helen Clark fell into.

The trap of creating a cult of personality.

A number of vague claims were made:

Caucus meetings have become tedious and one way traffic. I know this because many caucus members are whining about it and if they are whining about it in the open then there is a problem. Caucus meetings are a forum to debate issues but have actually become a lecture from the throne with Steven Joyce or Bill English deputising. Many members of caucus wonder why they even bother turning up now.

Anyone who speaks against the utterings of John Key or even offers a slightly contrarian opinion is usually sent a message…from someone senior…and told how their career could be in jeopardy if they continue.

“Many caucus members”, “anyone who speaks against” – all vague and unsubstantiated.

Some caucus members have received calls from Bill English and told to get new friends. These are all the hallmarks of a caucus under the thumb of a dictator, one who will brook no nonsense and has his stasi member enforcing discipline when none is needed.

Again the irony considering Slater’s approach to quashing disagreeable voices at Whale Oil along with the help of his helpers “enforcing discipline”.

Caucus members shouldn’t need to be advised by Bill English to “get new friends”. They should have already figured out that being too closely involved with Slater is not good for their political future.

And if it hasn’t dawned on them yet it will when he does the dirty on them if he thinks he’s being hung out to dry. Vindictness and utu are just more strings to Slater’s “”Politics is mean, it is dirty” bow.

Slater has been innovative, ground breaking and in some ways very successful with his political campaigning and his blogging.

But he has stomped on too many toes. For someone who claims to be so politically astute it’s surprising to see him sound so bewildered now he is getting the boot.

As he inevitably continues to lash out it is likely the backlash against his brand of dirty politics continues.

Leave a comment

62 Comments

  1. IGM

     /  20th October 2014

    Cameron’s failing is that he takes some comments as personal slights on his integrity. I am another of those banned from his site, by one of his staff, and I am actually pleased, as he has become, like Collins and Williamson, excess baggage.

    Reply
  2. I got banned from the Whale for daring to write a comment about Cameron Slaters beloved Judith Collins yesterday. Slater and his Mods are all very trigger happy with the ban button. The Whale Oil website is fast becoming a Ghost Town. LOL.

    Reply
  3. Politics is supposed to be a contest of ideas.. BUT it seems some believe its more about “I’m always RIGHT & everyone who disagrees is wrong (or maybe left ?)”
    I don’t waste my time with such nonsense…..

    Reply
  4. Budgieboy

     /  21st October 2014

    Interesting that you picked up on reader pushback over the weekend, I noticed it as well and also witnessed something that I once thought was only the stuff of The Standard, many (not all) comments that didn’t toe the party line were deleted. Of course Pete justifies any deletion (and ban) he wants under his highly subjective ‘rules’. (And if you are looking for a dictionary definition of ‘inconsistent’ then look no further than the way Pete applys his rules)

    Pete seems to have been annointed as some kind of Prince Regent that acts with the absolute authority of the King (WO) I can only wonder if WO always knows what Prince Pete is doing in his name. I saw WO answer someone only for the comment he answered to later dissappear – I doubt that he personally would both address a comment and then delete it leaving his own answer hanging against nothing, I suspect the deletion was the work of the pompous prince but who knows?

    Other comments I saw dissappear were from guys like Grumpy who has been a part of that place for ages. The comments were NOT anti WO, they seemed to me to make fair points specifically on the impact of the attitude of Pete to readers and their comments, they also got significant up votes and seemed to resonate with the readers. Grumpy does not appear to have commented since.

    At some stage yesterday posts that are usually attributed to Pete were changed to ‘Whale Oil Staff’ and Pete himself was pretty quiet during the day. It remains to be seen whether that means anything at all but I do hope someone is reigning him in a bit as he’s doing that site no good at all. I think he’s taken a lot of credit for blog growth that was much more about the work of WO and the 2014 election, now that the dust has settled his true value may become apparent.

    I wouldn’t worry about WO, the kind of posts he wrote over the weekend are consistent with what he’s always written and because most people regardless of whether they love/hate him or agree/disagree with him do actually ‘get him’ and his contribution. He’s more than proved he’s prepared to live or die by his written words and more often than not he comes out on the right side of things.

    Disclosure: Yep, I’ve been permanently banned as well.

    Reply
    • kathy maddren

       /  21st October 2014

      Hi Budgie Boy. The blog posts that Pete has written over the past week or so, have been very illuminating. My impression has been that he thinks his own shit don’t stink. We are watching the Whale dying in real time, and it is a sad sight indeed. The fact that the Whale is allowed to criticise John Key, but if a reader makes a comment about Judith Collins, they get banned, speaks volumes about the current management of Whale Oil.

      Reply
    • grumpy

       /  21st October 2014

      Grumpy got a permanent ban.

      Reply
      • kathy maddren

         /  21st October 2014

        Welcome to the biggest fastest growing club in town Grumpy =)

        Reply
        • grumpy

           /  21st October 2014

          My pleasure……….there is certainly something very strange going on over there. Almost like lprent at The Standard scored a job there under the assumed name “pete” and is destroying it from the inside.

          Reply
    • Yeah I also got hit by the ban hammer and it didn’t hurt. Reason – leaving a comment which was deemed ‘low calorie’, then disagreeing with Pete who asked if it added value. I said it did; evidently being able to justify something isn’t a good idea. (From the commenter once known as OhopeBeach Buoy).

      Reply
      • kathy maddren

         /  21st October 2014

        Welcome to the biggest fastest growing club in town OBB =)
        I was also known as “snoop” …

        Reply
        • Ha. Real oppo for Pete George here. Appreciated his input on WO before he too got ban hammered.

          Reply
        • grumpy

           /  21st October 2014

          Wow! Anyone who’s anyone is here!

          Reply
        • Sponge

           /  21st October 2014

          Good afternoon all….

          Reply
        • grumpy

           /  21st October 2014

          Sponge! I think you got canned at the same time as me.

          Reply
        • Sponge

           /  21st October 2014

          I am not sure if I got the boot or not but it does not really matter as when the thread that you were posting in and I had responded to (which in no way broke any rules that I could tell) got deleted it was enough for me. It’s a real shame about what has happened to WO but c’est la vie. If they want it to be like the Standard and DB then that is their choice.

          Reply
        • grumpy

           /  21st October 2014

          Someone somewhere mentioned “sociopath”, I wiki’d it and they weren’t far wrong.

          Reply
  5. Brown

     /  21st October 2014

    See, market forces at work. Great.

    Reply
  6. YaBoShanks

     /  21st October 2014

    The WO moderation policy is killing off the site.

    I’m not banned, but have had a few posts removed. As far as I was aware, I was following the rules. The effect is that you lose interest. It’s like someone telling you to shut up. Okay then, perhaps I’ll visit somewhere else.

    The silly decision to go after Key demonstrates he doesn’t seem to know who his audience is, and he risks becoming some minor activist backlot, like The Standard. Purity, yes, but relevance? Essentially zero.

    The audience is the site. The publishers are really just guides for conversation.

    Reply
  7. Magoo

     /  21st October 2014

    The sheer hubris and arrogance of Cameron and the moderators turns me off the place now. One of the posts over the weekend was to the effect of “we could have chosen to change the government but decided not to”. What a load of old cobblers. I think the increase in publicity and visits due to “dirty politics” has gone to their heads.

    I will still go and have a quick look every day in case there is something interesting posted but will not be posting myself. YaBoShanks has it right that the site is the audience and I think they are pushing people away by their actions and I think the significantly lower number of people posting proves this point.

    Reply
    • Pete Belt is back commenting on Whale Oil Back Chat. As well as Jude and her many other usual suspects. Lots of new user names have seemingly just “sprung out of nowhere”. The Whale is desperately trying to keep up false appearances.

      Reply
  8. Interesting observations; I note that WO content of late is somewhat light, possibly confirming your theory that the well has run a bit dry.

    Reply
  9. kathy maddren

     /  21st October 2014

    Was Pete George known on Whale Oil as “Pete” with a St George Flag as his profile picture ?

    Reply
    • No, Pete was Pete George IIRC and got banned ages ago. That’s another Pete (They’re everywhere).

      Reply
      • kathy maddren

         /  21st October 2014

        I think Pete George is about to have a big readership growth surge. Hope he has room for everyone that’s coming. LOL. I am just trying to figure out how the yournz website works. I went to say hello to Spongie, but there was no reply box for me to click onto. Do I need to hold my head or mouth in a certain way =)

        Reply
  10. Havesome morepork

     /  21st October 2014

    Also banned. Sadly Pete albeit probably a nice guy in real life has drunk the blog invincibility koolaid.

    Reply
    • I thought that Pete Belt was a good bloke from the 15th to 27th July 2014. Then he made me change my mind. I have screen shots and his emails to prove it. Spoke to Slater on the phone a few weeks ago. He supported his Whale Oil Staff Members. Cameron Slater does not give a rats about his readers. He employed Pete Belt for a specific purpose. There is so much going on behind the scenes that Whale readers have no idea about.

      Reply
  11. duperez

     /  21st October 2014

    What I posted to draw a ban was ostensibly a short, mild and (I thought) witty observation. The reaction was like petrol and fire. BANG! GONE! That day there must’ve been one hell of a lot of sensitivity around the place. I hope their cats and kids hid when they got home for if what I wrote to draw such ire, they would’ve been in for something dire.

    Reply
  12. I am seeing so many familiar names. Makes me realise just how many people Pete has axed over the past few months. Wonder if he has been given the axe by Slater. Or only sat down on the naughty step for a while.

    Reply
  13. Pete Belt is still well and truely the Mod in Charge at the Whale. So are user names “jude” and “Platinum Fox” (amongst many others). Slater is an idiot. He left private private emails and info on his servers for nearly 10 years without transferring it to a safer form of storage, which allowed his records to be hacked. Plus, he thinks that Jude is the Virgin Mary. And he chose to hire employees, who have caused a drastic demise of Whale Oil. Cameron Slater is the definition of Idiot in the Collins English Dictionary

    Reply
  14. Grumpy

     /  21st October 2014

    What you see on WO is what he wants you to see. Do not trust “names”, many are his own aliases. The echo chamber is truly scary. Does anyone here actually know what they were banned for?

    Reply
    • Pete told me why I was banned. When I pointed out that he was wrong (it was an error or a false claim) both he and WO said too bad, I was banned anyway.
      What I had posted happened to be a detailed argument that proposed a different view to WO
      I commented on their comment crackdown in August – https://yournz.org/2014/08/14/comment-crackdown-at-whale-oil/
      – ironically Pete said “spmehow people have stopped applying self control”. He also said that amongst many other things saying “I agree” was a ban-able offence”.

      Reply
    • kathymaddren

       /  22nd October 2014

      I am pretty sure that I was banned for having a good sense of humour =)

      Reply
  15. Mr_V4

     /  22nd October 2014

    LOL. It seems if you can make a structured argument or express a contrarian view on a subject that disagrees with WO or sidekick Pete out comes the ban hammer. The thing is they aren’t self-aware enough to realise that without these viewpoints there is nothing but arselicking in the comments.
    I expect the site to die a natural death, especially as people are tired of the character assasinations and petty boycotts. At one stage both Progressive and Foodstuffs were under WO boycotts, but pointing the ridiculousness of this out given the ownership structure of the NZ food market earned a ban.

    Reply
    • “Nothing but arse licking in the comments”. LOL. There are heaps of them in there, but the arse licker that annoyed me the most, was that “Wendy”.

      Reply
  16. YaBoShanks

     /  22nd October 2014

    Yes, the constant arse licking is why I don’t visit much anymore. It’s too much like The Standard.

    The moderation job seems to have gone completely to the poor fellows head, and he’s acting like some z-list celeb. That site has reached its high water mark, and the long tide is slowly but surely pulling out.

    Reply
  17. Cowgirl

     /  22nd October 2014

    Having been on the receiving end of a non-permanent ban myself, I agree with many of the comments here re the moderation policy. My banning (subsequently overturned) was for “low calorie” comments. On reflection I guess I can see how much of what I wrote could have been perceived that way, but I do think the moderation policy is VERY subjective and that fact that some people can receive many, many warnings and others none, makes it nigh on impossible at times to know that you are transgressing just as much as others around you. I have seen many receive numerous warnings and then carry on, and others disappear without trace for minor transgressions. It’s very hard to stay abreast when the goalposts seem to be constantly shifting. Fortunately that attitude seems to be changing a bit since the election madness (also the numbers are dropping I’d wager), but if others are anything like me, they’re a little gun-shy now. My comments have nearly died off completely – a little because I don’t want to get banned again, but largely since I’ve lost quite a bit of interest since the election, and with the lack of any major developments in the news these days.

    I do think it’s a great community still, it’s just a shame that so many good people got the arsecard, and are only allowed to really express themselves via the GD threads. Although that being said, I did have a comment deleted from one of those a few weeks back which I thought was pretty uncool. I hope this is not the death of the site, but I fear it will hurt them. Many have said that they go to the site for the commenters as much as the stories. Alienate your audience, and it will be the end of it.

    Reply
    • kathymaddren

       /  22nd October 2014

      A very well written comment Cowgirl 🙂

      Now all you have to do, is be brave enough to cut and paste it onto the Whales Back Chat tonight.

      I double dare ya Cowgirl … LOL

      Reply
      • Cowgirl

         /  22nd October 2014

        Haha – I don’t think so. I’m trying NOT to get kicked off again.

        Reply
        • kathymaddren

           /  22nd October 2014

          If Pete Belt finds out you have been commenting in here, then he will probably ban you anyway Cowgirl. You are probably living on borrowed time. Best you get back there quick, and write as many comments as you can before he pulls the plug on you. LOL.

          Reply
    • Sponge

       /  22nd October 2014

      It was a great community but the attitude towards the posters and the over the top moderation is what has turned me away.

      I am usually more interested in the comments than the original posts and as Mr_V4 has noted above it has now got to the stage where the comments are nearly all arse licking (and I agree that “Wendy” is appalling for it).

      What was once a great forum for robust debate is now just a cheer leading squad for Camerons views. His blog/his choice how he runs it of course but it is a shame.

      On the upside I will get more work done now that I only have a look a few times a day.

      Reply
      • Cowgirl

         /  22nd October 2014

        Yeah sometimes the attitude towards the commenters is quite harsh. Even when you politely asked what you did wrong, the response was quite abrupt. It grated a bit too to see banned people getting slagged off for “thinking they were bigger than the blog etc” and not having a way of answering. Other commenters getting all full of themselves and joining in on the slagging, grated too. They think it won’t happen to them, but no one is infallible, and with rules that arbitrary and inconsistently applied, it’s bound to happen sooner or later. In my case, it was a genuine cock-up brought on by being dragged into banter off-topic. I had stopped replying to the other commenter, but should have redacted comments as the mods pinged me later for it.

        I realise there are a lot of people who just read the site and don’t comment, and it should be quality over quantity, but the attitude has turned many off commenting, will turn others off in the future, and then those that come for the comments will go too.

        Reply
        • The problem I have with the Whale Oil Moderators, is that they allow certain commenter’s to get away with things like swearing and rudeness time after time, but other commenter’s are banned immediately for exactly the same offence.

          One of those is “jude”, who seems to be on very close friendly terms with Travis and Pete, because they have always had long banter back and forth between each other, which has always struck me as odd.

          I am not saying that “jude” is one of Judith Collins Whale Oil user names, but I did notice ages ago that there are a lot of similarities between Judith Collins punctuation on her twitter account posts and “judes” whale oil comments.

          From my own personal view point, there is no way that I could cope with wearing the “Commenting Strait Jacket” like you have chosen to do CowGirl, because that would be like selling my soul to the devil, and I would choose never to write another word in my life, rather than live in a constant state of fear and anxiety, worrying that I might not be able to line up my comment well enough to kick it through Peter Belts constantly shifting goal posts.

          Shortly before I was banned the other day, in the post that Pete George referred to above, Cameron Slater replied to one of my comments. He told me to go and start up my own blog. (I managed to take a screen shot of it before Peter Belt got to hit his ban and delete buttons).

          Mr Slater may get his wish, because the way things are going over at the Whale, it looks like there is a vacancy for a Right Wing blogger, who is loyal to John Key and the National Party, who isn’t carrying Judith Collins tired old baggage.

          Reply
          • “Commenting Strait Jacket” is one reason why I choose not the comment at The Standard (when I’m not on a ban) – never being sure when lprent will strike and for what while his wee mob have unrestricted free hits and campaigns of harrassment.

            On the other hand I do sometimes do choose to comment there or elsewhere as much to not be harrassed off.

            Reply
          • Mike – starting a blog is fairly easy. Keeping it going and building it up is time consuming and requires patience and commitment.

            If anyone is interested in trying it out here I’m always wiling to consider guest posts, or if you want to try something more regular as an author. Or if you start your own blog I’m happy to give advice and interlink. Links help in building interest and traffic, some blogs don’t like it but I like to encourage wider involvement.

            If anyone wants to have a go here I don’t care where in the spectrum your interests are. The wider range of views the better, as long as there is respect for others having different views and appropriate levels of civility (non abusive) – debate can be robust without being nasty.

            If anyone’s interested in helping broaden the scope and input here email me – petedgeorge@gmail.com

            Reply
          • Cowgirl

             /  22nd October 2014

            I doubt very much that ‘Jude’ is Judith Collins – she is a commenter I first saw and spoke to at TV3 before she made her way to WhaleOil because she (like me) preferred the company there. She also had a very long trip to Europe earlier this year that she posted a lot about (and photos). I don’t recall Judith Collins being out of the country at that time. ‘Jude’ was threatened with banning at the same time I copped it. She was warned and then took a few days off from the blog to have a breather. Now she is like me – mostly commenting in the threads where we can chat more. She is a “chatterer” and does that a lot – that’s why she was threatened with banning. I have not noticed that she does that with Pete or Trav more than anyone else, but maybe she does on occasion.

            As for the “straitjacket”, it’s true I have cut back a lot. It’s not necessarily a bad thing (and even so I have still had a couple of posts deleted), and I am much more conscious of only commenting when I have a particular point to make. If it’s covered by someone else, or has little value, I now just confine myself to upvoting the others a lot. I don’t live in fear and anxiety over it. I just try to be more prudent than I was. When I got banned, life went on and I didn’t die. If I got banned again from commenting, I doubt it would touch the sides this time either.

            I understand people get bent out of shape because they view Cam Slater’s “disloyalty” to Key rather discomforting. I think CS feels he has to prove a point about considered Key’s lapdog by some, and I think he is trying to prove that he isn’t by any means necessary. And yeah, he is loyal to Collins as a friend should be – this may be clouding his judgement a bit, but loyalty to a friend is a commendable quality. Unfortunately in the game of politics, being emotional about something doesn’t always serve us very well. The fact he has left any “attacks” on Key until after the election, shows that he put a National win first – he wasn’t disloyal on this. It is important too that blogs don’t become echo-chambers of people with all the same opinion, so some criticism will be warranted I’m sure. Key is good, but he’s not perfect and he’s stuffed up a bit recently. CS is also right to feel a bit aggrieved about being used the way he has been. Key is still the best PM, but I don’t think it’s disloyal to keep him on his toes. CS should probably drop the vendetta and shake off the Collins thing a bit more – it does no good to dwell on it – but that’s for him to work out for himself in time. I just hope he can rein himself in and not let his emotions get the best of him. We should all be enjoying the Labour sideshow, not fighting each other.

            Reply
            • Sponge

               /  22nd October 2014

              I have no problem whatsoever with him getting stuck into JK. I also have no issue with Cameron’s unwavering support for JC (I believe in sticking by friends) as you can filter the content knowing his views.

              I just dislike the manner in which commenters are now treated. Despite what they say the comments and community are a massive part of that site and it is much the poorer for driving good people away.

              I believe that they have gotten carried away with their own importance since the “dirty politics” issue and it does not make for an enjoyable place to visit as a result. Some of the posts in the last few weeks have been staggering in their vanity.

              As they keep saying at WO if you don’t like it go elsewhere – so I have.

            • Cowgirl

               /  22nd October 2014

              I think they may be coming a bit to that realisation. They are not moderating as hard, and Pete has run amnesties and been bemoaning the fact so many good people copped it. It’s too late for some who will refuse to return, and I’ve always thought their moderation policy is a bit too strict/final, but they get to do what they want I guess. Yes some of the posts are a bit pompous and arrogant sounding – starting to believe a bit of their own press I think.

            • “Pete has run amnesties and been bemoaning the fact so many good people copped it”

              That’s a bit stable door shutting after many have bolted. I wasn’t aware there were any amnesties but I read comments there far less now, no point when you can’t comment.

              The number of comments seem to have dropped a lot. That was always likely post-election but it will be interesting to see Open Parachute over the next couple of months.

              Advertising seems to be getting more and more intrusive, it’s often hard to see what’s post and what’s advertising.

            • Yes, Peter Belt ran his first “Amnesty Lottery” in a Friday night Back Chat post about a month ago, when Travis was away shooting fish in Tauranga. Peter offers a review of their banning to the first five desperate begging contestants who email him. LOL.

            • Cowgirl

               /  23rd October 2014

              Sure, but there are plenty of people who do still read it that have taken advantage of the ‘amnesty’ situation. Some will always consider it beneath them to ask for commenting rights back, and some will refuse to read any more out of principle. I found it frustrating not being able to comment, but I still learn a lot from other commenters, so I still do read the comments, but not quite as avidly as I did before. I will be interested in knowing what their readership is at in the next lot of stats.

  18. “Jude” only posted photos and comments about things like buildings and donkeys and Waiters and English men.

    I pretended to be living in Spain about 5 years ago.

    Fooled my ex husband.

    But I never left New Zealand CowGirl 🙂

    Reply
    • Phil Wild

       /  22nd October 2014

      Well Jude is a loyal Hurricanes and Wellington rugby supporter and goes to the cake tin. I am not sure any Auckland J.C parliamentarian would want that to be on her C.V.

      Reply
    • Cowgirl

       /  22nd October 2014

      Not sure Judith would bother commenting on TV3 though – she spent a bit of time on there before discovering WO. I had had conversations with her there and I do all the time on WO (in fact I’m having one with her now about Renee Zellwegger). I’d be thrilled if it was JC, but I don’t think I could get that lucky.

      Reply
      • To her credit Judith Collins is one of the very few National MPs who took the time to respond to emailed questions and provide requested information (no OIA required).

        Reply
  19. I got banned after a couple of postings which I appreciated because reading that bile cannot be good for ones mental health, let alone writing it. And spending an inordinate amount of time seated in front of the computer is not good to how one looks. Bloated, wan and oily. I prefer to participate in a more genial sort of society, a place that the people are nice to each other, where real human contact is made and where things are real and not imagined. I think that Slater needs to get out more.
    Disclaimer: I have been banned from them all, mostly by seeing how far I can push it, Farrar is by far the most tolerant, but when he looses his rag, you are gone! But he does let you back.(pussy)

    Reply
  20. benny

     /  24th October 2014

    pretty funny to see all these self important former whaleoil commentators bemoaning their status.
    A couple of months ago Slater was your messiah.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  24th October 2014

      LOL. Speak for yourself “Benny”.

      Slater thinks he’s the “MSM Messiah”.

      I always knew he was flawed and fallible.

      Reply
    • kathy maddren

       /  24th October 2014

      What name do you use at the Whale ?

      Reply
  21. Mike C

     /  24th October 2014

    Anybody else noticed that Whale Oil has a deal with Flash Player, and are advertising via twitter for staff and a building.

    Reply
  1. Dirty politics aftermath: Slater « The Standard The Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s