Threatening journalists to toe the line

In the introduction to the Dirty Politics series against Fran O’Sullivan (And so we begin) ‘Cameron Slater’ quoted Nicky Hager on Q & A”

“If you see a name of a journalist in the book, they are the ones I don’t think have done anything wrong, they’re just incidental to the story. Every journalist who had been taking stories in dodgy ways from David Farrar, one of the bloggers, or Cameron Slater or from the prime minister’s office, I actually left their names out. I decided not to do the journalists basically.

All apart from Rachel Glucina, who Hager described as “despicable”.

Although Hager highlighted the problem of media being played by Slater and others, he also said he understood the demands of the industry.

“I think that a whole lot of people had done things which were dodgy and wrong. In other words they knew that their prime minister’s office was feeding them information and you could get really easy stories.

“You were being used but it was giving you another headline in a job which is very busy and competitive, where people want to get stuff, so there’s a ton of horrible temptation to keep being an outlet for Cameron Slater and people.

The people I’m talking about are in the press gallery, senior journalists. Basically I didn’t want to humiliate them, I wanted to give them room to think again and do it differently. That was the reason. Because we’re a small country and there are only going to be the same senior journalists the year after and the year after that, so let them change their minds on it.”

‘Slater’ responded to that:

So Nicky Hager was threatening journalists to toe the line, and change, otherwise he’d out them.

Today in comments on the Fran O’Sullivan, Secret tip-offs and Bullying an OIA Requester post Whale Oil adminstrator/moderator Pete Belt responded to a comment:

Why is Osullivan digging a hole for herself, she must know what she does will leak out and hurt her.?

  •  

    The picture is starting to form of someone who has a high regard for herself (and assumes it is widely shared by others) thinking she is protected. The sad thing is that true loyalty is very hard to come by in life. In business, and media, it’s almost non existent.

    The amusing thing is that we warned her. Not only did she not stop, she turned on Whaleoil. We then warned her again to stop. She did not. Her attacks on Cam/Whaleoil increased.

    Well, you can only conclude she was comfortable with the idea of being the subject of a year-long Whaleoil investigation. It’s a amazing what you can dig up when you talk to all the people that have been left damaged and hurt by someone over the years.

    And the best bit is still to come.

  • That sounds very similar to “threatening journalists to toe the line, and change, otherwise…”

    18 Comments

    1. kittycatkin

       /  October 2, 2015

      What a prat.

    2. Mike C

       /  October 2, 2015

      Belt should be worried about what people can dig up and publish about him 🙂

      • [Edited – I initially held this comment aside until I had time to deal with it properly PG]

        Spanish Bride, what you did is dirty, as anyone who is familiar with how blogs operate would well know. You may do things dirty at Whale Oil, that’s your choice, but it’s not acceptable here.

        What Cameron, and others, and now obviously you, seem to do is dish the dirt out in big dollops but if anyone challenges you on it you react badly and instead of addressing criticisms you resort to attacking those who criticise. If you can’t take criticism I suggest you give up blogging.

        • That was fairly despicable spanishbride. It’s acceptable to front up here and apologise.

          • Guest

             /  October 3, 2015

            I am pleased you deleted that post. Funny what a google search of HER name reveals…common theme from the past which seems to continue to the present. Failure.

            • Fair point but please don’t resort to any of her dirt here. We need to be better than that.

              • DaveG

                 /  October 4, 2015

                Pete. Admiration for you saying “don’t resort to any dirt here, we need to be better than that”. But to be frank, it seems to be double standards. A few months or so back, you edited a comment I made about Blomfield as I didn’t provide links. Fair call mostly, and I replied with a few links to support my previous comment. Then recently, your commenter Mike C (another ex and bitter WO’er) puts up very defamatory comments about Cam Slater, I challenged him on it and both you and he left them up, yet he provided no proof whatsoever. Double standards, or are you like the Sub Standard and the Daily Blog a Slater Hater??

                I also recall you as one of the regulars on WO, prior to you being banned, you liked it there, and commented often, and made some good comments. You also have some good regulars here Pete, Traveller springs to mind immediately, but also a lot of Ex WO’ers, and it seems your blog is turning into a Slater Hater fest. It’s somewhat of a double standard when a lot of people were regulars on WO for a fair while, and now follow your every Slater comment and turn ito negative.

                FYI, I can see why WO is publishing the stories about Fran, she was ignored by the receiver of stolen data, mr Hager, yet does exactly what the self appointed expert, Mr Hager says is dirty Politics. and, she seems to get paid for it twice, once as a salary from NZ Herald, and (on occasions) once through her other activities. But you have a shot at Cam his articles even though he publishes hard evidence, her own emails mostly.

                So, is it fair, even, or perhaps its the ban imposed. You seem very focused on being negative towards WO, yet claim “we need to be better than that”.

              • A few things to address here.

                Then recently, your commenter Mike C (another ex and bitter WO’er) puts up very defamatory comments about Cam Slater, I challenged him on it and both you and he left them up, yet he provided no proof whatsoever. Double standards…

                Mike C posted their opinion, you challenged that with your opinion providing balance. I didn’t think it was defamatory, especially by Slater’s standards – it would be a double standard from him if he claimed that was defamatory.

                , or are you like the Sub Standard and the Daily Blog a Slater Hater??

                A don’t hate Slater, I tend not to do hate. I’ve sometimes praised him for things he’s done, I challenge him on things I think deserve it and I put some of what he does, especially his double standards, on record.

                I address what he does, I don’t ‘play the man’ like Slater often does.

                I also recall you as one of the regulars on WO, prior to you being banned, you liked it there, and commented often,

                I think you’ve claimed this before and I’ve corrected you. I wasn’t a regular at WO, I didn’t comment at WO often, only occasionally. Sometimes to challenge or to give an alternate opinion, which he didn’t seem to like.

                Did Belt ban me for using the word ‘crap’ (a word Slater uses often) or for posting an alternate opinion to Slater’s?

                I can see why WO is publishing the stories about Fran, she was ignored by the receiver of stolen data, mr Hager,

                The WO stories on O’Sullivan look like utu from last year, quite possibly written by Odgers but under Slater’s name.

                I have said there could be some valid criticism of O’Sullivan, I await the big hit that is promised bujt as yet undelivered as far as I’m aware.

                But you have a shot at Cam his articles even though he publishes hard evidence, her own emails mostly.

                Yes, I’ve pointed out that on one hand Slater claims journalist protection of sources in court but on the other hand he publishes private emails between a journalist and himself who claims to be a journalist.

                I’ve also pointed out that Slater claims Hager threatened (blackmailed?) journalists into toeing his line but Belt has revealed they threatened O’Sullivan to shut up or they would do a hit job on her, which they now seem to be doing.

                You mentioned double standards in your comment – should Whale Oil be exempt from criticism of double standards?

    3. tealeaves

       /  October 2, 2015

      S’ugly business, though, journalism, isn’t it. You’ve got to keep your contacts despite burning them repeatedly, now, how do you do that? Takes a special person.

      • Yes. They rely on informants but they are often the same people they write about, especially in politics. Must make for fascinating relationships, feeding the dogs that may bite you.

      • Guest

         /  October 2, 2015

        No…just a decent journo. Did you struggle?

        • tealeaves

           /  October 2, 2015

          Are you taking the piss out of me, Guest?

          • tealeaves

             /  October 3, 2015

            Isn’t the world big enough for the both of us?

    4. tealeaves

       /  October 3, 2015

      Yes, you can make me look like an idiot, bravo, whatever. But you can’t compromise me, because there’s nothing to compromise, so who’s the fool?

    5. traveller

       /  October 3, 2015

      What was O’Sullivan to do? Did Cam ever ask himself that? Those he alleges called for his mental health to be challenged could not have hoped for a better outcome.

      O’Sullivan is an intelligent pragmatist. There is nothing more natural for people to form loose coalitions and use coping strategies to deal with dangerous, mutual foes. Slater may bruise these influential alliances with his buy the e-book to hear the truth, but he’ll never get MSM coverage unless he has backers and a public launch. Apart from his readership, people in NZ wont read it because they don’t care.

      Nobody in their right mind ever thought Slater was the only bad guy in politics; Dirty Politics was something that may have excited the media but it never gained any traction apart from white noise. The electoral result showed us that.

      Cam wanted to be the guy who landed all the mean blows and he can’t get over being blindsided. Playing dirty wasn’t fair all of a sudden. Scores need to evened. What did he expect from his “sources” and contacts in the aftermath? Corpse hugging?

      It’s a real pity that he cannot see his hypocrisy as his integrity slipping away with every threatening keystroke.

    6. Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 3, 2015

      Slater/Belt have surrounded themselves with sycophants and see everyone else as enemies. Consequently they have no-one to give them the much-needed good advice to stop their self-destruction. That way madness and catastrophe lie. Not far ahead I suspect.

    7. Mike C

       /  October 4, 2015

      @DaveG

      Over at the Whale, Cameron Slater and Spanish Bride and Pete Belt have always written whatever they like in all of their posts and comments … but heaven help their commenters, if they write their own personal opinion that isn’t in agreement with the Slaters and Belts, as that very quickly earns the commenter the great honour of having their comment removed or being banned.

      Lately, for some reason, Spanish Bride has been commenting here in Georges blog regularly, and at times, it’s almost seemed as though she thinks that she’s commenting over in her own blog, where she is used to writing whatever she likes about anyone in her posts and comments, with absolutely no consequences.

      If I had written the same sort of thing about another commenter, like Spanish Bride did yesterday, then my comment would also have been deleted by Pete George, and I would have received a reprimand.

      The Slaters and Belt almost seem to have lost touch with the real world, and do not seem to have a clue about how to interact with other people on a level playing field.

      My comments in here, are just my personal opinions, and I take full ownership of them.