Rachinger public apology

Ben Rachinger has been pressed to at least apologise for sending pictures of a journalist that ended up being published by Lauda Finem.

He responded on this on Your NZ yesterday:

I’ve already acknowledged to JW as much as I can say. I don’t see that relitigating it in public for white knights helps her. She can raise the issue in public as she sees fit.

Insofar as Slater received the pictures and forwarded them to Lauda Finem?

That’s a whole basket of can’t comment. For obvious and very good reasons. A lot of people have been up to some very dodgy stuff. In some cases, criminal.

What I’m supposed to have done is unethical but not illegal. What Slater has allegedly done?

That’s definitely criminal 🙂

Thanks

This morning in what appear to be authentic tweets:

Unconditionally apologise to for sending pictures to who then sent them to . Worst thing I’ve ever done

I have no excuses for what is extremely shithouse and immoral behaviour. I can only make amends by writing and by taking Slater down.

Would like to say that my ex had no knowledge of any of pics. She’s her own person. We don’t speak anymore. Onwards to literary infamy! 🙂

Ben has said he is writing a book.

He can confirm if these tweets are from him but to me it looks authentic.

 

Journalist tweets a review of ‘Dodgy Unions’

Jessica Williams is radioLive political editor and has been described as (and she repeats on her Twitter profile) ‘Infuriatingly reasonable and honest’.

Last night she did a series of Tweet sized reviews of Cameron Slater’s book, ‘Dodgy Unions’.

OMG YOU GUYS LOOK WHAT I JUST GOT IN THE MAIL

Embedded image permalink

Alex makes a good point – is Cam allowed to use the coat of arms on his book that prominently?

Graeme Edgeler assured her that the use of the coat of arms was ok.

Yes he is. The Arms have not been used in a way that indicates that the book has eg the approval of the Government.

The law does not require MCH approval for all used of the arms.

Back to

I mean look at this just look at it omg you guys this is the best mail day evar

Embedded image permalink

That apparently is on the back cover. In fact there is apparently more than that:

Still promoting him self as a Dirty Politics thug, but still failing to deliver on his promise of a counter book on Hager’s ‘Dierty Politics’.

Anyway good grief i am SO looking forward to reading this. Wondering if I should take it with me to the crown accounts lockup.

Okay .. I’m going in.

It’s hard to go past the bit where Slater says Dirty Politics helped promote and expand his business. But I shall.

It’s also hard to believe that if Slater is talking about his Whale Oil business where he and Belt have been crying poor and fund raising to try and meet expenses since Dirty Politics was released last year.

Chapter 1. Cam starts by slagging off his old boss at LD Nathan. He was dirty, a thug and hated all the right things. Hm.

Cam was bullied bc he broke a strike. His work locker was vandalised! He was called a scab! Blimey

God this is all so quotable. Unionists didn’t mind being called dodgy but believe they were morally superior. WUT

“Unions, in my experience, are dodgy” (3rd mention. We are on p12).

Oh wait! Now dodgy in a different way, he says. This gon be a long night. unimpressed.

Chapter 1 ends with a plug for the tipline. Cam says he’ll raise questions the Union Movement needs to answer. Ok then.

Chapter 2. Unions get no scrutiny, Cam says. Except by members, shurely? He says unions “rape and pillage” members. Yuck.

This bit is SO GOOD I’m gonna photograph it. Discuss, show working, use extra sheet if necessary.

Embedded image permalink

“Even the Media and Parliament receive higher confidence ratings than unions”.

Embedded image permalink

I have no idea what that’s included for.

Chapter 2 ends saying union leaders don’t make vote winning politicians and “few” have taken seats from Nats

Big swig of tea and we are heading into Chapter 3 – understanding Union finances. This and the Crown accounts in one day!

So unions have lots of $, says Cam – $120m revenue – but don’t give much of it to Labour. Can’t tell if this good or bad

There are lots of figures in this bit. Lots of “left-wing commentators” pearl clutching. More tea

On to ch 4. Unions are not the same as the Labour Party, Cam says. Labour Party a poor cousin to the unions, Cam says.

Lots here about how Labour doesn’t get much $ from unions between elections. Fair. But then big rant about Lab’s bad fundraising record which seems a bit off topic to me. But hey, it’s Cam’s book and he’ll tangent if he wants to. It’s a fair point imho.

On to the unions’ role in Little’s election. (I’m stepping lightly over a v mean joke about a former MP btw. Family show).

Ok nah not that juicy. The unions had a lot of say over Little’s election. No outcry, says Cam. Funny, I remember some.

Now Cam is talking about why more unionists don’t get elected as MPs. This is a decent question. But it’s not answered.

“The best and brightest .. are either not wishing to run, or are absolutely hopeless”. See? No answer really.

WAIT I stand (sit) corrected. Unionists don’t get elected bc of “inherent lack of likability” and unpleasant campaigning.

Right. Unions and Labour agree on campaigning against Nats. Like the Corrections Assn/Davis against Serco. Take THAT.

See – I don’t see the big WTF about that. Nats work with business. Labour with unions. ‘Twas ever thus, no? ONWARDS.

Why is Labour so beholden to unions? Good question, no answer. But I BET I know who this MP is.

Embedded image permalink

Chapter 5 starts with a sledge about how the NZ political media are more willing to chase irrelevancies than do research.

Right. Now we are on to Little’s time at the EPMU. Cam explains how hard it is to find their accounts online. Hm

Cam reckons $6m went “missing” at the EPMU under Little. Ok let’s see.

And there’s just a whole heap of questions now. I *think* Cam is saying a loan was made to a body that no longer trades.

But no answers! Just questions and a spiel about democracy needing answers. It’s like Guess Who Don’t Sue.

Like – these are good questions, don’t get me wrong. But did Cam ask them of anyone? He should have, seriously.

That’s what a journalist would have done? But now he’s wearing his new ‘Author’ hat.

Ok, ch 6. Dodgy unions in Australia. “Begging the question” about whether NZ unions face the same problems (it says here).

I am a total arse I know, but “begging the question” is misused SO much and it pisses me off. Anyway. Onwards.

Ok TL;DR. Aus unions super dodgy. Are ours like this? We don’t know bc LACK OF SCRUTINY says Cam but tipline suggests so.

Chapter 7. Are we there yet? No. This is a list of questions for unions. Really.

Oh wait there are questions for the Nats! Which can be summed up as “why haven’t you crushed unions with an iron fist?!”

WAIT! Appendices!! That means the book itself is over! is bringing me a beer. Don’t worry I am still going.

Ok. Lots of figures. Specific questions for unions. Education unions get a particularly hard time.

OKAY SO if you are all still with me? I have ACTUAL RECKONS.

As many noted, the book is written in large type, double spaced. In a way that is good. Cam’s style can be, uh, intense.

I thought someone was joking when they said it was in large type, double spaced. It’s not quite double spaced but theires quite a bit of white space.

I did actually find it an interesting read. There *are* valid questions to ask about Labour and the unions and symbiosis.

And one would expect in a book about it, answers.

Problem is, the book asks questions in the hope (I guess) that someone else will answer them. The book should have.

Either that, or the Qs are there to cast a vaguely sinister light – there may be mundane reasons but we don’t know them.

I wasn’t expecting a right of reply or anything. But as a journo, Cam could put these questions himself. But he doesn’t.

This is how he frequently blogs – asks questions without finding the answers, or spinning things out so that if the answers ever appear the questioning has been forgotten.

Anyway. I do vaguely look forward to whatever Cam writes next. I just want substance, not rhetoric.

When announcing his first book (of many) Slater said it gave him the opportunity to look at issues in far more depth than on his blog.

This sounds like an extended repeat of past blog posts with more questions than answers – similar to a lot of his blogging.

As others have said it appears that once again Slater has over promised and under delivered.

He’ll find future books (if any more eventuate) a hard sell unless he substantially ups his authoring and publishing game.

If this was intended as another fund raiser I think he may be disappointed.

And the image of Slater as the big boy of Dirty Politics, the supreme shit kicker, is contradicted by the reality that looks like little more than skid marks in underpants – a bit of a smear but nothing much of substance.

Reaction to Key’s visit to Iraq

John Key plus a media contingent have spent an eventful three days visiting Iraq.

I presume there were good political and diplomatic reasons for doing this, considering the risks involved and the resources required. I don’t think strongly for or against the visit.

There was obviously a reaction to the news of the visit on Twitter. I haven’t bothered to look for it, but this was one journalist reaction:

OKAY LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THIS. The PM’s trip was SECRET. there was a MEDIA BLACKOUT. we are reporting it now bc he is NOT THERE ANY MORE.

christ on a tapdancing bicycle. i GET IT that some people do not like John Key or journalists but REALLY. WHAT ARE YOU LIKE?

i mean. MEDIA BLACKOUTS EXIST FOR REALLY GOOD REASONS. we are NOT TRYING TO KEEP STUFF FROM YOU. it’s bc HE MIGHT HAVE GOT ATTACKED BY ISIS.

This was some of the reactions:

He risked the lives of media & everyone else involved. Not to mention the cost. I have a family member in armed forces and they absolutely HATE it when politicians do these sort of things. They don’t want them to visit, because of the risks.

Which is why it’s kept secret. ok? i get that you don’t like John Key. but i’m reporting this stuff bc it’s my job.

I don’t care that it was a secret, I care that the jerk had the audacity to go in the first place, its appalling

John Key risked the life of someone I care abt today – that is UNFORGIVABLE Jessica, I don’t care how brave it makes Key.

And:

And that, right there, is you buying into the dramatic PR narrative they’re trying to push.

Thomas, that’s a really silly thing to say. and you know it. you think i have no experience with this stuff?

I think we all know, you included, that this was *exactly* the coverage they expected/wanted when they planned this visit.

It looks like in some way being a journalist can be as in the line of fire as a politician – and not just on a visit to Iraq.

Williams is political editor for RadioLive.

Disappearing tweets – not

It looks like Lauda Finem have not searched well enough for tweets they claimed had been deleted, as pointed out by ‘LF are idiots’ in Disappearing tweets.

Oh FFS.

All the supposedly deleted tweets are still available on Twitter, LF simply don’t understand (or are deliberately lying about) the way Twitter cross indexes stuff.

A lesson in being wary of evidence presented on the Internet. LF claimed this pic showed that tweets had been deleted.

TweetsOctober

But links show otherwise via different views. The following are screen shots I’ve just taken from the links supplied.

TweetsRachinger

TweetsPresland

TweetsWilliams

Easy to make this sort of mistake, but I don’t know if it was deliberate or in error by LF. This is why I’m most just recording claims and ‘evidence’ as the story unfolds.

Rachinger: “we United to take on Mr Slater for his activities”

Ben Rachinger has reappeared on Twitter, making a very interesting claim that seems at odds with previous versions of how things happened – no names but Jessica Williams isn implicated – “that we United to take on Mr Slater for his activities”.

The exchange began:

So address has accused me of hacking ___ phone and publishing her private conversations…. I laughed.

Embedded image permalink

That’s a new claim – that Rachinger hacked Jessica Williams’ phone. A serious claim if true.

2h

She sent them to me . How can you spread such vicious lies! Or is that what she told you? Genuine Q. Are you lying or lied to?

Then:

2h

The whole point of this was that we United to take on Mr Slater for his activities. I declined to get involved in the smears for that reason

That looks quite different to previous claims by Rachinger that he reacted to requests to hack Slater and did a lone wolf sting.

Who United? The implication here is Williams with Rachinger.

I genuinely thought all the parties involved in this would do the right thing. I guess I have to clear the air myself!  Sometime later

Since then one of those comments expanded into an exchange:

She sent them to me . How can you spread such vicious lies! Or is that what she told you? Genuine Q. Are you lying or lied to?

v serious accusation by ; Please can all parties confine themselves to the certain truth or withdraw & apologise

He’s previously admitted to and apologised for publishing my private messages.

The plot gets ever thicker.

Responding to Lauda Finem

Lauda Finem have reacted to Press gallery claim on Rachinger/Williams pics doesn’t stack up via Twitter. It’s easier to respond to them here.

“So “the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact” is not fact” – Heavy reliance on Williams media buddies @PeteDGeorge any under oath?

I have no idea if they are ‘media buddies’ of Williams but they are not connected to Mediaworks. Why should the be under oath, they haven’t been accused of anything.

I’m not aware of any Lauda Finem claims being backed by statements given under oath. They seem to want a different standard.

Would your Kiwi press gallary mates like to go on record @PeteDGeorge or are they too wanting anonymity, left to play @CitizenBomber‘s game?

I don’t have any press gallery mates. I don’t have any media mates. I operate independently outside political and media circles.

Snarky insinuations (unsupported by anything under oath) don’t help Lauda Finem’s case, it just makes them look petty.

The sources didn’t ‘want’ anonymity, I chose not to identify them. I don’t see what purpose identifying them would serve apart from opening them up to abuse.

Bottom line @PeteDGeorge, if or when @nzpolice start asking questions there is enough to put your two journo’s Williams and Rachinger to bed

That doesn’t make sense.

“when @nzpolice start asking questions” – if they start asking questions. I’m not aware of any police investigation on this. I’ve seen little more than long winded lullabies.

Where does drip feeding come in @PeteDGeorge? LF don’t drip feed a story mate, everything was in the last article, along with the photos.

The photos confirm there were photos. Little else. Scant detail given otherwise and nothing under oath.

Lauda Finem in their post:

In the end however, Alasdair Thompson, rather than giving us a straight forward yes or no answer to the questions we posed, resorted to name calling, claiming that team LF were liars and malevolent trolls, who should not be believed or feed.

That doesn’t sound much different to Lauda Finem’s reaction to my post. If they want to be taken seriously on this they need to be better than that.

Suffice to say the allegation is that mainstream media journos (the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact) had been sent these images. Further, that Williams herself had then approached those same journalists requesting that they ignore Rachinger.

I’ve shown that that is probably at best an exaggeration. Snide attacks in response don’t help Lauda Finem’s case.

There’s serious issues here. Concentrating on facts, (fronting up proof would help), isolating truth from bull, and ditching the petty attacks will help to uncover what’s been happening.

Thompson, as did many other journalists, not only allegedly received the photos, but was also allegedly then approached by the victim, Jessica Williams,(aka @mizjwilliams) and asked to ignore Rachinger and the images as he was attempting to blackmail her – having allegedly threatened to destroy her career and get her the sack.

A lot of ‘allegedly’ and little substance.

Of course the fact that Thompson had allegedly received this so-called tweet…

A fact or an allegation? Facts need supporting evidence.

Of course the allegation is that the parliamentary press gallery then colluded to shut down the story that Rachinger had attempted to promote to fuck over Williams. All very feasible stuff when looked at in light of the above images. However as aforesaid there are other just as realistic possibilities.

Allegations, ‘feasible stuff’, ‘realistic possibilities’, ‘believes that’, ‘circumstantial evidence’ with scant facts or proof.

Where does drip feeding come in?

If there Monday post is all they have then there are a lot of unanswered questions, as they admit.

Who were the photos distributed to? Were the photos used to threaten anyone? Did this have anything to do with The Nation covering Rachinger fairly favourably but looking at a narrow part of the issues? Why did the photos suddenly appear right after The Nation aired?

More questions than answers so far on this aspect of the Rachinger saga and similar on all aspects.

Press gallery claim on Rachinger/Williams pics doesn’t stack up

There have been many claims but scant evidence surrounding the photos of RadioLive political editor Jessica Williiams that were published by Lauda Finem on Monday.

It was very curious that they should surface just after Ben Rachinger had featured on The Nation in the weekend where his month’s old claims Cameron Slater paid him to hack The Standard finally got an MSM airing – that timing in itself is curious.

Rachinger has been dumped on by Twitter warriors, who claimed that Martyn Bradbury had seen the photos some time ago which to them condemned Rachinger.

However even Bradbury’s clarifications aren’t completely clear. He had posted:

I will say this about Rachinger, if the comments from a certain female political journalist ever see they light of day, they will never work in the industry again

I sought further clarification and he confirmed “they will never work in the industry again” referred to the journalist.

But he also ‘clarified’:

I’d heard many different things after that blog, I was surprised by their release, not their existence

I had seen nothing, I had heard something that a Journalist had said to Rachinger, that was what I was referring to in the blog. Suggestions by Coley and Tiso that I did are a lie

Confused? It sort of sounds like Bradbury had heard about the pictures but hadn’t seen them.

If information was out there then surely it would be widely known about. Lauda Finem posted:

Suffice to say the allegation is that mainstream media journos (the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact) had been sent these images. Further, that Williams herself had then approached those same journalists requesting that they ignore Rachinger.

That seems to be allegations that don’t stack up. I did a bit of checking out.

One reliable source in the press gallery:

I never received the photos, I never had any contact from Rachinger.

And another:

I did not know anything about this in December or at any other time until the Herald briefly reported about Rachinger’s post.

So “the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact” is not fact. So how much, if any, is fact?

Obviously the photos exist. There’s been no denials about them being associated with Jessica Williams and Ben Rachinger. But I haven’t seen any evidence this is anything but a private matter between the two of them.

How the photos went beyond the two of them is unknown to me. Where did Lauda Finem get them from. And when? Just in time to publish just after The Nation went to air? Or had they been sitting on them waiting for a time that suited them? I think those are questions deserving answers.

On this whole Rachinger issue there are many claims, accusations, insinuations and possibly a few legends thrown into the mix.

There seems to be quite a few people who seem to have an interest who are not prepared to back up their claims. And others doing their best to keep a lid on it – including some media and Cameron Slater.

Rachinger has made a number of claims and many vague implications peppered with contradictions, so what he has tweeted and blogged has to be viewed very sceptically.

This story (or collection of related stories) may keep chugging along but there’s a lot of unknowns still.

There’s nothing to suggest Rachinger and Lauda Finem are colluding (and there’s some suggestions they aren’t) but they share one thing in common – habits of drip feeding supposed scandals amongst a mish mash of hubris.

Bradbury refutes claims on journalist images

Martyn Bradbury has emphatically denied claims that he viewed images of a journalist and said they could ruin her career. After the release of embarrassing photos of RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams and accusations that Ben Rachinger had used them to pressure/blackmail it seems that some people have put one and one together with vague memories claimed a ten. It was then claimed on Twitter that Martyn Bradbury (Bomber) had “let’s also remind viewers Bomber had seen the material and intimated it might ruin the journalist” (Giovanni Tiso) and “Martyn Bradbury blogged about having seen the revenge porn images and how it would ‘ruin the career’ of Ben’s ex” (Coley Tangerina). Bradbury has posted a strong denial of this in The latest Rachinger twists and turns and Wellington Emerald Stormtroopers.

Here’s what I actually wrote…

I will say this about Rachinger, if the comments from a certain female political journalist ever see they light of day, they will never work in the industry again

..I had heard about comments made by a Journalist to Rachinger, that is what I was referring to. Claims by ‘Coley Tangerina’ and Giovanni Tiso that I viewed anything are a total lie.

That clearly doesn’t mention images or photos at all, just comments. But it is also potentially confusing, especially without seeing the whole context. It’s not clear whether “they will never work in the industry again” refers to Rachinger, or to the journalist. It could be easily taken either way. I’ll try to get clarification.

I removed that comment as people involved felt it was offensive, which was not my intention at all. The point I was making was the Left have a tendency to see traitors everywhere…

Sure Ben hasn’t helped his cause one inch, but not hacking the Standard deserved some recognition, not pitchforks.

I have no idea of how and what has occurred here, and am as surprised as anyone that there were images released, but the ongoing smears and misinformation by some on Twitter not only reinforce the original point of the blog I wrote about the Left on Twitter, but it’s also childish.

A fairly clear statement that Bradbury was unaware of the images. It could be construed that he was aware of the images but was surprised they were released by my assumption from reading this is that Bradbury did not know the images existed until they were posted on Monday.

However “a total lie” and “misinformation’ may be a bit strong, it’s more likely to be imprecise memories and jumping to conclusions, which are common in social media. But for the wider story Bradbury’s clarification removes from the jumble of evidence one ‘proof’ that existence of the images was common knowledge amongst journalists prior to their publication this week.

As a side story, @b3nraching3r seems to be off-line again.

UPDATE: Martyn has given me some clarifications (at The Daily Blog):

1. The Journalist

2. I’d heard many different things after that blog, I was surprised by their release, not their existence

I had seen nothing, I had heard something that a Journalist had said to Rachinger, that was what I was referring to in the blog. Suggestions by Coley and Tiso that I did are a lie

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/06/11/the-latest-rachinger-twists-and-turns-and-wellington-emerald-stormtroopers/#comment-289636

Rachinger denies everything on Williams

Ben Rachinger took to Twitter again to totally deny anything to do with RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams.

The Phone put up as proof on that blog. It’s a Blackphone. As owned by one Mr Cameron Slater.

It’s a sad day when one can bring a story to light after having been smeared repeatedly and parents doxed by a pseudo-anon blog….

… But this is the first credible connection between Mr Slater and the blog LF. This was beyond dirty. Mr Slaters phone should be examined.

I would encourage everyone to lay a complaint with the credible evidence that the LF source has a blackphone, Slater has a blackphone and…

… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

I never dated the victim of that websites actions and nor have I ever contracted to MW. I never messaged those pics to Press Gallery.

I was never involved in some plot to blackmail the victim of that blog. I was never informed there was allegedly a plot involving me.

I respect the space of the victim of LFs posts and don’t wish to have any comment beyond a Wow at depths to which some parties have sunk.

I’ll close with saying… The story came out about TS hack job and suddenly this comes out. A++ Hit Job. Bye.

If this is all true (I’m sceptical at this stage)it makes the apparent acceptance of the story by Williams and Williams supporters (there were no denials nor challenges to any detail that I saw) as very strange.

If true this would mean Slater obtained risque photos of Williams, simulated Rachinger’s phone, and colluded with Lauda Finem to dump on both Rachinger and Williams at the same time.

It would mean that NZ Herald was incorrect in the article they posted and then later pulled down – except that it’s still online via syndication overseas and at the ODT:

Journalist’s private photos published

Intimate photographs purporting to be of a leading journalist have been published online, revealing gaps in laws protecting people from having personal images used against them.

The pictures were understood to have been taken and sent in a private context to an individual not involved in the blog which published the images.

It claimed it had obtained the images when they were circulated with the intent of embarrassing Williams and harming her career but gave no explanation for why it had published the pictures.

A MediaWorks spokesman said the company was aware of “certain matters relating to the publication of private images” of Williams.

“The matters at issue are not ones MediaWorks will comment on. Jessica is a senior journalist with significant responsibility for RadioLive and will be on leave until these matters are worked through.”

The pictures emerged following a story broadcast on TV3’s The Nation last weekend in which claims were made that Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater had paid someone to hack into a left-wing website.

If MediaWorks or NZ Herald thought this story had been a total fabrication by Cameron Slater I would have expected them to deal with it quite differently.

But the media have generally been very quiet on this whole topic, and thee has been a succession of weird turns in this saga, so it’s difficult to know what is the truth and what isn’t.

And it continues in response to others:

Dude, those Photos are damning proof of how easily trust is destroyed with you, hey? You made a massive mistake sharing those.

Where is the source? Where is the Threema ID proof it’s me? I never dated the victim and never attempted to blackmail her.

k.they are spreading the muck thin, if this is the categorical truth then I withdraw my accusation. huge collateral dmge tho

And:

… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

Did you share the pics im question with Slater, Ben? You’re inferring it but should state so I believe, if that is tje case.

Can Mr Slater prove that? Or does he just send whatever he wants to LF and get them to release at his bidding? Where’s the proof?

Just trying to understand how, if Slater had those pics, he came by them? It reads that you are certain he did have them.

And:

Don’t infer anything. I’d like to see the LF source front up and show their evidence/proof and for LF to prove their allegations.

I’m not having a go just trying to understand context, evidence and implications.

And:

Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I have never spoken to Bomber personally and he has never seen any info from me. A smear.

Bomber shouldn’t be getting smashed for what are demonstrably lies. He may have been referring to hearsay unrelated to pics but not to pics.

I could see what was coming (though not this) which is why I tweeted a few weeks ago about that blog post of his.

That last comment is interesting, needs looking in to. There may be more to add on this.

Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I was JW source for the Hager raid. We never dated or were in a BF/GF relationship. Smear on MB.

He provided Williams with what information about the Hager raid? That was in October.

Bradbury has apparently removed that reference from the Daily Blog, according to Disraeli Gladstone:

Quite on the contrary, though, it seems like he was threatening/considering to threaten the current victim (let’s not identify her at all for her sake). How do we know this? At the time, fucking Bomber made a passing comment in a blog post that Rachinger had something to hold over someone (he named the profession, so we know it was most likely the victim).

The fact that Bomber saw the evidence and didn’t do anything about it except make a snide remark (which he now deleted from his blog) is horrible in of itself as well.

Bradbury was not likely to be colluding with Slater.

NZ Herald’s handling of Rachinger stories

Yesterday NZ Herald posted an article on the Ben Rachinger/Jessica Williams/Mediaworks story with some detail and a number of quotes, so David Fisher had put some time and effort into researching and writing it.

Within a couple of hours that article was removed. But in the modern online media world that was too late, it had already been reported and repeated in Australia on at least two news sites.

I know Matt Nippert from NZ Herald had been sniffing around the Rachinger claims on Slater/The Standard since February, but I never noticed them reporting on it except for when they followed up on The Nation’s coverage on Saturday.

This was promoted by the Herald’s media reporter John Drinnan:

Blogger accused of paying hacker nzh.tw/11460942 via @nzherald m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl…

I replied:

@Zagzigger @nzherald Why have different media waited this long and only followed once @thenation reported it?

Drinnan:

Herald have been running stories.

But I searched on Ben Rachinger at the Herald and got no hits apart from Saturday’s Nation followup (Right-wing blogger accused of paying off hacker).

I’ve searched again right now and I get that same article plus a reference in Bryce Edwards’ political roundup on Monday – Political roundup: Dirty Politics ‘done dirt cheap’.

Nothing prior to those two.

I’ve tried some other searches, from NZ Herald and via Google, and can’t find any other reference.

Why did Drinnan claim they had been running stories when it appears they haven’t? I tweeted back to Drinnan disputing his claim but he didn’t respond.

Why did they pull yesterday’s story?