Chris Trotter defending and supporting The BFD

Chris Trotter not only seems to support shutting down RNZ, in part for, as he asserts, “demonisation of The BFD”, but he also tries to justify his ongoing support of The BFD.

Bowalley Road: RNZ Must Have No Dogs In The September Fight.

That’s ironic as Chris is acting as a dog fighting for The BFD, which has much more of a (very narrow) political agenda than RNZ.

He does risk biting a hand that feeds him:

Nor should the mainstream news media be at all surprised that the photograph ended up on The BFD blog. Cameron Slater, of Dirty Politics fame, has publicly acknowledged his legal and personal connections with the lawyer Brian Henry. One of Winston Peters oldest and most trusted legal advisers, Henry also stood by Slater. Is this the explanation for what appears to be a decisive shift in the political allegiances of Slater and his colleagues from the National Party (which couldn’t distance itself fast enough from its favoured blogger following the publication of Nicky Hager’s book) to NZ First?

Such a shift would go a long way to explaining the rumours that NZ First is being assisted by one of Slater’s closest political allies from the Whaleoil years, Simon Lusk. A hard-bitten political operator, Lusk would have needed no instruction when it came to gathering intelligence on the two journalists responsible for revealing the closely-guarded secrets of the NZ First Foundation. The involvement of somebody like Lusk would certainly explain The BFD’s photograph of Stuff Reporter, Matt Shand. Recognising Espiner and Gray would not have been difficult. In that location, however, Shand was unlikely to be recognised by anyone not closely associated with the NZ First Foundation story.

But he then he switches to support of The BFD.

The demonisation of The BFD is yet another problematic aspect of RNZ’s coverage. Conservative blogs have every bit as much right to present their ideas to voters as liberal and left-wing blogs. In my time as a political commentator, I have contributed material to daily newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, and a weekly business publication edited by a devotee of Ayn Rand. So, when Cameron Slater invited me – along with a clutch of other non-right commentators – to contribute to a new pay-walled section of Whaleoil, I did not refuse. Similarly, when The BFD was launched, I agreed to contribute to its pay-walled “Insight” section. Nothing builds up one’s understanding of the Right like writing for their publications! And, although I have always been scrupulous to submit material I would happily see posted on The Daily Blog, or my own Bowalley Road, I’ve never once been censored.

“The demonisation of The BFD is yet another problematic aspect of RNZ’s coverage.”

His defence and support of The BFD (that could stand for Bullying For Dollars) is what looks problematic to me.

he is not just providing material for an agenda driven attack blog but also trying to help them finance their operations.

If they were just a right leaning blog and and he was just providing a left wing perspective that would be fine.

But they are not just a right leaning blog. Their attempt portray themselves as some sort of alternative media is largely a front for a means of running dirty attack agendas.

So he is not just adding a different perspective on political topics. He is  effectively aiding and abetting their narrow, nasty agendas, and not just morally, but he’s helping them finance it.

They are widely seen as unprincipled, nasty and toxic. His association and promotion affects his credibility.

And really, he seems to want RNZ shut down unless they stop being mean to The BFD.

Leave a comment


  1. Jason

     /  21st February 2020

    Get a grip Pete.
    Trotter writes everywhere and is one of the best examples of supporting free speech in the country.
    You’re obsession with Slater and Atkins is becoming as boring as theirs with you.

  2. duperez

     /  21st February 2020

    Pondering: “They are widely seen as unprincipled, nasty and toxic. His association and promotion affects his credibility.”

    If this were about RNZ not Trotter and ‘they’ were the Mongrel Mob, could the same be said of that media outlet carrying a story about the gang?

    (I agree with the BFD being unprincipled, nasty and toxic.)

    • If the media outlet carried multiple stories over a period of time promoting the Mongrel Mob and also carried often several stories a day attacking and trying to discredit the police and the Mongrel Mob were known to probably be funding the media outlet then something similar could be said.

  3. Duker

     /  21st February 2020

    The Whaleoil/BFD operating model , which cash for comment is exactly the same as
    The Spinoff
    Spinoff would be more correctly described as ‘copywriters for hire with a bit of journalism on the side’

    Newsroom who have a string of ‘partners’ too

    Just because they target the young millennial/left wing market doesnt make it better

    • Duker

       /  21st February 2020

      This is exactly the cash for comment story in The Spinoff

      Its got a newsy sort of feel to it and its promoting a government initiative
      But the ‘Content partner’ is Flickr an online power retailer who supports such government initiatives.
      Buried right at the end
      “This content was created in paid partnership with Flick Electric.”
      Cash for Comment right there. Not that the newspapers of old didnt do it and were under the thumb of advertisers too. Maybe they didnt pull stories because…. yes it happens still , the ODT had a case the other month, but more likely a rebuttal would be added or a headline would change to ‘make a better first impression’

  4. Corky

     /  21st February 2020

    Funny old world. Everyone was laughing at the demise of Slater…only to have him now back in the news. Now a Lefty is writing for a RIGHTY…and Sean Plunket has Bomber Bradbury on his discussion panel. Everything is as clear as mud.

    • Duker

       /  21st February 2020

      You mean Slater is back in the news ” and it isnt self inflicted as has been usual for some time”

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  21st February 2020

        As Slater wasn’t dead, no one was laughing at his demise.

      • Corky

         /  21st February 2020

        Sorry. I forgot. Keep it literal. Or some punters will get confused.❌🙄

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  22nd February 2020

          Demise can only mean death. It is often misused, but a person’s demise is their death. It can only mean that when it’s used of a person. The fact that some people use it wrongly doesn’t change this.Some people think that bravado means bravery and heroics means heroism, but this doesn’t mean that they do mean that.

          I wasn’t confused at all; I know what the word means and that you were using it incorrectly. You thought it meant his failure, I suppose.

          It has a legal meaning to do with conveyancing, but this has nothing to do with the fact that a person’s demise is their death.


Leave a Reply to Duker Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: