O’Sullivan v Marvelly: “Media fought for the decriminalisation of homosexuality”

More to ‘Mainstream press’ warned off hijacking discussion around Pride Parade – NZ Herald journalist Fran O’Sullivan took exception to Lizzie Marvelly’s tweet, giving it a sharp response that led to some media involvement in the decriminalisation of homosexuality.


@LizzieMarvelly: Excuse me? Sexual outcasting and a perverse reversal? What on Earth are you talking about?

@FranOSullivan: Go read a history book.

@LizzieMarvelly: Oh yes, that’s a great way to engage in discussion… condescension goes so far 🙄
I understand the terms, I just don’t get what you’re banging on about because you’ve phrased it poorly. But I’d humbly suggest showing people with skin in the game with a little more respect.

Ironic on several counts. A number of people (including myself) have been critical of Marvelly’s ‘poor phrasing’. And one of the main criticisms has been the lack of respect Marvelly showed ‘mainstream media’. Without it her audience would be far smaller.

@DannyNocturn65: The world you are trying to build is a horrible one – you don’t need to be the subject of a societal issue in order to comment on it. this competition where whoever can prove to be the smallest minority gets a monopoly over discussion is the death of productive conversation.

LizzieMarvelly: That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m arguing against the sensationalisation of an issue by people who are, in my opinion, ignorant of the nuances that are essential to this discussion.

That’s nothing like how she put it.  She said ” It’s NOT one to be hijacked by the mainstream press, dissected by straight, cis media personalities and turned into a circus.” She suggested that presumably most media keep out of the discussion on the Pride Parade. (Another irony is the reference to a circus – that’s something like how the extravagant displays of Pride Parades have looked to many).

@DannyNocturn65: “this discussion around the Pride Parade is one for the LGBTQ+ community to work through” your words

And for the police who have been banned, and the public who fund it, and anyone who has aan interest in the discussion in an open and free society.

Another thread in the discussion:

Andrew Mackay @CHCHEastEnder: Firstly I agree with one comment. This stay in your lane crap is another american phrase usurped by someone wanting attention.

And Fran, I WAS born before law reform and the press helped and wrote articles but were not the ones marching in the streets or getting bashed and abused, there is a distinct separation on “how” the media “fought”.

There usually is, that’;s how the media operates. It gives a much wider voice to protesters that is often essential in getting momentum and in changing public opinion on issues like the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

@FranOSullivan: And that is what media do – write articles that fight for change.

Andrew Mackay @CHCHEastEnder: I agree. media fights in its own way, and usually honestly and accurately but when people have bled, been admitted to hospital and arrested for a cause you should choose your words more carefully.

@FranOSullivan: Do you seriously believe the journalists who took up their cudgels on this issue did not have to overcome hostility.

Andrew Mackay @CHCHEastEnder: Absolutely not. However, at that time media were seen as people reporting the news and not fighting for our cause…

@FranOSullivan: So now you think it is OKAY to define other people via an alphabet soup approach to humanity?

Andrew Mackay @CHCHEastEnder: a) I don’t usually get into heady discussions on twitter. I tend to avoid them.
b) Throwing spurious comments about something that I was involved in makes my blood boil.
c) I didn’t make the world I only try to live in it.
d)NO, I don’t. You play games with my comments.

Someone throwing spurious comments about something she may have been involved as a reporter seems to have made Fran’s blood boil.

@FranOSullivan: You deny people their humanity by alphabeticising them and you deny journalism its courage.

Andrew Mackay @CHCHEastEnder: No. You are putting words into my mouth. I certainly now regret commenting on something so stupidly written. Good day “madam”.

So he closed the discussion with a condescending swipe. It isn’t clear which “something so stupidly written” he is referring to, Marvelly’s original tweet or O’Sullivan’s.

Another thread:

Shane te Pou @PouTepou: If I think something is wrong I will say so I don’t have a lane… Thoughts and opinions can not be contained and nor should they.

LizzieMarvelly: Wasn’t saying you need to, I was suggesting it would be good if Hosking and Garner did, given the ignorance I believe they displayed on this issue.

If that’s what she meant she phrased poorly – in fact that is not what her first tweet conveyed. She said ” It’s NOT one to be hijacked by the mainstream press, dissected by straight, cis media personalities and turned into a circus. Hosking, Garner et al., stay in your lane.”

She referred to “the mainstream press”, to “straight, cis media personalities” and to “Hosking, Garner et al”.

Et al (an abbreviation of et alia) refers to ‘and others – Cambridge Dictionary: “It is used in formal writing to avoid a long list of names of people who have written something together”.

Another thread, replying to O’Sullivan:

@TraceyMacleod: If you were fighting for that Fran you would have seen the behaviour of many of our police. The scars run deep & it is not long ago lgbt officers were bullied out or shrunk into a closest.

George Henderson @puddleg: But not today – today they are encouraged to march in the Pride parade. Until a group of law-and-order activists manoeuvre themselves in charge, and bully out the lgbt officers for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexuality or gender, and that don’t make much sense.

@TraceyMacleod: Why dont they just wear the tshirts. Are you a lgbt person? Cos the scars of police behaviour run deep. If you think all police are okee dokee with gay colleagues and gay folk in society. I have a nice bridge you might be interested in buying.

I’m sure not all police are “okee dokee with gay colleagues and gay folk in society”, and many others in society haven’t accepted our evolution to a more tolerant, accepting and inclusive society. But should all police who want to wear their uniforms to demonstrate a significant degree of normalisation in the police force be excluded from Pride Parade, because some of their colleagues have different opinions and feelings about homosexuality?

Another thread:

@adamsmith1922: Marvelly demonstrates just how divorced from reality some of these people are. Her intolerance of others views and demonisation of other commentators shows that.

@FranOSullivan:@LizzieMarvelly is perfectly entitled to her views. But this argument those occupying her “lane/s” should be the only ones to weigh in on the decision to ban police from “proudly wearing their uniforms” as they take part in the Pride Parade is not only ridiculous but dangerous.

@adamsmith1922:To clarify, she can say what she likes. I have no problem with that. However,she has no rights to seek others from exercising their own rights in this regard. Furthermore, to demonise other commentators because they are ‘cis’ and thus by inference somehow ineligible to express an opinion renders her as prejudiced as any homophobe. We still live in a free society where differing opinions should be respected, not mocked.

Some else enters the thread, switching from a ‘cis’ diss to a ‘mansplaining’ diss.

ben parsons @peaceprone: But if you come mansplaining out of context without acknowledging the premise then you may just be in the wrong lane, shouting into the vacuum of history.

@mrsrosieb: So you’re agreeing with Lizzie’s stupid comment.

ben parsons @peaceprone: i kind of agree bc if you argue from a point of indolence, you tend to miss the point. Hosts should never assume to be experts, even if they are.

I presume that refers to Garner and Hosking as hosts. I don’t think they assume to be experts on topics they talk about. Their jobs are to raise attention and generate discussion something Marvelly et al seem to want confined to initial defined lanes.

Brash up-platformed in university debate tonight

Massey University received almost universal criticism and derision after they cancelled a political society meeting that Don Brash was scheduled to speak at. It was widely seen as an attack on free speech, with some saying it was proof of a slippery slope for free speech.

Brash got far more publicity than he would received at Massey, and he gets a chance to be in the spotlight at Auckland University tonight. He was booked to participate in a debate long before the Molynuex & Southern and Massey furores arose.

Coincidentally and ironically, tonight’s debate is on “Has PC culture gone too far to the point of limiting freedom of speech?”

Freedom of Speech Public Debate

Image may contain: text


Freedom of speech is a value which is fundamental to New Zealand society. But at what point should we prevent speech which is offensive, bigoted, hurtful or that we disagree with? Has PC culture gone too far to the point where it is limiting freedom of speech?

The University of Auckland Debating Society is proud to present the inaugural Think Big Debate – a debate series which will explore the big issues in New Zealand Society. The inaugural Think Big Debate is going to examine whether PC culture has gone too far and is limiting freedom of speech.

Don Brash (of the Free Speech coalition) and Elliot Ikilei (Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party) will affirm the motion and Fran O’Sullivan (Head of Business at the New Zealand Herald) and Simon Wilson (Senior Writer at the New Zealand Herald) will negate the motion.

They will each be joined by two of the university’s top debaters. With Freedom of Speech in the headlines both in New Zealand and overseas you won’t want to miss this event.

Absolutely everyone is welcome at this public debate. Check out the Facebook event for more information.


‘De-platformed’ is a new word for me. In this case it has backfired and turned into upping Brash’s platform.

Stuff: Don Brash free speech debate in Auckland booms on back of Massey’s ban

Massey University’s ban on Don Brash making a speech on its Palmerston North campus has proved a boon for rival Auckland University.

Double the number of people expected to attend Brash’s Auckland appearance have now registered since Massey axed Brash and ignited another free speech debate.

The controversy has been a marketing gift for the otherwise low key Auckland function organised by the university’s debate society.

There is planned protest: Students and Staff to protest Don Brash speaking at University of Auckland

A New University has organised a public protest opposing the inclusion of Don Brash in a University of Auckland Debating Society event to be held on campus on Thursday 9th August at 6.00pm in the Owen G Glenn building.

“Brash’s haste to come to the defense of far-right ideologues Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux shows his commitment to the right to spread hate speech with no consideration of the consequences for those targeted by racial abuse and discrimination.

“Universities are legislatively bound to act as the ‘critic and conscience of society’. Condemning any platform for hate speech is a rare opportunity for the University community to fulfil this crucial role.

“The University of Auckland equity policy acknowledges the distinct status of Māori as tangata whenua and is committed to partnerships that acknowledge the principles of the Treaty. Hosting Brash directly contravenes equity principles and the protection of students and staff from discrimination.

“A New University calls on University of Auckland management to follow through on its equity policy and strategic plan emphasis on promoting Māori presence and participation in all aspects of University life.

“A New University joins the struggle of those at Massey University in refusing to accommodate hatred, bigotry and racism in their institutions. Universities must uphold the principles of Te Tiriti and ensure the safety of students and staff on campus.

There does not seem to be an obvious Maori participant in the debate, but that may be addressed froom four of “the university’s top debaters” who are as yet unnamed.


Up-platformed and live.

Refreshing taking fight to Ardern’s celebrification

Jacinda Ardern has taken ‘celebrity politics’ to a whole new level since. This began before she became Labour leader and Prime Minister. Her media management had already included celebrity style magazine coverage. That has continued, with the latest example being Ardern featuring in a US magazine, Vogue.

In general the New Zealand media has both lapped it up and egged it on, and this looks to be increasing with the pregnancy of Ardern being given far more importance than governance of the country.

It’s bit of a big deal in New Zealand politics that Ardern became pregnant while taking on the most important role in the country. Pregnancy and giving birth is a big deal for any mother – but in the whole scheme of things having babies is very routine, it has been happening for a lot longer than the New Zealand has had Ardern and the world has had princesses.

For New Zealand how Ardern functions as a Prime Minister running the country should be of far greater importance than what she names her kid and other mundane trivia outside immediate family.

Fran O’Sullivan writes against the current: Time Jacinda Ardern eases back on celebrification?

Jacinda Ardern can thank Judith Collins’ incisive political attack for reminding her of her biggest job: get on her game as Prime Minister.

The media-endorsed “mother of the nation” celebrification — which has been wall-to-wall since Ardern announced her pregnancy — could (if she is not mindful) undermine her impact as NZ’s political leader.

Opposition politicians have since tip-toed around Ardern. They have not wanted to be seen to land blows on a young pregnant woman who happens to be enormously relatable and popular.

Most have played into the “generational change” meme without pointing out that the only reason we have a 37-year-old female Prime Minister is because a septuagenarian put her there.

But when Collins — some 20 years Ardern’s senior — launched her campaign for National’s leadership, she took a different approach by taking the fight directly to the Prime Minister.

It was refreshing.

After weeks of media coverage suggesting Ardern’s pregnancy meant she was now a shoo-in to lead the Labour-NZ First coalition to win another term at the 2020 election, an Opposition politician had finally broken cover from their self-imposed PC straitjacket.

Others might have a problem taking on Ardern out of concern that they would look heavy-handed or be seen to pick on the young, pregnant woman.

But Collins said: “I have been pregnant running a law firm and studying as well. As a young mum I understand exactly how tough it is to do that. But she understands that too.

“That is not the role she’s asked New Zealanders to support her for.”

“She has asked them to make her and keep her as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

I think that’s a fair call.

“And that is the role I would hold her to account for.”

Collins’ forthright attack has clearly resonated within the ninth floor of the Beehive.

It was notable that when Ardern addressed senior members of the Auckland business community at breakfast yesterday, she was completely on song in delivering a speech that set out the Government’s focus for the next three years.

She gave a polished and confident delivery.

Notably, there was no mention of her pregnancy. Nor were there any jokes about Clarke Gayford — the upcoming stay-at-home dad. Her Vogue cover was not mentioned (apart from a closing comment by Westpac chief executive David McLean that some of his staff were lining up for selfies with the PM who had been in Vogue).

This shift in key enabled the business community to focus on what the Prime Minister had to say.

It was an important speech that conveyed important messages. It did not warrant being buried by distraction — nor was it.

Ardern has been a quick learner and an astute reader of public sentiment. She has played the celebrity card with aplomb, with the help of a more than willing media.

Here she seems to have switched to serious Prime Minister. Are the media able to switch off the celebrity button as easily? I doubt it.

Ardern — still establishing her prime ministerial platform — must get runs on the board while maintaining her relentlessly positive approach.

It is a balance.

Vogue called Ardern the anti-Trump. She plays the media differently, but she still plays the media bigly like Trump.

What New Zealand needs is an anti-celebrity.

Ardern’s positioning as Prime Minister is at times also undermined by a media fascination which borders on being fatuous.

This was embarrassingly obvious last weekend, when Julie Bishop was questioned about the shoes that Ardern wore when she popped in on a dinner that Winston Peters hosted at his home for the visiting Australian Foreign Minister.

“Seriously?” asked Bishop.

Seriously, New Zealand’s media is at severe risk of collapsing into cringe.

We would benefit from an anti-gaga media.

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…”

    Who versus O’Sullivan?

    When Cameron Slater’s book launch was announced on Wednesday (‘by Whale Oil staff’) –  Journalist, blogger, now: Author. Cam Slater’s new book – they said:

    It is the first of many planned books that allow Cam to explore subjects in far more depth and provide far more analysis than is possible in a short blog post. The fast pace of blogging means that thought and contemplation and detailed analysis are often missed.

    It seemed a bit odd that that half an hour before that And so we begin was posted ‘by Cameron Slater’, and an hour afterwards it was followed up by Telling the truth about Fran O’Sullivan and Dirty Politics, also by ‘by Cameron Slater’.

    Then on Thursday Dirty Politics and Fran O’Sullivan’s “Unethical Alliance” With Bloggers and later in the day Dirty Media – Who feeds Fran?

    Then today Dirty Media – a nice bit of confusion over names, and just who or what is NZ Inc?

    And Fran O’Sullivan, Secret tip-offs and Bullying an OIA Requester.

    And The Changing Hats of Fran O’Sullivan – NZ Inc. or NZME. ?

    All ‘by Cameron Slater’.

    In the meantime the book launch kept being plugged, along with the usual fare of posts each day.

    Having just said that many books were planned a detailed series of posts related to Dirty Politics were posted in parallel.

    Has anyone wondered if these posts maybe didn’t look quite like the usual Slater posts? Even the headings have a different ring to them? It’s known that he has passed off other people’s work under his own name before.

    Cameron Slater or a ghost writer?

    Anyone who’s wondering about all this Whale Oil versus O’Sullivan stuff – and serious questions are being asked of O’Sullivan which if fact based seems fair enough – can catch up with some of the back story in these two columns.

    Slater begins self harming journalist utu

    Cameron Slater seems to have always had a vengeful nature, and he has been promising revenge since he was hit by Dirty Politics. This week he began dishing out the dirt in retaliation.

    He started with And so we begin on Wednesday, with Slater saying “Remember these words from Nicky Hager?” and quoting Hager:

    Investigative writer Nicky Hager said he kept some journalists out of the dirt in his latest book Dirty Politics in hope of a cleaner future.

    “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.

    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 then said:

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

    Well, here is a list of the current Press Gallery journalists…I’ve crossed out the names of those I’ve had no dealings with.

    You can work out for yourselves who Nicky Hager is referring to when he says “senior journalists”.

    Most journalists were crossed out, but twelve were not.

    His next post (30 minutes later) announced a book launch: Journalist, blogger, now: Author. Cam Slater’s new book

    It is the first of many planned books that allow Cam to explore subjects in far more depth and provide far more analysis than is possible in a short blog post. The fast pace of blogging means that thought and contemplation and detailed analysis are often missed.

    Launch:     Details to come.

    Media:       To discuss an interview or serialising a chapter of this book please contact Cam

    He has been promising a book of revelations for some time, but it looks like it could be a long form drip feed of “many planned books”.

    An hour later Slater posted Telling the truth about Fran O’Sullivan and Dirty Politics on Tuesday.

    I wasn’t invited to this left wing love fest so I thought I would contribute some documents today that show precisely how donkey deep Fran O’Sullivan really was in Dirty Politics and how like many people, used me to peddle information when it suited their personal agenda.

    The difference between Fran and the rest of those people is that none have been stupid enough to behave like she has since and have stayed very quiet. Also none have sat doing it next to Nicky Hager as though they are now his puppet. Fran has previously seen fit to publish personal correspondence to her in her columns to defend what she thought was a wrong so I weighed this up in the decision to breach her privacy likewise and publish her emails to me without consent.

    It is in the public interest, now she has hoist her own petard, that I respond to her claims and show precisely what she knew and happily participated in. She is after all now in a very senior position at the largest newspaper in New Zealand in charge of the reputation of its business reporting.

    The following is an unsolicited email as recent as 2014, just two hours after I published a short post examining Michelle Boag’s endorsement of Len Brown.

    He then published an email from O’Sullivan to himself.  So much for supposed journalist confidentiality that he is claiming for himself in a defamation case. It seems that confidentiality only matters when it suits him.

    That’s right, Fran O’Sullivan directed me to information to perform a hit job on her good friend Michelle Boag because she didn’t like her commentary.

    This is the very sort of conduct and “laundering of information” that so appalled Nicky Hager and his gushing fans. Boag and O’Sullivan’s personal grudge goes back to the Winebox days (and there is a story in that too). There was nothing in Fran O’Sullivan’s tip once I checked it out so I never ran the information on my blog.

    He folowed this up yesterday (Thursday) with more in Dirty Politics and Fran O’Sullivan’s “Unethical Alliance” With Bloggers.

    Yesterday I gave you a small taste of NZME. Editorial Director for Business, Fran O’Sullivan’s involvement.  She sent me information about my nemesis Michelle Boag seeking to discredit Boag’s commentary about Len Brown.

    As promised I can reveal that also went much further than throwing our mutual enemy Michelle Boag under a large winebox.

    This exchange follows where not only does Fran O’Sullivan encourage my work on Len Brown but confirms my sources, asks me when the EY report was due on Len Brown and then tells me when she will run it in the media next.

    He then posted a number of email exchanges between himself and O’Sullivan. He concluded:

    Sanctimonious journalists claiming the high ground really shouldn’t when they have as much to hide as Fran O’Sullivan.

    So this looks like a major revenge attack on O’Sulllivan, using a few selected emails. If O’Sullivan wanted to hit back could she quote other emails between her and Slater, or would journalist confidentiality of sources prevent that?

    Apart from that and the spat itself, this may reveal useful information about how some of the media work and how they worked with Slater. I’m not sure that that will help mend his severely tarnished reputation.

    The repercussions of this may be much greater than simple payback from Slater.

    He has complained over the last year about being isolated from the political and media gossip and leak circles.

    Now journalists and politicians know that Slater is prepared to break confidentiality and reveal information to attack people he has fallen out with, who would be willing to try and deal the dirt he craves with him again?

    The hack itself was a warning bell to those who had communicated with Slater. It was probably a one-off data leak but it showed the risks, especially with someone involved who has may a career out of making enemies.

    But now Slater has shown that he can’t be trusted on confidentiality and that he will use communications that people may have thought confidential – Slater has sought journalist privilege in court to protect sources – this campaign of utu must be self-harming for him.

    He may enjoy dishing out the dirt in the short term, but journalists and politicians and anyone involved in politics would surely now think even more carefully about having any communications with Slater.

    And businesses using Slater’s promotional services should also think carefully about this. What if they somehow got off-side with Slater? Would he dump on them? It would appear that if he is annoyed then he is a risk.

    Slater may claim to be a journalist but no one who values confidentiality should trust him now.

    And he relied on media picking up and publicising his dirty stories. Who would do that for him now?

    Slater may enjoy revenge but he also craves attention but on that this utu may turn out to be major self harm.

    A journalist who is prepared to publicly throw their sources (and their integrity if they had any left) under a bus to self promote and dish out dirty revenge is likely to fall very flat themselves.

    Slaters threatening O’Sullivan

    Cameron Slater, in a highly ironic campaign against Herald journalist, continues to threaten Fran O’Sullivan – while accusing the Herald of Dirty Media and after many attacks on Nicky Hager for revealing private emails.


    I first thought of Fran O’Sullivan. She’s been writing some odd stuff (different to her usual) in the last few months

    You are right, and O’Sullivan got herself caught up in the email trail with Cathy Odgers etc when all that went down and wrote a bizarre column covering her own backside that was highlighted on this very blog. Surely that qualifies as embroiling themselves in matters that they shouldn’t have.

    Edit: here is her original piece of butt-covering.

    There are plenty more emails that haven’t yet seen the light of day. If she continues her jihad they will.

    And in a post today where he attacks O’Sullivan’s appointment in DIRTY MEDIA APPOINTED IN “NEW” ROLE – AS FIRST BROKEN ON WHALEOIL he plays ‘dirty media’ again.

    And Slater’s wife joins the attack:

    Let us not forget that Saint Nicky Hager kindly chose to leave out of his book all the Herald journalists who regularly were in contact with Whaleoil. He told the public that he felt that they deserved a chance to mend their ways but it also was a public declaration that he now owned them.

    How hard would it be to say no to Saint Nicky when he wants a story run when you know that he has the power to destroy your career by revealing that you were involved in so called Dirty Politics?
    Even worse imagine if you were someone really important, like I don’t know…Fran perhaps?

    Oh baby!

    Another threat.

    There’s more attacks against O’Sullivan today in:

    (I haven’t bothered checking every post put he often uses a blunderbus approach):

    And so it goes on. His anti-Herald obsession as usual. Dirty politics as usual.

    Who would risk trying to do anything with Slater if he is likely to throw a hissy and throw around threats against you some time later?

    Campbell Live threat commercial or political reality?

    The onslaught of coverage of a ‘review’ of the Campbell Live show continues (as does the Campbell Live Show).

    There have been claims that the possible killing of the show are politically motivated. For example ‘amirite’ says:

    Fran O’Sullivan practically confirms that CampbellLive demotion is indeed politically motivated.

    Kiwiri – Raided of the Last Shark:

    Then they came for John Campbell. And what did you say?

    This refers to Fran’s column Valiant Campbell may have provoked political antagonists too often.

    He has not been afraid to challenge the Prime Minister directly where some of his rivals have adopted a more supine stance.

    Yes. I remember when he ambushed Helen Clark in ann interview in 2002 over ‘corngate’ and she called him “a sanctimonious little creep”. Here is video of that interview.

    But despite many on the left seeing the threat to Campbell’s show as political O’Sullivan also points out:

    The broad underlying commercial issue is that TV3 — which is still financially stretched and is building towards an IPO — can hardly be required to keep the programme in a prime slot unless it retains and grows ratings and revenues.

    And Campbell Live is performing poorly compared to TV1’s Seven Sharp and TV2’as Shortland Street – and compared to how Campbell has rated in the past.

    And Anthony Robins raises it to post level at The Standard in O’Sullivan on Campbell, Weldon and Key.

    So there we have it – Key’s loyal and personal friend is out to shut down the last investigative journalism left on TV. Just a bit too inconvenient for an arrogant and incompetent government in its third-term death spiral I guess.

    Robins has quoted very selective parts of O’Sullivan’s column – lprent calls that sort of thing lying by omission and bans people for it…except when he agrees the slanted author message.

    While Campbell tends left in his interests, sympathies and his social campaigns he works for a commercial channel that has a history of failing to make enough money.

    If Campbell Live stays alive for the good of democracy then  the whole of TV3 could die, including other current affairs programmes like The National. And New Zealand would lose their political reporting from the likes of Patrick Gower.

    And Gower is no darling of the left, so they would probably applaud his demise – some of them already virtually demand it.

    So while the review of Campbell Live is undoubtedly commercial reality many of the protests are politically motivated.

    (Note: I’d personally prefer Campbell Live not to be replaced by more brain dead ‘reality’ TV but I recognise the right of a commercial media organisation to broadcast any crap they like).

    O’Sullivan versus Journalism, Media and Democracy research

    A post at The Standard – NZ Media and blogs vs blogs – quotes from a report from The Journalism, Media and Democracy research centre at AUT University.

    More evidence of unethical alliances

    Researchers say there is increasing evidence of what it calls unethical alliances between bloggers, politicians, media and public relations companies. The Journalism, Media and Democracy research centre at AUT University says the boundaries between those groups are blurring. The report highlighted what researchers said were major revelations in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, and said they cast a shadow over long-established media organisations.

    It refers to blogger links with NZ Herald journalists.

    Hager’s book has cast a shadow over long established media organisations. After the publication of Dirty Politics, Fran O’Sullivan, Jared Savage and David Fisher, journalists working for The New Zealand Herald, came clean about their earlier collaborations with Slater.

    Jared Savage admitted that “information was shared, there was a bit of “horse trading”, we talked about developments as the story rolled along (Savage, 2014).

    The paper’s investigative journalist David Fisher admitted in his opinion piece that “Cameron Slater was a contact of mine – Nicky Hager made this clear in Dirty Politics”; before he stopped “dealing with Slater”, he was “speaking to Slater as a contact and source” (Fisher, 2014).

    The report quotes how Savage and Fisher ‘came clean” but doesn’t back up their claim about O’Sullivan.

    Fran O’Sullivan has responded to this in a comment on the Standard thread:

    This is ridiculous. I have never “come clean” about any so-called collaborations with Slater. The author of this academic study fails at 101 Research. If she bothered to check the author would have found I said it was risible to suggest Odgers influenced my writings.

    This casts a shadow over the veracity of the research.

    The report: JMAD NZ media ownership report 2014

    Internet Party faces questions on extradition

    The Internet Party and it’s motives (or more particularly Kim Dotcom’s motives) regarding Dotcom’s pending extradition are being raised, and are likely to keep being raised.

    Judith Collins explained the extradition process.

    Once the court has determined an individual is eligible for surrender, the matter is referred to me, as Minister of Justice, for the final decision on the surrender. As Minister I decide whether to issue a surrender order, taking into account humanitarian considerations and other factors contained in the Extradition Act.

    If this decision is not made until after the election in September and if National doesn’t form the next government then there is likely to be a Labour Minister of Justice who decides whether to issue a surrender order.

    This issue is already being raised. John Armstrong in Step right up for the Dotcom political joke:

    Even more dangerous in political terms is the suspicion — quickly fuelled by National — that Dotcom’s purpose in setting up the Internet Party is solely to make it a bottom-line of any post-election talks that whoever is Minister of Justice quash any court ruling which would force his extradition.

    Fran O’Sullivan in Dotcom puts Harawira’s principles on the line:

    Dotcom is clearly gambling that a successful foray into national politics could result in a post-election outcome to stop his extradition to the United States to face charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright piracy.

    Chris Trotter in The Orchestration Of Hate: Why are the elites so afraid of Kim Dotcom?

    Let us not forget that the reason New Zealanders know so much about Dotcom is because he is the target of a major investigation by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Few other organisations on the planet possess the investigative capabilities of the FBI and even fewer are as sensitive when it comes to institutional failure and humiliation. But, failure and humiliation are precisely what lies in store for the FBI should Dotcom succeed in delaying the extradition procedures initiated against him by the US Attorney-General long enough to allow an electorally successful Internet Party to negotiate favourable political interventions on his behalf.

    While Labour might have some sympathies towards some aspects of Dotcom’s case it would be extraordinary if they negotiated politically to direct a Minister of Justice what to do in a specific case. It would be an extremely bad look for a new government domestically, and it wouldn’t be good for NZ-US relations.

    The Internet Party needs to make it clear what their position is on Dotcom’s extradition.

    UPDATE: Kim Dotcom has just been on The Nation in a recorded interview saying that he’s disappointed that his extradition case has been linked to the party. He stated that if the court determines he is eligible for surrender to the US the Minister of Justice should not overrule that ruling.