Media Wars
April 30th, 2006 at 6:49 am by David FarrarIn today’s NZ Herald Fran O’Sullivan critiques Ian Wishart.
Ian Wishart replies on his blog and seeks a retraction from the Herald’s editor, with legal action threatened if not forthcoming.
UPDATE: Sir Humphrey also blogs with details of e-mails between Antarctic Lemur and Fran, and responds to points made by Fran.
Tags: Media
April 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Fran didn’t make “points”, she made wild speculative allegations and sugestions of the documents obtained under the OIA being fakes.
This is quite some distance form the claims of her having to be watertight in her facts. This being one reason she didn’t cover the story.
Another reason being that the “motivation” behind the story was to “bring down to the government” and this is not the job of the media. Given that the story itself has not motivation other than being in the public interest it’s clear that she did not cover due to her own motivation of NOT endangering the government.
Fran is flailing wildly and is clearly not used to being fact checked or having her viersion of events confronted.
Thats what happens when you work for the dinosaur media.
Any minute now there will be the threats of legal action.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I’m with Fran on this. Ian Wishart is a fucking nut. He’s got serious psychological issues. For a guy who’s so hell-bent on making absolutely defamatory statements about politicians, it’s very rich for him to threaten legal action against Fran.
What a frigging clown.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 11:36 am
IP, could you kindly specify the defamatory statements?
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
IP, could you kindly specify the defamatory statements?
Well, Fran notes Wishart’s claim in his blog that DBP could be charged with “kidnapping” under the Crimes Act wrt the showers thing. And on this site he also accused DBP of “lecherous sexual harrassment” of underage girls. Both of those seem so throughly distanced from any actual evidence as to qualify as defamatory.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 30th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Luke:
Well, as far as point 1) goes – perhaps Fran could set an example for her colleages and NOT file any story wholly based on anonymous sources. It always seems to me that hacks try and have a bob each way on that question.
After all, when a journalist runs with an anonymous source we – the readers – are expected to take it on trust they’re not getting played by someone with “political interests” or a hidden agenda. Now, I’d trust O’Sullivan’s judgement more than most of her colleages but let’s get real for a moment – there may be no such thing as a wholly disinterested source, but don’t readers have the right to assess their credibility for themselves? And isn’t disclosure a basic mechanism that allows readers to do that?
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Russell…with the greatest of respect, you too will fall into a Fran hole if you’re not careful.
O’Sullivan took one line out of a list of possible breaches of the Crimes Act that I posted in The Briefing Room after discussing the matter with police who’d worked on the Benson-Pope investigation prior.
See: http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2006/02/possible_crimes.html
One of the mistakes you make Russell, is assuming that because my sources were not named in the website release that they didn’t exist. Every one of them exists on tape and/or in email. The Herald on Sunday report which backed up my story did not talk to all the same sources that I did. I had more detail, including women who said girls were actually naked in the changing rooms when BP marched in, and that he lingered by the shower cubicles demanding girls get out because they were taking too long. The girls couldn’t get out because DBP was there.
DBP lied like a flatfish throughout, and Investigate conclusively slam-dunked the man every time he opened his mouth, including proving that he lied about doing things in line with school policy, because he went back and pulled precisely the same stunt a year later, supposedly after the school policy had been clarified to himl.
The women I’ve spoken to regard BP as a lech. That’s their view, they were the first-hand witnesses, some even told police they had that view of him in the first investigation.
If you want to nail your colours to DBP’s flagging mast go right ahead, but personally I’d be wary of lingering too close to Ground Zero in the near future.
Ask the Prime Minister what really made her lash out and suddenly call me a creep, 12 hours after I asked her to comment on some fresh information we have.
And Russell…if you keep suggesting I get my stories wrong, purely on the basis of your own offended political sensibilities, don’t be surprised if one day you don’t find your skills tested in court as well.
You’re entitled to an opinion, but that opinion has to be based on true facts. I’ve just established that I have evidence capable of proof in court supporting my DBP and Parker claims. What have you got, when you go shooting from the hip and accuse me of defaming those men?
As I said to one commentator on Friday, are you really so confident in one doubtful Crown solr’s opinion that you’d die in a trench for it in terms of defamation risk? Do you really believe I would write a story accusing the Attorney-General of a crime if I didn’t have a watertight legal case?
Get real.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
And Russell…if you keep suggesting I get my stories wrong, purely on the basis of your own offended political sensibilities, don’t be surprised if one day you don’t find your skills tested in court as well.
Good grief. Am I supposed to take that as a threat Ian? I think IP might be right about you.
You’re entitled to an opinion, but that opinion has to be based on true facts.
The thing is, Ian, I walked you through the multiple mistakes and falsehoods in your hatchet job on Kay Goodger here this week. Your treatment of this woman has been despicable and you don’t seem remotely capable of grasping that. That and your little bit of snarling above suggest to me that you’re a bully who likes to play the victim.
RB
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
“Wishart said: You’re entitled to an opinion, but that opinion has to be based on true facts.”
As opposed to false facts?
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Ian, you threatening legal action is getting a bit tiresome. Also, I am not sure that it will do you any good if you go ahead with it anyway. You may (and I mean ‘may’ as in ‘not likely’) win defamation, but I can’t imagine you actually getting damages.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“The thing is, Ian, I walked you through the multiple mistakes and falsehoods in your hatchet job on Kay Goodger here this week. Your treatment of this woman has been despicable and you don’t seem remotely capable of grasping that. That and your little bit of snarling above suggest to me that you’re a bully who likes to play the victim.”
Your treatment of various people and organisations in your blog posts could be described as “dispicable”, Brown. But that’s entirely different to alleging illegal activity. Is being described as an extreme feminist equivalent to allegedly committing a crime in your mind? You equate supposed political beliefs to law breaking? How odd.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. O’Sullivan’s column is bizaare. She claims to be some super professional MSM journalist with high standards of quality, but neglected to confirm the majority of her statements and neglected to contact either of the two people involved, even by email. Fortunately she stated them as hypotheticals, so she has that lame defense.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Can all the contributors to this thread please keep the adjectives to a minimum. I don’t mind lots of lawsuits between Fran, Ian, Russell and AL etc etc, so long as they don’t involve me as the site owner
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
David, please consider this a legal heads-up to you as I note you are falling into several egregious defamation traps by assuming that the case behind any adjectives that I have used, am using currently, or will use in the future on this blog isn’t a totally watertight and rock-solid one. Without prejudice, not for publication, off the record and off my rocker of course.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
AL and DPF..well said.
Russell. I don
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
“And Russell…if you keep suggesting I get my stories wrong, purely on the basis of your own offended political sensibilities, don’t be surprised if one day you don’t find your skills tested in court as well.”
Maybe you could join Murray over on Silent Running Ian. I’m sure you would feel really comfortable, just add a bit of foul language to the debate but make sure the intent is out and out thuggery and the shutting down of said debate because you don’t have the facts to cover your sorry arse..
What a worm.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
“The irony, and the reason I’m now threatening lawsuits, is because my critics accuse me repeatedly of getting my facts wrong, but they are too blinded by the speck of dust in my eye to see the camel stuck in their own.”
Motes and beams, old bean. Not sure how your critics could be blinded by dust specks in your eye either, or for that matter, how they could get camels into theirs without being arrested for animal worrying.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
And please please please take it to court! Sue. get yourself tested in the court of judicial and public opinion. Call AL as a witness, maybe he will show he has the courage of his convictions and become a real person like Russell and yourself…..
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Er, is your name really James Dean then? (And no, my name’s not Milt)
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
But your name is Psycho? =)
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Dear jamesdean,
I have nothing to do with the Parker case or anything Wishart does, as my post you so obviously didn’t read points out. Are you illiterate or just out on a little voluntary propaganda mission?
I think that means you’ve just lost credibility.
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
jamesdean…I’m not out to shut down debate. But debate based on untrue facts is a waste of headspace. All I ask is that if people criticise my work that they do it accurately. Is that really too much to ask from the Left or is accuracy and intelligent debate not covered in the little red book?
I don’t want to sue Russell. I don’t want to sue Fran. I’d much rather get on with my life.
But if dragging a few hypocrites before the Beak and getting them to say sorry for getting it badly wrong is what it takes to raise journalistic standards, I’m up for it.
Debate will continue, the sun will rise tomorrow, and as long as the media do their job properly and fairly no-one will feel any pain.
Juha, good to see you got hold of a copy of my Friday email to editors. I wondered how long it would be. I didn’t post it only to save someone some wider personal embarrassment.
The most hilarious aspect was that the Herald’s editor emailed me back (and cc’d it to the rest) telling me not to spam. And then he published Fran’s stream of consciousness the next day.
You can lead a horse to water…
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
More “true facts” Ian?
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
If you’ve the money to launch defamation proceedings, Ian, you could always launch a private prosecution instead (most of the legwork’s already been done…)
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Mikey Bill, this is why I’m the one who’d win a defamation suit…sigh. It’s a legal term.
“News Media Law in NZ”, by Burrows: “The comment must be based on true facts”.
What the court means by that is that the “fact” must be proven to be true by the Defendant in Court, in order for an honest opinion defence to survive.
For the edification of all bloggers, here’s an extract from Burrows that illustrates the dangers of getting fast and loose in the heat of debate, which we all do:
“Firstly, if a writer breaks the rule that he or she must indicate the facts on which his or her opinion is based, the bare and unsupported statement will normally be classified as a statement of fact rather than a comment.
“To give a simple example, to write ‘this man is a disgrace’ would almost certainly be held defamatory, for the statement has been presented as a bald statement of fact.
“But if one says, ‘this man has stolen from his mother, therefore he is a disgrace [in my view]‘ one is making clear that the latter part of the sentence is a conclusion which the writer has drawn from the facts clearly stated in the earlier part.
“Provided the fact of stealing was able to be proved and the matter was one of public interest, [it] would probably be defensible.”
Vote:April 30th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
“But your name is Psycho? =)”
Vote:Deed poll’s a wonderful thing…
May 1st, 2006 at 8:00 am
Fran is a serious journalist who makes serious points and she works damn hard to do her homework. And she knows the game well having wrote many many serious high profile stories and won many awards to boot. So she has a point. The most significant I think is a jounalist needs to be aware of the motives of their sources. Leaks are often make by people pushing an agenda. Any self respecting journalist needs to understand this. Hence in the Parker case merely getting comment from an aggrieved business partner and ignoring Parker himself left Wishart vulnerable and Wishart should know that.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 8:44 am
Tim, you make a good point, but I am always aware of motive. I am not, however, blinded by it.
Precisely where in my article did I leave myself vulnerable?
I ask this because Hyslop did not come to me with allegations that he had not been consulted over unanimous resolutions – we found that out ourselves. I didn’t seek “comment” from Hyslop on the point, merely clarification as to whether he’d ever been asked to sign such a resolution in the relevant years.
I then turned my attention to his bankrupt status at the time and whether that impacted on who owned the shares, but kept coming back to the declaration that Hyslop was the owner by Parker for years on signed forms, and s89 of the Companies Act which says barring an express declaration to the contrary from the High Court, the person listed as the owner on the share registry shall be deemed the legal and beneficial owner of the shares.
The COmpanies Act says it is a responsibility of the directors to ensure the registry accurately reflects the facts.
So again, these were strict liability offences on Parker’s behalf.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 8:54 am
“It would be equivalent to me calling Helen Clark the leader of United Future” Said Ian Wishart.
You mean she isn’t?
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 11:42 am
I thought “Doonegate” dated back to a time long before the last General Election. Of course the NZ Herald has to make a call on whether items are newsworthy at any point in time. Editors and journalists are doing this all the time, as is there right.
The surprising involvement and funding of Exclusive Brethrens with campaign pamphlets was an important and newsworthy issue that came up during the campaign, and not in the last week.
Were these two issues truly comparable?
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Ian you would have been better to get Parker to put his version to you as well least your writing appeqars to be a partisan rant with you acting as judge jury and exceutioner. I do not know the cirumstances of the aggrieved business partner and why he became bankrupt and not Parker it might be useful to flesh that story out. Maybe Parker put up capital (and got limited liability) and the business partner put up a guarantee in lieu of capital. I do not know
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pm
That’s a fine piece of spinning George!.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I suspect the Herald didn’t run the story for a couple of reasons:
1. The allegations that Peter Doone was unjustly sacked have already been made by Mr Doone – AL claims to have new evidence but the precise nature of this proof is elusive (at least to me).
2. Peter Doone is a graduate of Harvard Law School, so I doubt there are documents relating to his case that Adolf, AL or Ian Wishart are aware of and he isn’t. The Doones aren’t commenting on the case presently, presumably because they’re waiting to see if they can proceed with a legal case. Doonegate becomes a story again when Peter Doone alleges there was a conspiracy, not when a pair of anonymous clowns calling themselves ‘Antarctic Lemur’ and ‘Adolf Fiinkensein’ allege there was a conspiracy.
Vote:May 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
The NZ Herald is back on the David Parker / Investigate case as of 1:00 p.m. today.
The article includes the following extracts:
“Prime Minister Helen Clark says a complaint has been made to the Otago Law Society about her former minister David Parker, but it will not prevent his re-entry to Cabinet this week.”
“Helen Clark said today Mr Hyslop remained angry about events.
I understand the aggrieved former business partner has his complaint into the Otago Law Society, but if it’s got as much substance as the one that went on to the Companies Office, it wouldn’t be causing anyone to lose sleep,” Helen Clark told Television New Zealand.”
Here is URL to the complete article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10379760
Vote:May 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Hear Ye!
David Parker is BACK, to resounding caucus applause. Read all about it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10379927
Vote:May 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
How can anyone take a card carrying cultist like Wishart seriously? The guy believes in God for Christsake. Where’s your facts for that one Ian? And yes I did read the ID article in Investigate a while back. Compelling stuff. Really made me think…
Vote:May 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Around the only thing worse than religious fundamentalists is the anti-religious bigots who sneer at those who do believe like Phonics Monkey.
Vote:May 2nd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Says Wishart:
“And Russell…if you keep suggesting I get my stories wrong, purely on the basis of your own offended political sensibilities, don’t be surprised if one day you don’t find your skills tested in court as well.”
How spuriously pompous can one dolt get? In the history of New Zealand journalism, has any journalist ever sued a reader for “suggesting” their reportage erred? If Wishart were the serious investigator he purports to be, he would surely welcome criticisms, or at any rate disregard those he deems inept.
Wishart again:
“You’re entitled to an opinion, but that opinion has to be based on true facts. I’ve just established that I have evidence capable of proof in court supporting my DBP and Parker claims. What have you got, when you go shooting from the hip and accuse me of defaming those men?”
In fact, nothing of the sort has been “established.” But even if it had, as virutally any high school pupil knows, the burden of proof falls squarely upon the person making the argument, not someone attempting to refute it. Brown doesn’t need to “establish” anything at all; it’s entirely the responsibility of Wishart to furnish proof for his kinky allegations.
Vote:May 2nd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
slightly off the topic, but does any one know the address of Jock Anderson’s (ex-NBR) new website?
Vote: