Prentice versus Campbell and The Nation continued

After posting a very grumpy Scott Campbell: Liar on The Nation at The Standard Lyn Prentice continued his attack on Scott Campbell on Twitter.

@lprent (first reacting to me):

The lying Scott is reticent. Still no attacks at site either. All Fiction?

You still are “factchecker”. Why don’t you look for attacks? Or too lazy?

I suggested working collaboratively with The Standard (and other blogs) on fact checking and in response they bitterly attacked me, and continue to attack me on it, so I might not be that inclined to fact check for them.

No evidence? Responsibility is on the side of the assertor. They attacked.

Sound like Slater. Gives others private address. Hysterical on own privacy.

Who’s hysterical? He should be careful accusing others of sounding like Slater.

But you frequently play the weeping victim yourself with no real cause

Who’s weeping?

@SCampbellMedia then joined in:

Been working. Said no names. I respect the 3 people. Also said Beehive posted..

If I’m wrong, who was Batman? FYI I’ve got no links to a party.

So the brave @lprent turned his attack to him.

What post were you attacked in. Or are you just a gutkess lying spinner?

@SCampbellMedia

Loads of references to gallery of which I was a member. Whos lying? Who was Batman

@TheNation

Bruce Wayne, wasn’t it?

@PatrickGowerNZ

Mike Williams was Batman

@lprent returns as grumpy as ever.

So point to some attacks. Basically you are full of bloody useless lies.

@ShakingStick

You claimed there were posts about you, and that’s how you knew.

@lprent

There are none. Not about Scott, tv3, or radio live. Lies.

I get the impression that the gallery were being suckers

That I am unsure of. The authors were pissed about HFee

So no evidence? You go for diversion. You really are a complete arsehole.

One might think that last comment is a bit ironic.

The Standard diversion

Further to the last post The Standard is actively excluding discussion about the main point made by Scott Campbell on The Nation.

karol commented:

Missing the point. Diversion.

Spelling it out.

The post is about a smear against The Standard.

FIRST THERE NEEDS TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE STANDARD PUBLISHED THE ATTACKS AS CLAIMED BY CAMPBELL.

I was referring to a part of the ‘smear’ that was quoted in the post, but they want to exclude that part of the alleged smear from the discussion.

I then posted another comment and got this:

[deleted as being diversonary]

[lprent: The claim was made by Scott Campbell that posts attacking journalists were written. They were not. You are trying diversion. Do not comment on my post again or I will ban you from the site. ]

That’s more than a bit curious given in his post Prentice states:

Unlike Cameron Slater, who removes posts and even comments for politically or legally expedient reasons, we don’t remove comments or posts which have gone up on the site and passed initial moderation.

The Standard versus Scott Campbell and The Nation

Scott Campbell ws on the panel on The Nation on Saturday and a comment he made about The Standard has provoked a reaction from some, including lprent who has posted Scott Campbell: Liar on The Nation.

On The Nation this weekend, Scott Campbell, in a discussion about the fallout from Dirty Politics, said:-

I won’t drop anyone name in it. But the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen. They used to write posts against journalists, I know because I was one of them that they used to write posts against. It has happened in and around the beehive for a long time.

I think that the difference here is that it was SIS details….

I think that this claim is just complete bullshit. Both because I know where the posts were coming from during that time and who they were referencing.

Evidence of this claim should show up in the text of the site, and it doesn’t.

Now personally, I can’t remember Scott Campbell coming up on this site. In fact I can’t remember him at all. But I really don’t bother remembering journalists much unless they write or present something of value.

Prentice did some name searching and “long scan of the comments” and didn’t find any evidence came to:

Conclusion – Scott Campbell is deliberately lying.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that there were any attacks on Scott Campbell, TV3 News, or even Radio Live at The Standard during the Clark government.

That’s not correct. Prentice hasn’t found or produced any evidence. It doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

Scott Campbell just displayed that he was more than just a simple liar on the Nation. As a PR dick, he’d have to know what he was doing.

If Campbell was wrong to could be for a number of reasons, including incorrect or mixed up recollection. Prentice has no evidence that Campbell was lying, nor if any incorrect claim was deliberate – it sounds like it was an off the cuff comment in response to another point made in the panel discussion.

Campbell was questioned about his claims on Twitter:

ScottCampbell-StandardBut this completely misses the main point that Campbell was making on The Nation – “the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen.”

And Campbell adds on Twitter:

Three people who blogged there I know well.

With a Standard policy of not disclosing the identities of authors writing under pseudonyms that’s something that will be difficult to refute.

And it’s worth looking at the lead in comments on The Panel, which show that Campbell was comparing current collusion with bloggers to something that’s been going on for yonks.

This came from an Interview with Bill English.

Lisa Owen: Okay, well, I want to just finish with a couple of very quick questions – two quick questions – for you. Nicky Hager – now, John Key and various National ministers says he was a left-wing conspiracy theorist and accused him of making stuff up. Well, it seems that he was right, so does your party owe him an apology?

Bill English: No, not at all. If Nicky Hager is horrified that journalists and bloggers talk to politicians and political staff about politics, then he lives on a different planet than everyone who’s done politics for a hundred years.

The panel discussion began:

Lisa Own: Nicky if I can come to you first, Bill English there saying the Gwyn report just shows us what…the normal business of politics.

Later:

Scott Campbell: I think where Bill’s trying to play this from a PR perspective, he said well that the information wasn’t leaked, ah or it was only parts of it and this has happened forever. Ah it has happened for a long time in and around Parliament. SIS details might be not have been passed on to journalists but details are given to journalists all the time.

Lisa Owen: He’s right isn’t he Nicky? Information, you know, information is passed on to journalists all the time, that’s how we get stories.

Nicky Hager: That’s right, but lets just look at what the Gwyn report said because it actually went beyond what my book said.

What it said was that the PM’s office, because they were in charge of SIS matters ’cause he was the minister of the SIS, new about information that could be used to embarrass Phil Goff.

It says specifically in the report. Then the, this staff member, this senior staff member asked Jason Ede to get hold of Cameron Slater, to talk to him about how to write an Official Information request, and then…

Lisa Owen: …to get hold of a journalist, so I don’t think it was specified that it was Slater, in fact that staff member expressed some surprise  that it was actually Slater he’d gone to…

That waters down Hager’s argument that it was deliberate campaign with Slater run from the top, with the Prime Minister’s involvement.

Nicky Hager: …the point I’m coming to is, and then it says that Jason Ede drafted blog posts for Cameron Slater about the issue. Now I don’t think that most people, Huntly or elsewhere,  would think that it was normal for the Prime Minister’s staff to be drafting attack things during an election campaign against their opponents…

Isn’t that one of the jobs of party PR?

…and giving it to an attack blogger, and not admitting there involvement in that.

So collusion between the Prime Minister’s office a blogger was Hager’s primary point here. Next as quoted by Prentice:

Scott Campbell: I won’t drop anyone name in it. But the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen. They used to write posts against journalists, I know because I was one of them that they used to write posts against. It has happened in and around the beehive for a long time.

Prentice tried to shift emphasis to something that hadn’t been brought up and looks like an add-on explanation. In the context of the discussion the emphasis should be:

Scott Campbell: I won’t drop anyone name in it. But the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen.

Will Prentice address that claim?