A whale of an apology
Whale Oil blogs:
The unthinkable has happened, I have made a mistake. Being a firm believer in owning your own shit I have apologised to Chris Carter and to his sister. A short time after I sent my apology email (below) Chris rang me and we had a pleasant chat about the whole incident. I thank Chris for taking the time to ring me, he certainly didn’t have to, the fact that he did and conducted himself in such a polite manner shows the measure of him.
And part of the e-mailed apology is:
Chris,
I would like to unreservedly apologise to you for the last couple of days. I was misled about the exact details of the situation and have now clarified that the Mrs Carter in question is not in anyway related to you.
Further the whole issue was a horrible mistake from beginning to end starting with the Telco and the CEO of that telco concerned and ending with me. The phone issue is in fact legitimate use of parliamentary resources.
Once again I sincerely apologise and will remove the posts about yourself and your sister. I will also post this apology on my blog.
Please also pass on my sincere apologies to your sister.
Sincere kudos to Chris, and his sister, for accepting the apology and in fact thanking Cameron for it – very classy. And also to Cam for such a unreserved apology.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Ok, so whaleoil makes up a lie about someone (Or according to his story was misled) and publishes it on his blog.
When pointed out the facts are not correct by those involved (note he did not check the facts out before publishing) he reacts with a mix of political bias/general hatred against those who do point out he might be wrong.
If I did any of this NZPA would quite rightly be sued for defamation and be stomped upon, because there is no basis in truth let alone public interest.
Eventually whaleoil accepts he is wrong and made it up and the victims are congratulated for not suing and the bully says it is okay because he is apologising in an unreserved manner.
From where I stand it as a case of nasty, vile bullying and lying just to score a cheap political point. (chris carter is not a diffcult politican to attack, there is no need to make it up if you don’t like him)
This is the same person who falsely accused a politcian of rape and when caught out in a lie, falsely blamed his colleagues for telling him the lie (which made the defamation even worse).
I am sure there is a place for blogs like whaleoil and even this one repeating each others world’s views to each other, but if you keep telling lies your credibility will be less than the evil msm
March 18th, 2010 at 1:54 am
He’s still a criminal.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:38 am
No, not classy at all. Whale’s about as classy as a monkey that craps into its own hand to throw at unsuspecting tourists.
If he changed his name from Slater to Roach then I’d take that as a slight against the copper coloured bugs that scatter from the massive green wheelie bin under my apartment when I drop waste down the chute.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Ian
What a load of nonsense.
“If I did any of this NZPA would quite rightly be sued for defamation and be stomped upon, because there is no basis in truth let alone public interest”.
When the MSM make a mistake they simply back-peddle post haste and print an apology in the similar section to where the mistake was printed. No one gets sued for defamation. There’s plenty of examples of say the Herald making mistakes and then apologising. For example the easiest one in comparison was when a certain politician was accused of shagging a sportswoman that he wasn’t in the weekend tabloid Spy. Retraction was made, and I don’t see Pork Chop in a witness stand over it.
For heaven’s sake, what would (Chris) Carter sue for anyway? Dead people can’t actually be defamed so his mother is out as a plaintiff isn’t she? Would Carter sue for loss of reputation for being called a trougher? Pretty hard with all the other examples of Koru Club behaviour around.
Ian you sound like yet another lay person screaming and bleating the word “defamation” in the comments section of a blog without knowing precisely how it works at a practical level and how difficult it is to prove and worse still expensive it is to take action for as a plaintiff.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:10 am
I agree with Kate. The NZPA produces a consistent load of rubbish, which reads mostly like Labour press releases, and rarely says anything of fact, so there’s nothing to check. So yes, if they ever actually said anything of a factual nature, they might be held accountable. I suppose one could check to make sure that the people actually exist, but otherwise it reads like the Onion. By comparison, WhaleOil made a mistake and apologised for it, for which he was accepted by the offended party, and that shows far more decency than you get from the vast majority of people these days, both in terms of the offending and offended parties.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Ditto Cactus.
The hardest words to say in the English language are “I was wrong, please forgive me.” Yet they are the most powerful as relationships are restored above and beyond what they were like before the offence occurred.
OTOH, “apologies” that come with a rider such as “I’m sorry if I offended you” or “I’m sorry but……” have the reverse effect as they put the onus back on the person supposedly being apologised to.
Every situation is redeemable as long as it is done properly.
Helen Clark (and, to be fair, most public figures), specialised in the latter non apology. It is why trust in them is ultimately eroded.
In that light I say brilliant job Whale. There are times when I think he is a bit over the top but my opinion of him will forever be based on this action. I believe in personal responsibility and Whale, bless him, has delivered.
On the other hand my opinion of Ian Llewellyn will long be based on what he wrote above and his refusal to show mercy.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:16 am
I meant to add to the above post that Chris Carter is obviously a much bigger person than Ian Llewellyn. Full credit to him as well.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:21 am
Wow. I’m speechless. Kudos to all involved.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:44 am
isn’t this what ordinary people do every day?
why all the fuss?
March 18th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Ian since you are so hot under your treasures about defamation you might like to give some thought to your statement that Slater made up a lie.
Then phone your lawer.
ross as to your assertion what crime has Slater been convicted of please?
I agree that there are some pooh flinging monkeys about, just not who they are.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Fallout Management 101
Class Assignment – Term 1
Charles Chauvel’s handling of the “shut-up” non story
Chris Carter’s handling of the “phone-bill rort” non-story
Compare and contrast
No more than half an A4 page and please use words of one syllable.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It will be interesting to see if Helen Clark issues a similar apology to the Wahopai Three for calling their action a “senseless act of criminal vandalism” when it has now been found by a jury to have been nothing of the sort.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Murray @ 8:26
“Ian since you are so hot under your treasures about defamation you might like to give some thought to your statement that Slater made up a lie.”
You do realise, of course, that defamation law requires that a plaintiff has a reputation that can be damaged? So if I (falsely) say Clayton Weatherston stole a lolly from the local dairy, I’ve told a falsehood about him – but he’s not going to be successful if he sues me in defamation for that statement (as he has no reputation to tarnish).
Hence, you could pretty much say whatever you want about Cameron Slater without risking any legal consequences at all. Such is the cost of his blogging activities.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:51 am
toad – it WAS a “senseless act of criminal vandalism”; possibly the only time I have ever agreed with Helen Clark!
March 18th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
IV2 just replace the word “senseless” with the word “excusable” and the jury will also agree. Nuts
March 18th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I note Chris Carter is asking question 5 today about commercial whaling…
March 18th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Big deal
The bloated greasy haired gun loving sad sack mental one has been caught lying again, whilst pushing his imagined vendetta against some imaginery force in some imaginery country.
Why is this dipshit news ?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
AG your grasp of New Zeland defamation laws is a little loose. Your issue of reputation relates to damages, not the finding. Claims need to be both true and provable in order to sucessfully defend yourself.
In the matter of damages however Slaters repuation would be taken into account. He could expect 10 cents, this being the smallest coin of the realm.
I recomend QBVII as an excellent example of this. In short you can’t just go about saying anything you like about someone even if they are scumbag.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Thats 10 cents from you as well rodent.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Was that for the dipshit comment ?
How about trougher/snouter ?
March 18th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Murray,
“AG your grasp of New Zeland defamation laws is a little loose.”
Or not, as the case may be. The essential element of a defamation action is that your reputation has been harmed. No reputation, no harm, no action.
Of course, it is for the defence to prove a generally bad reputation … see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/DLM281259.html?search=ts_act_defamation+act_resel&p=1
But I think we can all agree that in Mr Slater’s case that would not be a stretch.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Perhaps my comments were a bit intemperate, but I get a bit annoyed at some of the stuff goes. I usually just sigh and move on, but this time I vented.
@cactus, perhaps a bit of nonsense, but journos mastered that years before the web came along.
I exagarated the defamation a bit, you are right. But the threat of defamation always lingers around journalism and of course contempt of court.
The point I was trying to badly make, is that defamation forces a discipline on the newsroom. You have to be able to prove what you say is true if it brings someone into disrepute, not show malice etc.
Sometimes it has an over chilling effect when you are damned certain something is true, but can’t prove it. NZPA takes a more cautious approach than some, sometimes too much to my liking. But few take the publish and be damned approach except when they are hoping to get the evidence in disclosure.
March 18th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Helen Clark, Mike Williams and the Labour Party have never apologised for accusing John Key of being involved in the H1 fraud, even after it were revealed that they were chasing someone else’s signature.
Perhaps they should also take note of Whale’s apology and the humility Chris Carter has shown over the whole thing.