Quoting Trump

It’s hard to get away from Donald Trump’s media confrontation. Vox: 9 things it’s hard to believe the president of the United States actually just said

On leaks and ‘fake news’:

Question: I just want to get you to clarify this very important point. Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign? And on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?

Trump: Well, the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them; I mean, the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it, and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.

So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it. Because there’s nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit but the reporters, good reporters.

That’s typically bizarre – the leaks are real but reporting them is fake.

Just rambling on about ‘fake news’:

Trump: I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly, and I’m okay with that. But I’m not okay when it is fake …

I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress. I think that’s right. I don’t know, Peter (ph), is that one right? Because you know I think they have lower — I heard lower than Congress. But honestly, the public would appreciate it, I’d appreciate it — again, I don’t mind bad stories when it’s true but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult.

Against CNN:

Trump: I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred, and just the hatred. I don’t watch it anymore because it’s not very good. … I think it should be straight. I think it should be — I think it would be frankly more interesting. I know how good everybody’s ratings are right now, but I think that actually — I think that’d actually be better.

I don’t watch it any more because it’s very good — he’s saying no. It’s OK, Jim. It’s OK, Jim, you’ll have your chance. But I watch others too. You’re not the only one so don’t feel badly. But I think it should be straight. I think it should be — I think it would be frankly more interesting.

Perhaps Trump could try talking about important, interesting issues rather than moan about negative press, that they then report on.

On not talking about military stuff:

Trump: I’m not going to tell you anything about what I’m going to do. I’m not going to talk about military stuff. I will not say, “We are going to attack Mosul in four months. We are going to attack in one month. Next week, we are going to attack Mosul.”

In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult — you know why? I don’t talk about military and certain other things. You were going to be surprised to hear that, by the way, my whole campaign I said that. I don’t have to tell you.

Back to ‘fake news’ and confidence in the media:

Reporter: When you call it “fake news,” you’re undermining confidence in our news media …

Trump: No, no. I do that. Here’s the thing. OK. I understand what you’re — and you’re right about that, except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, “Wow, that’s going to be a great story.” And I’ll get killed.

I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter, not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad. And when they change it and make it really bad, something that should be positive — sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make OK. They’ll even make it negative.

So I understand it. So, because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who’s saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.

Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?

Ranting and raving about not ranting and raving:

TRUMP: I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time.

Tomorrow, they will say, “Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.” I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But — but I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.

But tomorrow, the headlines are going to be, “Donald Trump rants and raves.” I’m not ranting and raving.

On Russia, Hillary Clinton and uranium:

Trump: By the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia. Just so you understand that. Tomorrow, you will say “Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia; this is terrible.” It is not terrible.

It is good. We had Hillary Clinton try to do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20% of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.

But nobody talks about that. I did not do anything for Russia. I’ve done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20% of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks?

A nuclear holocaust would be bad.

Trump: I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: Nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we.

If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along — and don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There’s no upside. We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.

They’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Is Trump really this stupid? Or is he being deliberately stupid to play to the media? Or playing to a stupid audience?

Trump media conference

There is a lot of buzz about Donald Trump’s media conference – or more like a media condemnation.

Stuff: Donald Trump calls impromptu news conference, and uses it to attack the media again

US President Donald Trump has gone on the defensive over his presidency, accusing America’s news media of being “out of control” at a White House news conference, vowing to bypass the media and take his message “straight to the people.”

Nearly a month into his presidency, Trump said he had “inherited a mess” but his new administration had made “significant progress” and took credit for an optimistic business climate and a rising stock market. He pushed back against widespread reports of a chaotic start to his administration marked by a contentious executive order – now tied up in a legal fight – to place a ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

“This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine,” Trump declared on Thursday (Friday NZT).

That’s not how it appears. It’s not just problems with the media, Trump has ongoing problems with the Courts and had a senior appointee resign.

During the news conference, Trump made a number of misstatements. He said for the third time in two days that he had won 306 Electoral College votes in his election. The correct number was 304. He called it “the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan,” when in fact his predecessor, Barack Obama, won 334 electoral college votes in 2012 and 365 in 2008.

When pressed on the figures, Trump said that he meant he achieved a bigger Electoral College victory than any Republican since Reagan in 1980 and 1984 but a reporter pointed out that wasn’t true either as George Bush senior brought in 426 electoral votes in the 1988 election.

When further challenged on this claim, Trump said, “I was given that information. I don’t know. I was just given it. We had a very, very big margin.”

While this may seem like nit picking over numbers it is symptomatic of Trump’s ego problem and his looseness with basic facts. Perhaps those who supply him with information are tardy with facts – or perhaps this is a deliberate strategy to divert from things that really matter.

“The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people,” Trump said.

This is a standard Breitbart/Bannon tactic – accuse opponents of what you are guilty of, in this case deliberate dishonesty.

The president announced that he would announce a “new and very comprehensive order to protect our people.”

Perhaps this time they will consult with people with a knowledge of the law and experience with drafting legal orders.

Reaction from an undeterred ‘fake news’ organisation:

Another ‘dishonest media’ report:  Trump blasts ‘out of control’ media, defends agenda, administration

President Trump’s feud with the media turned into an all-out war Thursday afternoon.

His early presidency beset by damaging leaks and a burst of staff turmoil, Trump used a hastily called press conference to blast the media’s coverage of his administration in his strongest terms yet. He claimed the press is “out of control,” reports on his team’s ties to Russia are “fake,” and news outlets are attacking him because they oppose his agenda.

“The media’s trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on the pledges that we made, and they’re not happy about it,” Trump declared at the White House.

The president spoke and took questions for over an hour, even joking with some reporters toward the end and saying he was having fun. In a bid to preempt negative coverage of his remarks, Trump insisted he was not “ranting and raving.” But he lamented that the “tone” of coverage of his administration is one of “such hatred.”

“The public doesn’t believe you people anymore,” he said.

 

Te Tii Marae trying to charge media

Is this another reason why Waitangi celebrations should be spread more around the country?

Newshub: Waitangi marae’s $10k coverage fee

Waitangi’s lower Te Tii Marae is seeking to charge media outlets up to $10,000 to film dignitaries and politicians arriving on Saturday and Sunday.

The marae’s communications liaison, known simply as ‘Tana’, says the tradition of media companies gifting a koha to the Marae has been scrapped, and replaced with a ‘coverage fee’.

The cheapest ‘coverage fee’ is $1200, which gives entry to journalists, photographers, and camera operators – but restricts them to two areas of the marae grounds.

The only other option is an ‘exclusive package’ costing $10,000 which gives access to all parts of the marae, including inside during speeches.

Newshub was offered the exclusive rights last night but declined.  It’s understood TVNZ was then approached, but also refused.

Media can be a pain, what they broadcast, print and post is selective and at times can misrepresent the overall situation, but charging them for coverage of New Zealand’s major annual celebration seems more than cheeky.

Another reason why Waitangi Day celebrations should not focus so much on one place.

Spiced up crowd sizes

Despite Donald Trump saying he would hit the ground running in his presidency, dealing with the important things, his first appearance was in front of a receptive (and self selected) CIA crowd where he blasted media as amongst the most dishonest human beings he knows, and blew his own trumpet. He is well known for his self praise.

Trump is known to be very keen on ratings, and has made claims about false reporting of crowd sizes at his inauguration.

His press secretary Sean Spicer called a special press conference, which turned out to be a little more than an attack on media while making more claims about crowd sizes. Claims that have been proven to be false, which is ironic given he blasted the media for false reporting.

Gezza reports:

Aljazeera 7am News. “Kellyanne Conway says Sean Spicer inaccurately described crowds.”

The Atlantic reports: Trump’s Press Secretary Falsely Claims: ‘Largest Audience Ever to Witness an Inauguration, Period’

In his first official White House briefing, Sean Spicer blasted journalists for “deliberately false reporting,” and made categorical claims about crowd-size at odds with the available evidence.

High irony.

In his first appearance in the White House briefing room since President Trump’s inauguration, Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivered an indignant statement Saturday night condemning the media’s coverage of the inauguration crowd size, and accusing the press of “deliberately false reporting.”

Standing next to a video screen that showed the crowd from President Trump’s vantage point, Spicer insisted that media outlets had “intentionally framed” their photographs to minimize its size. After attacking journalists for sharing unofficial crowd-size estimates—“no one had numbers,” he said—he proceeded to offer a categorical claim of his own. “This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” he said, visibly outraged. “These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.”

But it was Spicer who was wrong.

Steve Doig, a professor of journalism at Arizona State University, has provided estimates of crowds at past inaugurals, and is well-versed in the challenges they present.

Based on the photographs available in the media showing the part of the crowd that was on the mall, he said, “the claim that this is the largest ever is ludicrous on its face.”

Spicer produced numbers that have been refuted.

The only numbers Spicer cited were ridership numbers from WMATA, the D.C. public-transit system. “We know that 420,000 people used D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural,” he said.

But the figures Spicer offered were not consistent with those provided by WMATA officials, who told the Washington Post that 570,557 riders used the Metro system between its 4 a.m. opening and its midnight closure on Friday. That number falls short of both President Obama’s 2009 and 2013 inaugurations, which saw 1.1 million trips and 782,000 trips respectively.

And it was not just fewer in attendance.

Preliminary Nielsen figures also show that Trump’s inauguration received fewer average TV viewers in the United States than Obama’s first inauguration. The Los Angeles Times reported that 30.6 million viewers tuned in for Friday’s ceremonies, 19 percent below the 37.8 million viewers who watched in 2009.

Why does this matter?

It shows that Trump has carried an obsession with ratings (he recently tweeted that the new ‘Apprentice’ didn’t rate as well as when he ran it) into his presidency.

It shows that claims of ‘false news’ directed at media are not always correct, and in fact his press secretary appears to have presented false information and false claims.

And it shows that despite having a big and game changing agenda ego may be more important to Trump than communicating what he is going to do.

There also seems to be a deliberate strategy to divert public and media attention, perhaps in this case from the huge women’s march protests.

The media certainly need to up their game substantially, but as part of that they need to still hold the new president to account. If they are pressured into reporting more thoughtfully and accurately that will be a good thing.

And if Trump and Spicer divert and try to spin fake news they should be held to account on that.

I’ve just watched a number of video clips from Fox News, and there are very mixed reactions to Trump’s CIA speech and to Spicer’s attack. Some support Trump and criticise his critics, but others are very critical of Trump’s first weekend as PR president, including Fox’s political editor Chris Stirewalt.

A wedding and mad sad media

There are about 20,000 marriages per year in New Zealand  (to New Zealand residents). That’s about 380 marriages per week, or more than fifty a day.

However media have been getting frantic about the rumour of just one impending wedding over the last couple of weeks.

And they went mental yesterday when one wedding apparently took place. For some media was their headline story, comprising mostly of futile attempts to get some photos of what a couple were trying to keep private.

It was media just about at it’s worst. It can’t be called journalism.It was disgustingly intrusive.

It has become a mad mad sad media world.

More commentary on Trump win

Amongst all the disbelief and shock expressed by media both here and in the US over Donald Trump’s win there has been some good insights.

The day after the election Michael Moore posted on Facebook:

Morning After To-Do List:

  1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.
  2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn’t let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must “heal the divide” and “come together.” They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.
  3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn’t wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that’s about to begin.
  4. Everyone must stop saying they are “stunned” and “shocked”. What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren’t paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all “You’re fired!” Trump’s victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.
  5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

Let’s try to get this all done by noon today.
— Michael Moore

This is very ranty and sweary but says it like it is far better than Trump ever did.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1044777035645189&id=796085293847699

Last year: Published on Nov 18, 2015 – A new poll says Donald Trump now captures 42% of likely Republican primary voters and the GOP is in a panic.

Back to May:  Media predicts Trump won’t get the nomination

To be fair it was never certain would win the nomination nor the presidency – the latter was a close victory.

Back to now: Morning Joe Addresses The Media Blindspot Covering Donald Trump’s Chance At Presidency:

Excellent points but still talks as if the media’s job was to have helped Clinton win.

From what I have seen if the media learns from this they will look, listen and investigate more and stop trying to dictate the agenda themselves.

It’s not only the political establishment that the people are fed up with, it’s also the media establishment.

Trump versus media, continued

It hasn’t taken long for tensions to surface between president-elect Donald Trump and the media. Trump has just visited the White House to have a chat with Obama and a look around.

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

His relationship with the White House Correspondents’ Association hasn’t started well.

White House Correspondents Association: Trump decision to leave DC without informing press could leave Americans “blind” during crisis

whca

Trump may not know how things are expected to work yet. Or this could be the beginning of an uneasy and possibly contentious relationship between Trump and the media.

Trump owes his success to the attention given him by the media, but he indicated during the campaign a large amount of friction as well, when the media didn’t perform how he liked.

Trump’s apparently conciliatory conversion regarding Obama and Clinton does not seem to apply to media.

UPDATE: An NBC News reporter got a response from Trump on registration of Muslims and got a chilling response: Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Absolutely’ Require Muslims to Register

Donald J. Trump, who earlier in the week said he was open to requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a database, said on Thursday night that he “would certainly implement that — absolutely.”

Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’

When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.

 More than a bit ominous.

Latta on what our politicians do

Nigel Latta has had a look at what our politicians (and media and lobbyists and activists) do.

Stuff: Nigel Latta: What Do Our Politicians Actually Do?

We decided to go and look at Parliament because whenever you’re looking at how to solve the nation’s problems, it always comes back to Parliament. 

Politicians are despised but when you spend some time with them, you quickly realise that almost all of them are there because they want to make a difference and do something positive. It’s just that ambition and ego sometimes get in the way. 

And the public mostly sees what our politicians do through the eyes of the media, who tend to focus disproportionately on conflict, disruption, controversy and mistakes.

Our Parliament is based on a clash of ideas and we’ve been led to believe that’s a good way to solve problems, but that’s the worst way to solve problems. It’s not the best idea that emerges, it’s the person with the loudest voice  who wins.

To an extent that’s true but it does require about 60 MPs supporting the loudest voices.

In a perfect world we’d be able to sit down as humans and talk through ideas. We’d just have a bunch of people who aren’t members of any party; they’re smart people, they’re going to talk about ideas.  They’d be genuinely open to any solution rather than driven by ideological views.

Theoretically perhaps, but what sort of people would we end up with as MPs if things worked like that?

The politician who is elected on the basis of a cause will behave very differently than the politician who is there for a career.

The problem now is we have this political class, career politicians whose primary focus is on getting reelected, and because of that they can stay in power for decades.

We seem to be getting a growing number of ‘career politicians’ under our party based system.

We spent some time with Paula Bennett, and regardless of what you think of her as a person or her politics, she works incredibly hard. She oversees a huge budget. And that’s the thing, they do an important job so we want smart people in there.

The public doesn’t see anything of the hard graft that goes on. Instead we are bombarded with images of opponents trying to destroy their credibility and careers, and of the media trying to concoct sensational stories hold them to account.

The bulk of Parliament’s work is in select committees. In the select committee that we sat on, it was the politicians who were being sensible, and it was the public servants who were trying to argue for a position that may have been legally correct, but was not in the actual interests of everyday New Zealanders.

It was the first time I’d seen MP’s as the sensible ones protecting all of us, and that was refreshing. 

MPs working for us against the bureaucrats? Who’d have thought.

One of the interesting things we did was to follow the procedure of how questions are asked in the House.

The whole process builds in intensity over the day and I can understand how they all get caught up in the drama of it all.

The problem is that while they all think it’s a really big deal getting to ask a question in the House, but none of the rest of us care. In fact most of us are appalled by their behaviour in the Chamber.

It was fascinating watching the reaction of school kids who’d come to see democracy in action. Their faces alternated between amusement and disbelief that our nation’s leaders could be acting like this. 

Ultimately though, our knowledge if what happens in Parliament comes from the media. And a lot of what we see is the antics in the debating chamber or gotcha journalism.

We see a small snapshot via a media seeking sensation and readers/viewers.

The real work in Parliament happens in select committees, and a huge amount of that work happens with politicians working together to get stuff done.

It’s not as entertaining as the silliness in the house so it doesn’t get covered.

Sensible and hard work doesn’t make good headlines.

And the end result of that is that we think they’re all acting like kids all the time, when actually they only behave like kids a very small percentage of the time. The rest of their day, they’re actually doing important work.

And quite a bit of that work involves working together.

At the end of my time in parliament the thing I was most concerned about was the influence of lobbyists.

I think any time a lobbyist goes to see a politician, given this is a person who’s being paid to influence politicians and policy, we should know who’s there, who they’re representing, and what was discussed. That goes for all lobbyists, whether it be a lobbyist for big alcohol or for environmental groups. 

We should all be concerned about the influence of lobbyists.

Yes, lobbyists (and often the money and vested interests behind lobbyists) have more influence on what happens than many realise.

After watching this people might say ‘you were too soft on them’. I’ll undoubtedly get emails about why I didn’t slam them on issues like inequality, or housing or any of the other weighty problems we face as a nation.

But that wasn’t the point of going. I wanted to know more about how Parliament works, not circle round the usual policy debates. So now I know that if you want to have some influence find your local MP and feed them a question they might get to ask in the House. Because if it gets asked in the House, you might just get some media attention on your issue. 

So the influential voice is not always the loudest voice in Cabinet, it is influenced by getting a loud voice for your views in the media.

This is something that’s also attempted via social media and blogs, and it sometimes succeeds, like the Red Peak flag. But it’s very competitive, there’s a lot of political and social activists competing to be the Nek Minute in the spotlight.

There are some principled, genuinely compassionate in there who really want to make a difference.

I think most are to an extent at least.

And then I think there are people that are the complete opposite.

Some seem to be hanging in there to collect healthy pay packets. Some seem to think that destruction (of their opponents) is a requisite for getting power to change things.

For us though, as voters, I’m hoping we can learn to demand more than coverage of the trivial, or the endless inane controversies, and instead expect a higher quality of debate. We should also, just by the by, lift our own game.

To an extent at least we get (from the media) what we demand or deserve. And those active in politics outside Parliament demand sensation, as long as it is applied to those they oppose.

Ordinary people (voters) are either bored by politics or turned off by the worst that the media shows them, so they are turned off rather than inspired to demand better.

So I doubt that we will see much improvement. The noisiest politicians, the noisiest journalists and the noisiest activists and lobbyists rule, and while the rest of us allow it to continue like that it will continue being like that.

Petition to ban petitions used as news sources

Mark Reynolds has started a petition calling for a ban on Change.org petitions being used as the source of a “news” story.

The demands of “modern news rooms” means they will do anything to fill the gap in the news cycle, including latching onto any silly petition that gets launched on Change.org.

As a result everyones news feed is getting clogged with banal stories to ban, close or shutdown most things in the world. 

Stories like this http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/81398157/mike-hoskings-supporters-start-keep-mike-petition

If we can stop this we will win back our news feeds. 

We therefore need to shutdown Change.org and stop its stupid petitions being used for stupid news stories.

I agree with the point being made even if it’s tongue in cheek.

Online petitions and online polls are very dubious sources of ‘news’ at best.

I thought of signing the petition for the hell of it but it also signs you on to Change.org’s email list so decided it’s not worth getting more junk mail.

Slater proud of political hack

Cameron Slater suggests he is proud of being the victim of a political hack, but has moved from playing down to ignoring his own involvement in an attempted political hack.

And he seems to be promoting political hacking as just a part of elections here in New Zealand – but uses a news report on US presidential campaigning as an example.

Yesterday he posted It appears that hacking as part of elections is here to stay.

I would say I am proud to have been the first in New Zealand, but that would ignore the Hollow Men hack, and perhaps others that have been just as effective and less public.

He has often complained about much of a victim he was, but now seems to be proud of the hacker’s attention.

Politically motivated hacking seems to be alive and well in New Zealand.  And judging by the news story, it’s here to stay. 

The news story has got nothing to do with New Zealand.

Would it be unfair to say it’s most, if not all, done by or for the left? 

Considering that Slater admitted to police and court that he was guilty of trying to procure a hack (for political purposes) it is disingenuous denial to say that only the left do it.

Let’s face it, hacking is a great leveling tool.  It can bring National’s millions to its knees by just a few people with a computer and the Internet.

But…

The good thing is that once they had all my emails, they bungled it.   The electorate may not have liked Dirty Politics, but they liked the way the left had packaged it and were trying to make a molehill into a mountain even less. Bless the voters and bless the left for thinking they would care about a beltway issue such as a blogger writing stories or handing leads to media.

He seems to be claiming hacking is a great levelling tool except that it didn’t bring National to it’s knees, it was ineffective. Who can tell what he means.

It is the same reason I can’t get any traction on getting justice for the hack – people don’t care.

Really? I thought it looked like the police failed to identify the hacker or find evidence of who the hacker was.

Stater has claimed to know who the hacker was and who financed the hack and who was involved in using the hacked information but still fails to substantiate any of his claims. Last week he tried to dump accusations on Ben Rachinger, saying he wasn’t claiming anything himself.

There have always been the infiltration of campaigns, spying and going through rubbish bins after political meetings.  But it is time to both realise and accept that hacking is now a standard part of campaigning.

It happened once. It backfired. Slater tried to do it. That backfired. Doesn’t that make it look stupid?

So why is Slater trying to normalise it as ‘a standard part of campaigning’? Does he think he will get away with it next time?

He also takes a swipe, again, at Hager and the media.

But now, Hager’s even managed to get the media to work with him.  Some, because they are idiots, and others I suspect due to the fact he’s got information on them.  All the media have done is cut off their links to right wing sources and are all-in on the left wing ones. 

All the media have done is cut off their links to Slater. Despite his belief in his importance he can hardly have been the sole right wing source.

Sources like Matthew Hooton, David Farrar and David Seymour still seem to have relationships with the media. And John Key and National Ministers and MPs seem to still be an occasional source for the media.

Kind of awesome, if it wasn’t for their incompetence.

Kind of ironic given Slater’s incompetence.

The only thing that tickles me pink about this is that the Media Party will inevitably end up being hacked as well.   If they haven’t already.

Is that wishful thinking? Or is it a veiled threat?

As well as threatening to reveal all about the Rawshark hacking and all those alleged to be involved Slater has threatened to reveal embarrassing information about media complicity with the hack and with himself. Like many of his promises of revelations he keeps failing to deliver.

Slater is all over the place here. On the Rawshark hack he flip flops between being proud (‘yay, me!’) to self pity (‘poor me!’).

What seems to be lacking is any remorse for getting busted – he now seems to be suggest hacking is an acceptable political tactic.