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?

Leave a comment

21 Comments

  1. As Cam alwayz sez..........

     /  1st August 2015

    .David ‘tainted’ Fisher

    LOL!!

    Reply
  2. traveller

     /  1st August 2015

    Fisher sits front, left and centre of every attempt at destabilizing the Key coalition government. I’ve never seen any reporting he has done with negative connotations for Labour that is remotely penetrating. Happy to be shown otherwise.

    Reply
  3. Missy

     /  1st August 2015

    I am no fan of the media in NZ, and especially no fan of David Fisher, but Cam Slater has it in for him & the herald and sees any small error as deliberate – it shows a high level of paranoia.

    As the saying goes “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” – in this case I think it is just stupidity, or rather incompetence, not malice.

    Reply
    • Highway to Hell

       /  1st August 2015

      Hopefully Missy, I can use you as a referee on Judgement Day. If I can present crap like this at the Pearly Gates, even,Christ might be impressed .:)

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  1st August 2015

        hahaha…. I am not sure I will be much use on Judgement Day, I am constantly being told I am heading for warmer climes then…. 😉

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  1st August 2015

          Then, of course, there is the ghastly combination of malice and stupidity. We probably all know examples of this (like the wife whose distinctive droning voice on an anonymous lying phonecall telling someone that his wife was committing adultery with X (her husband) made it obvious who it was). A stupid and malicious person is an abomination.

          Reply
  4. Karen

     /  1st August 2015

    I’m with Mr Slater on this. Fisher dishonesty represented Slaters position although I can’t work out why, probably just didn’t want to let him have a positive moment in the New Zealand Herald. Whatever his motivation was you can be sure getting a truthful reporting of the facts was way down the list.

    When you read of things like this and the latest Lauda Finem piece you really have to wonder how rotten that newspaper has really become.

    Sorry PG I know LF seem to have a bee in their bonnet with you at the moment, something that dissapoints and confuses me.

    Reply
    • They seem to mix good with terrible Karen, which detracts from the good and raises some credibility issues on some of their claims.

      Reply
    • Missy

       /  1st August 2015

      Actually, I am more inclined to think the story was written, Fisher wasn’t going to ask for a comment, but was then told he had to, so sent the email, but the story went up before getting a response.

      Whilst Cam was happy to show the time of David Fisher’s email (9 minutes prior to the story going up), he didn’t show the time of his response, which makes me think that at the time the story was published they hadn’t received a response from him. The story was edited when they got his response.

      In my opinion it is essentially incompetence and the rush to get the story out as soon as possible, rather than deliberate malice. Though leaving it so late to ask for a response is not a good look, I don’t think what he wrote about no response was deliberate dishonesty if a reply had not been received at the time the story was published.

      Reply
      • Dave

         /  2nd August 2015

        I don’t think it matters what time slater replied, what if he had just left the office to go for a walk or had need at the gym or any number if a thousand other things? To me, it comes down to, was the intent to solicit a reply from Slater or just hit Publish without giving CS a chance. My thoughts on that, there is no way in hell The Tainted Gurnard was giving CS any chance of a response, he hates Cam with a passion. And, secondly, if there was intent did he allow a reasonable time for a response and advise what time he needed it by, also did he try follow up Comms? A phone call? No, he had no intention of contacting Cam at all!

        Let’s not forget this is the same bitter tainted repeater who had his twitter account taken off him after his attacks on CS and others, the account was handed to an underling to manage, then the Booing at (from memory) the Canon awards and his boss (Curry) Apologized to CS on his behalf!

        He is a bitter and twisted individual who knows CS has the details and will do anything for shot at CS. Biggest shame is his new boss is such a supreme lefty and the rest of the Herald team he works with are almost as bad as him, oh, Nipperts worse! Time granny had a spring clean! (Or a winter clean out in time for spring)

        Reply
        • Shagger

           /  2nd August 2015

          And the NZH wants to go paywall- good luck with that !!
          From Reed & Curry all the way down its full of corpses masquerading as journalists

          Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  1st August 2015

    Before Kittycat gets here can I point out the article still has a grammatical howler in using “wrong” where it needs the adverb “wrongly”. Illiterate journalism.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  1st August 2015

      @AlanW

      I have always suspected that you might be an Internet Blogging Grammar Police Staff Member. LOL.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  1st August 2015

        I usually resist but given the Schadenfreude of the article snarking at the police I made an exception.

        Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  1st August 2015

      Meow !!!!

      Adjectives used as adverbs (shudders)

      I can’t understand why people who do this can’t use the adverb-how can they not see why it’s wrong ?.

      Reply
  6. FarmerPete

     /  1st August 2015

    I can’t accept that this is sloppy. Matters of opinion can be wrong and we can accept that. Knowingly submitting an article with a factually incorrect statement attributed to another party (i.e. a lie) is something else, and that is totally unprofessional and unacceptable. I am no Slater fanboy (the reverse actually) but I think he is right on this. If I was the Editor I would be ripping into Fisher and giving him a formal warning.
    I would not have accepted this standard from any of my professional staff.
    Very poor all round.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  1st August 2015

      @Farmer

      Fisher seems to be allowed to get away with writing anything he likes … whether it is true or not.

      There are no Checks and Balances at the Herald, which is one of the main reasons that the paper is going down the dunny.

      Reply
    • Missy

       /  1st August 2015

      Ah, but was the article factually incorrect at the time of submission? Cam Slater has not included the time of his reply to David Fisher in his post, which means that when the article was published there is the possibility that Cam Slater had not responded, so therefore stating no comment from Slater was factually incorrect. I remain sceptical on this until I see evidence from Cam Slater that his response was provided to David Fisher prior to publication.

      It was certainly unethical of Fisher to leave it so late to request a response, and he possibly did that with malicious intent, but I maintain that there is doubt that the part about Slater not commenting was a deliberate lie. As for the bit that Slater maintains he did nothing wrong – that i on record, and has been through all of this, so that part is factually correct, if not received yesterday in a statement. Yes, that part of the article is written in a misleading way, and Fisher should have been clearer in his writing, but it does not mean it was a premeditated manufactured lie to try and get at Slater.

      This is the problem with rolling news, the internet and journalism, media organisations are so quick to try and get their story up first on the internet that often there is sloppiness in the editorial process, and they lack some context and comment due to not waiting for responses, and that is what I think happened here.

      And now I will wait for the downticks from those that think I am being too generous to David Fisher. 🙂

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  1st August 2015

        @Missy

        I don’t trust Slater OR Fisher, because they both stretch the truth and tell porkies to manipulate their readers.

        If I had to choose between them, I would either have to toss a coin or abstain from voting. LOL.

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  1st August 2015

          Fair call Mike, agree to a point. My opinion on this is based on the evidence supplied, and the potential for stupidity on the NZ Herald’s part. 🙂

          Reply
  7. kittycatkin

     /  1st August 2015

    I can see why spelling errors (apart frmo obvious tyops that do not make any real difference to teh report or whatever it is) can be claimed to make the document invalid. One could claim that a year of birth being transposed-1956 to 1965-meant a real doubt as to whether this was the person accused, or whatever the document is doing. Also, to write Thompson for Thomson could make a difference from a legal viewpoint-says the legal expert (ahem).

    Reply

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