“Some idiotic female reporter” versus Winston Peters

From Gezza:


I posted a comment yesterday evening about watching the last minute or two of Winston Peters’ final Monday post-Cabinet Press briefing via Lurchy’s live link. And that all I managed to catch was some idiotic female reporter loudly asking him if whisky should be swilled or swallowed – & his frustrated response.

I thought it was such a pathetic, vacuous question I mentally switched off remembering how it ended & just wondered who the “bimbo” was.

Looks like the “bimbo” might have been a senior Herald poltical reporter, Claire Trevett? And that the whole point of the question was to manufacture a situation where she could provoke him into commenting on Peter Goodfellow’s anti-Peters remarks at the weekend’s National Party conference.

Because she’s chosen to make his response – threatening that if Goodfellow cared to repeat his remarks outside of the party conference he, Winston, would tell everyone why Goodfellow shouldn’t even be the President of the National Party – the highlight of her report from the Press briefing.

It was a classic Winston threat – a ‘hint’ that there might be some dodgy doings or dirt that he will reveal. But which, if it came to it, might in fact turn out to be nothing more than a smart arse personal attack on his abilities.

It still irritates me, though, that this is what a senior reporter for the Herald set up to create a sensationalist headline & makes me despair about how low the bar for the standard of political reporting has dropped.

Has it always been this low – or was he fair game on this this one? Was this really something of political importance we needed to know?

Interested in others’ thoughts.

Claire Trevett: Winston Peters scores himself E for Everything is Awesome

 

Summary: Hagamans v Little

Asher Emanuel has good coverage of the Hagaman v Little defamation proceedings in Watching the Hagaman-Little defamation trial, it felt like everybody lost.

It does feel like a lose-lose, except for the lawyers who won some big fees.

Emanuel concludes:

This is only the latest unseemly defamation parade of which New Zealand has had a few. Do you remember when Jordan Williams sued Colin Craig for defamation, won, and was awarded $1.27 million in damages?

That was a ridiculously high award. I presume that is still to be challenged on appeal.

Williams (who showed up to the Little verdict, spectator this time) is the director of an organisation founded on the idea that waste of public funds is immoral, and surely it is, but are these private wastes any more defensible? Are these really reputations worth protecting with bonfires of money?

In litigation, two sides tell two stories from which a judge or jury tries to piece together the truth. So Lani Hagaman told the jury she did not intend to bankrupt Little; that this was not about humiliating him. It wasn’t even about the money because they would give the award to charity. It was, she said, about dignity for Earl before he dies.

Earl did not get his dignity, if that’s what you could call it. And Little has escaped financial ruin, at least for today.

We will find out in about six months whether it has helped ruin Little’s chances of upgrading from Leader of the Opposition to Leader of the Country.

Andrew Geddis also covers it well in In qualified praise of the Andrew Little defamation verdict. He says:

“The defamation case against Andrew Little did not result in his having to pay any damages. All in all, I think that is a good thing for the country as a whole.

I agree. The $2 million+ claim by the Hagamans was far too high and I think a tactical mistake as well.

So Andrew Little is absolutely right when he says he had a “constitutional obligation” to make a song and dance about the issue. As leader of the opposition, it is his job to “speak out fearlessly” on matters like this – not simply because he wants to take the PM’s job for himself, but rather because the whole system of governing accountability and clean public processes depends upon him (and other opposition MPs) doing so.

I agree generally with this, but I don’t think Little handled it well, either initially or for months afterwards. He could have easily made the point without getting dragged into court.

Of course, when it turns out that the claim is wrong and that actually there was no untoward relationship between the donation and the subsequent contracting decisions, the use of this sort of language leaves egg on their maker’s face. His (or her) political judgment can and should be questioned.

And the maker really ought to put their hand up, say they got it wrong, and apologise for any wrong imputations (as Andrew Little eventually did – a bit too late, in my opinion, but there you are.)

I agree with this too. See my next post which suggests how Little could have done it effectively without the risks.

Geddis concludes:

But saying all that … yes, the bullet must be bitten. Insofar as there is any tradeoff between public accountability and private reputational interests, my sympathies lie with the former. And so I’m happy that Andrew Little walked out of court without any liability for his statements on this matter.

Yeah, but Little went too far, either deliberately causing (his initial language suggests at least a bit of this) or not caring about collateral damage (if we are to believe his claims his sole target was the Government and not Earl Hagaman and Scenic Circle).

RNZ interview: Law professor discusses Andrew Little defamation case

The dean of the University of Canterbury Law School, Ursula Cheer, analyses the outcome of the defamation case against Andrew Little. “This has turned out to be the most complicated case I’ve seen in defamation in a while.”

A case that the jury couldn’t deal with. One of the primary problems was the arguments had little guidance from previous court cases, appeals or precedents.

Guyon Espiner: So in terms of what we learnt from this and what it may set down, It’s another small step for the protection to discuss these matters of public interest, but perhaps also less protection for those possibly for those who get caught up in the collateral damage this.

Ursula Cheer: I think it doesn’t tell us a great deal actually that we haven’t already built up from other various High Court cases.

And the defence is still developing, we’re still waiting for a higher court like the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to look back over all the cases and say yes, we have it and it looks like this, and this is what ill will looks like and so on.

We’re still waiting for that which is partly why this case was so complicated.

And also because this was a jury decision, and jury decisions are about the facts, so it doesn’t really tell us much more about that in relation to other cases.

Guyon Espiner: So why do you think they had such a struggle with whether he was entitled to use qualified privilege if that is accepted and established?

Ursula Cheer: Well I think the evidence was borderline and it was a case of them looking at the evidence to see what Andrew Little had done in order to be responsible enough, in order not to be seen as motivated by ill will.

There can be a fine line in politics between holding to account and wishing ill will on opponents – the more illness one can associated with an opponent the greater ones chances of succeeding and winning in politics.

Ursula Cheer: But another part of that is if a person takes advantage of their opportunity to publish, in other words if they are reckless or even careless about whether the matter is true or not.

And that depends very much on the facts, and here it just wasn’t black or white.

The words were not so bad that you could say well that means there was ill will.

And then you’ve got, there was plenty of evidence in the case of Andrew Little’s genuineness.

That was in court nearly a year after it started. It is difficult now to judge how genuine Little was about wishing no ill will on the Hagamans last year, especially taking into account his refusal to qualify his accusations or offer an apology for most of the year.

Ursula Cheer: I think they just struggled with weighing that evidence up and seeing if the legal definition fitted what existed in this case.

As a result the outcome so far is quite unclear, legally and politically.

It is likely to have been difficult for some at least of the twelve jurors to put aside completely any political preferences.

When you see polarised political and legal positions in comments here, and more starkly the difference between comments on Kiwiblog (see Little wins) versus The Standard (see A basic primer on the law of defamation), it was hard to escape the political biases and potential ramifications.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald: Andrew Little defamation trial a win for future Opposition leaders – and the lawyers

“This case is not about politics,” Earl and Lani Hagaman’s lawyer Richard Fowler said on the first day of the hoteliers’ defamation trial against Labour leader Andrew Little.

It was a rather optimistic plea in a case which was always going to be about politics.

With both sides trying to show political motivation on the part of the other, it was not so much a case of wrong and right as left and right, of political power versus personal wealth.

Yes. Political leanings ideologies were prominent in public discussions on the case, and I can imagine that personal political preferences could have had some influence in the jury room.

The jury sat impassive and infuriatingly inscrutable through most the trial, scrabbling their way through screeds of files.

When they were sent to make their decision, they were asked not to let either personal or political sympathies affect their decisions.

The reason for the inscrutable faces became clear when the string of decisions was read out – the jury found Lani Hagaman was not defamed at all, but was unable to decide on almost all of the claims by Earl Hagaman.

In the one case it did find defamation, it was unable to decide whether Little had acted in abuse of the ‘qualified privilege’ he had claimed so no damages were awarded.

As is often the case in such matters, the only winners in monetary terms were the lawyers.

It should be remembered that most people do not have anywhere near the financial resources to attempt defamation proceedings.

The other winners in the case were future Leaders of the Opposition.

Little’s present to them was Justice Karen Clark’s ruling that as Leader of the Opposition he met the criteria for the defence of qualified privilege.

The ruling acknowledges Little had a moral or legal duty to make the statements he had, in the course of holding the Government to account. It offers some protection in defamation suits, unless the person claiming it was motivated by ill-will or otherwise abused the privilege.

I don’t think the outcome as it is at the moment will have helped much, it is still unclear where the legal boundaries are.

But even if this case doesn’t go to another trial or to appeal Little and other politicians should have been able to learn something from this expensive and inconclusive exercise.

I offer some suggestions in the next post: Avoiding defamation: lessons for Little

King of the deputy castle, media dirty rascals

Annette King has reacted staunchly to media speculation that Jacinda Ardern may (some say should) replace her as deputy leader.

Claire Trevett @ZH: Annette King lashes out at ‘ageist’ idea of stepping to one side

Ardern’s win in Mt Albert prompted fresh speculation Little should replace his steady pacemaker King with the crowd-pleasing sprinter Ardern as deputy for the home straight to the election.

There is sense in that.

I don’t see the sense to that. Ardern can try to please the crowd without being deputy. Having a strong deputy who can keep the Labour caucus under control is important, and King is far bettter qualified to do that.

But King can not see it. King’s response was a quite astonishing and vociferous defence of her turf.

I’m not astonished. I’m astonished that media and pundits think they can organise deputy leadership changes.

She claimed the talk around Ardern was ageist. She even went a little bit Trump, accusing media of having a vendetta against her.

I don’t think it is a vendetta against King. It is the media thinking that they are political players rather than reporters.

Speaking to the Herald she questioned what Ardern could offer that she did not, other than relative youth.

When it was suggested Ardern’s Auckland base was one, King replied “does it really matter these days?” and said she could travel the country as a list-only candidate.

Ardern’s Auckland base, her ability to communicate well from children to Auckland business leaders, her popularity and her deft touch with ‘soft’ media make her an asset Little could better utilise by having her as his deputy.

It is an asset he cannot afford to ignore.

Little can use his Ardern ‘asset’ in better ways than tying her down as deputy. She has just taken on substantial added responsibility as a new electorate MP in Auckland, giving her much greater responsibilities in Wellington at the same time makes no sense.

King’s value to Little is indisputable but largely for internal reasons – she is in Wellington to run the ship while he travels the country and can control caucus with one pinky finger.

That sounds like a job description for a deputy.

The trouble is he cannot risk replacing her now King has publicly stated her wish to remain in the job.

Little could take the risk of upsetting the likes of MP Poto Williams and Maryan Street over his decision to recruit Willie Jackson to Labour, but he can not afford to get offside with King.

King has great loyalty in Labour and Little will not be able to replace her unless she recognises it is a necessary idea herself.

He somehow has to make it seem like it was her idea all along.

It’s fairly obviously not King’s idea at all.

Some of the media are trying to manipulate Labour Party leadership. This is way outside their job description.

Little and King call the shots when it comes to deputy leadership of Labour.

Trevett and others in the media are dirty rascals trying to intervene and influence what is a party matter.

Labour lay complaint over coverage of policy costings

In the weekend Labour released policy on a youth work scheme.

Labour will:

  • give unemployed young people a job for six months doing work of public value, so they can gain work experience and avoid long-term unemployment.

With an estimated 10,000 participants per year, Ready for Work will cost $60m a year.

The cost was questioned by David Farrar yesterday afternoon, and again on 1 News last night in Labour proposing to offer unemployed young Kiwis paid volunteer work for six months.

This gave fairly wide coverage of Andrew Little’s speech but criticised them for not getting their numbers right, or not being specific about what they covered (4 months on average, not 6 months).

This morning on Twitter Phil Twyford, who is heading Labours election campaign in Auckland, must have got out of the wrong side of the bed, or had a sleepless night chewing over the coverage.

. Appalled by your biased story on last night. You were fully briefed on numbers but you chose to run Nat attack line.

rubbish. We weren’t told $60m was based on avg 4 months & nowhere did it say ‘up to’ 6 months. U fudged it.

Nor were the rest of us “fully briefed”.

If you wanted detail on cost assumptions you only needed to ask. Andrea’s piece a lapse of professnl stds.

Nor were the rest of us fully briefed till we asked after Andrea’s story.

Not so. Andrea was briefed personally on modelling and assumptions. There was no mistake.Numbers do add up.

bollocks

and we did ask in the standup and nobody said it was based on 4 months

I stand by the story.

Public deserves better than bias and hatchet jobs as we enter election year. Sound assumptions on costs were explained to you.

And it looks like Twyford and Labour are not letting go of this.

Labour has lodged formal complaint with TVNZ over its coverage of their youth work scheme

Donald Trump has nearly managed to pull of a great election heist by attacking the media, but I think Twyford and the New Zealand media will be quite different.

In depth reporting during Parliamentary recess?

Some response to Tracy Watkins’ suggestion for opposition parties as posted here:   A recess challenge for Labour.

Fox is the hard working Maori Party list MP.

Ditto, and I reckon most of us will be. Kind of a strange column. Must invite Tracey to spend a recess week with me.
My reading of it is not so much MPs not working, but MPs not keeping media attention.

I think this is a very good point from Robertson.

Instead of journalists writing columns about what they think politicians and parties should be doing perhaps that time would be better spent investigating and reporting on what Members of Parliament are actually doing.

Most MPs work very hard. Some seek and get media attention, and that is not necessarily the hard workers, and it is not necessarily the meritorious work being reported on.

Take this column from Claire Trevett yesterday in Small parties under pump as polls loom:

There is precious little oxygen in the rarefied atmosphere inhabited by Government support parties. If evidence was needed it came this week when Dunne tried to remind people of his existence by issuing a press statement setting out the three policy themes he would be focusing on in the lead-up to the 2017 election.

The themes were: an economy that provides fairness, choice and opportunity; establishing core environmental bottom lines; and embracing and celebrating a modern, multi-cultural New ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.

It was effectively a campaign launch. It fell with the impact of a feather.

Dunne didn’t defame an opponent, he didn’t stoke up racial or ethnic intolerance, he didn’t say something quietly to a reporter who told another reporter who made it into a major story about a Minister.

MPs who quietly and diligently do their jobs without providing sound bites and click bait for media don’t only get ignored most of the time, they get criticised for being boring.

Going back to what Watkins wrote, it seems she wants opposition parties to provide political media with some headlines during a quiet time, a Parliamentary recess.

I agree with Robertson, more in depth would help a lot, but journalists seem averse to doing the boring hard work that is required to inform the public of what is really going on.

Paula Bennett and journalists

Paula Bennett has been under pressure this week over allegations (unproven) that she may have been involved in deliberately leaking information about the leader of a marae that has been providing emergency housing being under police investigation.

It looked bad for Bennett and her handling of it wasn’t good at times.

Bennett’s involvement and responsibilities have been widely discussed, but it finally emerged yesterday who her staffer was.

And the identity of the journalist involved was revealed  They made what some have claimed was a bit of quiet gossip into a major and potentially damaging story that included calls for the resignation of both the staffer and the Minister.

I think what actually happened here and the motives behind it is important in the context of how journalists interact with MPs and Ministers, and how journalists can potentially create political stories rather than just report them.

In this case what was possibly a minor chat could have resulted in a Minister being forced to resign if Bennett had badly stuffed up her handling of it.

Journalists had been unwilling to reveal the identities of those involved until Claire Trevett wrote a revelation yesterday, first posted only at Newstalk ZB but later also at NZ Herald.

Marae leader leak: TVNZ reporter, Bennett staffer named

The TVNZ journalist leaked to by Paula Bennett’s press secretary was Rebecca Wright – a journalist whom Ms Bennett has crossed swords with in the past, including taking an unsuccessful complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Ms Bennett’s press secretary told Ms Wright about a Police investigation into the handling of a case by Te Puea Marae chairman Hurimoana Dennis, after Mr Dennis told Ms Bennett about the investigation in a private meeting last week.

RNZ was the first to ask Ms Bennett about the leak. It is not known how RNZ found out about it. Ms Wright has not responded to requests for comment. The press secretary, Lucy Bennett, declined to comment or confirm Ms Wright was the journalist she spoke to.

In a statement today, John Gillespie, TVNZ’s Head of News and Current Affairs, said the broadcaster had already confirmed a One News journalist was approached with information. “We’re not naming the journalist because they’re not the story here.”

I disagree. The nature of what was alleged to be a ‘leak’ and who was involved is quite important in this issue.

There has been a number of claims and speculations about what happened, with serious accusations made against Bennett.

Opposition MPs have claimed the press secretary must have passed on that information with Paula Bennett’s permission, something Ms Bennett has denied, saying the first she knew about the leak was when a Radio NZ reporter asked her about it on Tuesday.

This has been countered.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English accused the media of colluding to take down Ms Bennett in Parliament today.

“What they call a leak to the media, which turns out to be discussion around the dinner table, about something apparently everyone already knew about, but the media had decided not to run until they could use it to attack Paula Bennett.”

There are increasing concerns about journalists playing politics and promoting their own agendas, to the extent at times that they appear to be more political activists than reporters.

There are grey areas and fine lines between holding power and politicians to account but these seem to be increasingly challenged by media that has considerable power in politics than can be abused and is at times abused.

How the media and journalists operate in a democracy is a very serious issue.

Plaudits to Claire Trevett for having the gumption to break the cone of silence amongst media for what might be the biggest and most important aspect of this stories.

Do some journalists abuse their position of power for personal and political reasons?

I think Rebecca Wright has important questions to ask her.

Will any journalists ask her as forcefully as she is known to pursue stories?

Or are politicians fair game while journalists protected by their own?

Why MPs behave poorly in Parliament

One of the primary reasons why MPs behave poorly in Parliament is because political journalists feed the frenzy by giving the worst of parliament the most attention.

Claire Trevett illustrates this in Pokes and jokes hit and miss but Winston Peters still the master.

Peters may be the master of attention seeking but that doesn’t make it a healthy environment for democracy.

On Key:

To celebrate the occasion and the rare display of Black Caps sledging Australians, Key dedicated much of his speech at the start of Parliament to sledging his own opponents.

On Little:

Little was not bereft of comebacks. He welcomed back Michael Woodhouse – the overseer of health and safety reforms which listed worm farms as dangerous: “I am pleased that we have got through a summer with not a single worm farmer suffering a fatality or serious accident.”

He congratulated newly restored minister Judith Collins for making such a difference in such a short time, noting New Zealand had slipped two places in the corruption index in the two months she had been back.

On Shaw:

But then came poor old James Shaw, the newly minted Green Party co-leader. His caucus was not so well trained at laughing as National and Labour.

His valiant efforts met with a wall of silence.

The circus only rewards clowns.

Nobody was quite sure what he was banging on about, but happily the novice was followed by the master: NZ First leader Winston Peters.

Peters took his usual scatter gun approach to his targets, depending who heckled him.

The sensible leadership over Waitangi events has disappeared in Parliament.

Finally Seymour set about insisting closure of a charter school in Whangaruru was proof the schools worked.

It was all as incomprehensible as circling the desert of the real.

The most respectful and sensible speaker didn’t rate a mention – Peter Dunne. He began by paying a tribute to the late Rt Hon Bob Tizard. He acknowledged Annette King respectfully. And he closed with a welcome back to all members, with a special mention to new MP Maureen Pugh.

But that sort of thing doesn’t rate a mention. We have headline driven political coverage, which grotesquely distorts our democracy.

WHOOPS: And I forgot to mention Te Ururoa Flavell, who flies under the media radar because he’s one of the best behaved and respectful MPs in Parliament.

The year in perspective

Claire Trevett has a look back at the political year in PM’s jokes no slippery soap in funny old year.

She puts some perspective on how big the issues were in New Zealand, comparatively.

So ends a year in which New Zealand can feel quite smug about itself. We had our moments. We won the Rugby World Cup, almost won the Cricket World Cup, a multitude of sporting greats retired.

There were some other great sporting achievements too, especially Lydia Ko’s rise to the top in women’s golf (and Danny Lee performed very creditably in men’s golf as well).

There were deportees, the implosion of the Conservative Party, the TPP, the reincarnation of Judith Collins.

And a lot more as well, but how memorable are they? An MP being appointed back into Cabinet at a rank of 13 is big news – amongst a small number of people who are interested.

But it was international events that dominated. Islamic State, Syrian refugees, the terrorist attacks in Paris. All of them touched us…

And a lot more crappy things happening that affected many millions of people.

…but let us be thankful the only phenomenon that vaguely resembles Trump in New Zealand was Dunne’s quiff, the closest we came to a terrorist attack was the ringbarking of a kauri tree, and our other worries were so few people had the time to get riled up about the propriety of the PM’s jokes.

We get up in arms (up in fingers online) about some fairly trivial stuff, comparatively.

For me the biggest issue still in New Zealand is the widespread and insidious effects of violence, which is often closely related to the use of alcohol and other drugs.

Violence impacts on relationships, on families, on children (leaving lifelong impressions that often repeat the cycle), on education, on ‘poverty’, on crime, on imprisonment rates, on health – the tentacles of violence reach far and wide, and destructively.

What can we do to care about this enough to find serious ways of limiting it?

Key on The Edge, or over it

There’s been a lot of criticism of John Key performing on radio at The Edge.

Key endears himself to many with his ordinary blokishness. But he sometimes goes over the edge, as he seems to have allowing himself to be drawn into ponytail banter and what is alleged to be joking about prison rape.

Claire Trevett: John Key’s good-sport shtick becomes uncomfortable

Prime Minister John Key’s good bloke routine has worked for him for seven years straight, helping foster the image of him as a good egg, a bit of a joker, a good sport.

Key has made his informal interview slots on commercial radio a major part of his media strategy. Politically, it is is a good tactic. Commercial radio reaches people who don’t give a poop about the more serious side of politics. Key knows that and plays to his audience accordingly.

The problem is his audience inevitably ends up being a lot wider than the one he originally plays to. It gets on social media and news sites.

It is usually harmless fun, however much his opponents might bridle at it. Some of us have even egged him on in such antics.

But he has a startling tendency to go overboard. He can not even blame the hosts who come up with the ludicrous things they get him to do. He’s been in the game seven years and has the choice of saying “no”.

He presumably says no to doing some media related stuff.

His end-of-year slots this year were a case in point. The first was only embarrassing, mainly for him. Confronted at The Edge by a lineup of women with ponytails and told he had a choice of pulling a ponytail or singing All I Want for Christmas, the only real option was the latter. The second on The Rock was more marginal. Asked to get into a cage with comedian Tom Furniss, the danger signs should have been flashing.

Just as Caesar thrice refused the crown, Key resisted requests to get into the cage three times. But then he caved. Once in the cage, the ‘drop the soap’ jokes came out and Key played along, analysing the soap.

Key may have been oblivious to the prison rape references and crude Deliverancequote involved. But no Prime Minister should put himself in a cage, let alone one that ends up with jokes about prison rape.

Not a good look for Key – or a good sound bite.

Barry Soper: Has John Key gone a step too far?

Does John Key go a step too far?

All he needs for Christmas is a good break and perhaps a bit of time to reflect on how he can avoid putting himself into cringe making situations.

But then again his unusual antics don’t appear to have done him any harm, so perhaps that’s what he’ll be reflecting on!

Key runs the risk of eeaching a tipping point where significant numbers of people (voters) start to turn off his more edgy performances.

 

 

Herald story on poll changes

Newspaper stories aren’t always like the used to be, fixed in print once the presses roll.

David Farrar pointed out in A Labour member complains:

First let’s deal with the headline of the story:

Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

The headline writer should be shot.

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

So 90% of the poll was before the release. So the headline is trying to manufacture a story.

However NZ Herald currently has this headline with the story:

Poll boost for Labour

By David Fisher, Claire Trevett

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

What Farrar probably doesn’t know is that the story has changed since the headline was written, and then the headline was changed.  I saw the original version, as did Keith Ng who pointed out:

Oi . I mathed it for you.

The data was released by Labour with substantial help by NZ Herald six days prior, not a week.

One of the article authors responded:

ha! I was so busy trying to find it in the fine print I didn’t look at the top bit!

Since then the headline and story have now been edited:

From:

Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

However it us unclear how much of the poll was taken before Labour released it’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate agent data, which was a week ago.

To:

Poll boost for Labour

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

Farrar must have copy pasted after the story was edited, but before the headline was edited.