Slater responds to pay for silence accusation

In a panel discussion on RadioLive today Michelle Boag explained how on a certain blog you could pay $300 per promotional post and you could also pay not to be posted about.

Here is the transcript of that segment: Boag on paying not to be mentioned on a blog

Transcript of the follow-up interview, Shaun Plunket with Cameron Slater:

Shaun Plunket: During the course of the Friday panel this morning Michele Boag made the very clear suggestion that one blog site…Michelle Boag suggested that there is a well known blog site which you can pay through an intermediary to never be mentioned on…

That’s not how Boag put it.

…as well as being paid to be mentioned on or perhaps have nasty things said about your commercial or political opponents. You can actually pay this blog site not to be mentioned by the blog site.

And the blog site she confirmed that she was talking about was Whale Oil Beef Hooked and that is run, well The Boss he’s described as. Whale Oil Be Hooked is Cam Slater, and i thought rather than muck around and seek affidavits we’d just talk to Cam Slater direct and try and sort this out.

Look, what do you say. Essentially the information we have is that people pay you or can pay you via Carrick Graham to not appear on your website, on your blog. Is that true?

Slater: Well Michelle Boag is just a bitter old bag really…

Plunket: No No that wasn’t my question. Didn’t ask your opinion on Michelle Boag.

Slater: The answer is categorically no.

That’s no, I don’t receive any money from anybody to not be mentioned on the site. That’s just a, she’s got no evidence to support that, and if I was a sooky pants who was prone to conniptions and rushing off to lawyers then she’d be in trouble.

I’m not. She just wants to have a slag at me and that’s fine, she can be like that, she can purse her lips and ah roll her eyes and show her nasty side to herself all she likes. It says more about her than it does about me.

Plunket: Ok. And does Carrick Graham in any way work for you as a marketer or you know an intermediary?

Slater: I don’t discuss anything to do with how I operate um ah, my business or what I do…

Plunket: So Carrick Graham is part of your business.

Slater: Carrick Graham’s a mate of mine. We’ve known each other for many many years, it goes back to when he was even before he was dating my sister so you know we’ve got a long association, we’re bloody good mates, and ah and that’s essentially the basis of it.

Answer avoided.

But it’s a little bit sanctimonious of all these media organisations to point their fingers at me when they’re running native advertising, charging PR companies for putting product placement and all those sorts of things. You know I don’t really care what anyone says…

Plunket: Ok but you are saying today, absolutely categorically that you cannot pay, well you can obviously pay to be mentioned on your website right, you do admit you do that right?

Slater: Well just like every other media organisation in the country.

Excluding most if not all other blogs. And some other media organisations might argue that they don’t do paid political promotions presented as blog posts/articles like Slater does.

Plunket: Right. Ok, but you don’t disclose it always, they’re paying you. But you say that you do not like run a protection racket whereas I will not be nasty to you on Whale Oil if you pay me some money every month?

There’s a bit of wiggle room there.

Slater: That that, you know, that would be if I like I said if I was a person who was a sooky pants and ran off to lawyers that would be a highly defamatory comment. But I’m not like that. These are the slings and arrows…

Pluinket: So that’s a no. I just want to check, so that’s a no.

Slater:  Absolutely it’s a no. You can’t pay me to shut up.

Plunket: Alright Cam, I will I accept that you have answered the call, you picked up the phone, you’ve answered the one question I wanted to put to you and you’ve answered it in the negative. And I would hate to besmirch your reputation further by paying this any more attention, this scurrilous accusation.

Slater: Well you know Michelle will hurl these things out there. That’s her business. She just looks like she’s incredibly focussed and still living in the battles of the nineties.

An odd close to a not very probing interview. In response to an oddly vague accusation from Michele Boag.

Boag Audio: Are Kiwi bloggers taking payment to stay silent?

Follow-up audio: Cameron Slater denies Michelle Boag’s claim he takes payment for silence

21 Comments

  1. Rancid Mutton

     /  21st August 2015

    And have a listen to Mark Sainsbury, (filling in for Garner), talking to Slater this arvo.

    Poor old Michelle cops it again – with both barrels 🙂

  2. Pete Kane

     /  22nd August 2015

    The Sainsbury Slater interview Friday 21/06/15 – 4.07PM starts about 12 mins in – scroll along.
    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio.aspx

    Also posted is some further ‘background’ to their animosity with this Boag/Sainsbury/Hooten/ Williams interview last year at the height of the Dirty Politics scandal.

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Fiery-weekend-political-panel-hosted-by-Mark-Sainsbury/tabid/506/articleID/53685/Default.aspx

  3. Kevin

     /  22nd August 2015

    A few comments on TS: http://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-21082015/#comment-1061402. No prizes for guessing what side they take.

    • jamie

       /  22nd August 2015

      How would they take a side between Boag and Slater though? Both are National Party / right wing people and The Standard are predominantly Labour Party / left wing people.

      • The Standard motto is “Anyone but Slater!!!!!”……. it would be awesome to have Slater and Belt v Prentice and Presland in a debate about some select issues on a stage somewhere……the mututal loathing is very strong or they are very good actors…

        • Prentice has had a very low profile outside the Standard, but Slater has had quite a lot of media exposure – has any of that been in a debating situation?

          • Pete Kane

             /  22nd August 2015

            Could be a way to put faces and name to all that ‘anonymity’ from both Whale and Standard.

          • jaspa

             /  22nd August 2015

            I would guess that Prentice would get way too wound up vs Slater. It would be amusing though.

        • DaveG

           /  22nd August 2015

          Good point. Slater and Belt could still focus on the issues to be debated, whereas Prentice especially would be reduced to gutter comments and abuse in seconds, then ban anyone who disagrees with him.

      • Kevin

         /  22nd August 2015

        They sided with Craig so that tells you everything.

        • jamie

           /  22nd August 2015

          I don’t think “sided” with Craig” tells us anything much on its own, but I must say I find it strange that you boil all of these quite different issues down to whether someone is on Slater’s “side” or not.

          • jamie

             /  22nd August 2015

            For example, on most issues that anyone cares much about, Slater and Boag are likely in near total agreement. It’s only the arcane petty personal stuff they bicker about, which is probably of little to no interest to anyone but themselves, their nearest and dearest, and a small handful of voyeurs who gather on sites like this one 🙂

            The idea that anyone observing such squabbling has a “side” to take is a bit of an odd one.

            • I agree that their bickering is just petty personal stuff that dates back a long time.

              But the issue of what Slatyer will do on Whale Oil for money is more important – especially in light of the series of investgation posts that could be talkig sides in a bitter business feud.

            • jamie

               /  22nd August 2015

              Yes, and perhaps that’s why he would rather talk about Boag. Hmmm…

          • Kevin

             /  22nd August 2015

            That’s how it is. People who have a thing against Cameron Slater will always take his opponent’s side, no matter what.

            • Not necessarily. I have things agaist Slater, and things against some of his opponents. And I support and appluad some of what he’s done – ad same for opponents.

  4. Mike C

     /  22nd August 2015

    @George

    What you are saying makes sense.

    We have all seen how Slater and Belt have unashamedly asked readers for money, and how they set up their Blog Posts as click bait traps to earn them advertising dollars.

    Many of their posts over the past 18 months have been about people and companies that I would never have thought that Slater would be interested in, or bothered by, and the content of the posts has been so biased and negative and demeaning towards those people and companies that you cannot help but wonder if Slater is receiving money for those attack posts from a third party.

    I also think that Slater and Belt could very well be taking “hush” money from people to not mention their names or activities on the Whale. I remember one particular person whose name I mentioned quite a few times in the Whale, in the lead-up to the Election last year, and every time I mentioned their name, my comment would disappear. Until now, I didn’t understand why they deleted my comments containing that particular persons name … but it makes sense now 🙂

    • SCREWED, BLUED, AND TATTOOED

       /  22nd August 2015

      Mind you, imagine how boring life would be without WO

      🙂 🙂

  1. Slater versus Boag (Sainsbury interview) | Your NZ