A journalist on the “Dirty Politics” book

August 21st, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The e-mail below was written by a current journalist who has worked in radio and print for over seven years.

Several years ago I received a tip-off from an anonymous email address alleging that a police car had run three consecutive red lights, with their lights and siren blaring, and then pulled into a KFC drive-through. They were then seen eating chicken in their car just around the corner. I phoned the KFC but no one on duty was willing to talk to me. The manager wasn’t there. I called the police and spoke to the duty sergeant who confirmed two policemen had indeed been at KFC at the time alleged. He didn’t have the details but would endeavour to find out why they were there. He didn’t get back to me before deadline. I didn’t file.

I had more justification to write that story than did to write his book. But if I had, I would have been rightly destroyed by the police, as it turned out the two policemen were responding to an alleged assault inside KFC. As it transpired, it was just a push and shove and the blokes involved had left by the time they arrived. So while there, the two cops got some dinner.

Two parts of the tip-off were accurate. It looked bad, but it was entirely legitimate. So as a journalist, I look at what Hager has done with this book and am dismayed. Not just that, but the wider reaction of the media, with a few exceptions, has been woeful. As an industry, we have always been loathe to hold ourselves to account. That needs to change. We shouldn’t accept that Hager can use the cloak of journalism to run, what is effectively, a political attack.

Dirty Politics is not journalism.

As a journalist, the most basic principle we must uphold is that of fairness. That is not to say that what we write or broadcast is always fair, but that whomever we are challenging on an issue is given the opportunity to respond. Some choose not to comment. But they are at least given that choice.

Hager did not corroborate a single accusation in his book. He did not seek comment on the accusations. He did not give his targets a chance to defend themselves, provide context or refute his allegations. Had he, he knew the courts would have likely granted an injunction and the book would not have been published.

Is that a reasonable excuse? In the event the material he had proved categorically illegal behaviour had been undertaken or was being undertaken, yes it would be. But it doesn’t. At worst, it could cost Judith Collins her future in Cabinet for passing on Simon Pleasants name to Slater. The rest is all either old news, gossip, or the blowhard ravings of a blogger and his pals who seriously over-estimate their importance.

I admit I was fascinated to learn Slater gets paid for a lot of what “he” writes by corporates. It explains why he has written so vociferously on several issues, including attacking Simon Bridges over Part 6A and his obsession with plain packaging for cigarettes. I think the public deserve to know corporates pay for his vitriol. But it still doesn’t justify rushing a book out in the manner Hager has pre-election.

Yes, Slater’s blog is nasty and vindictive. So is Martyn Bradbury. So is The Standard. If you think they’re not fed gossip by Labour/Mana-Internet/Greens you’re dreaming. Typically in their case it’s about destroying their own team so no one cares.

What concerns me most is how my colleagues have reported on this so breathlessly. They have repeatedly used the term ‘hacking’ to describe Jason Ede accessing an open website. And accepted without question this idea that it’s like walking through the unlocked door of a private house. It’s not. It’s more like a young Nat heading to the Labour Party’s booth at a university political rally, scanning through their leaflets and finding a clear file stashed in the back marked ‘donors’. Clearly it’s not meant to be there but, well it is. So they read it, take some snaps on their iPhone and humiliate Labour with it, rather than just quietly telling them about the mistake. Politics. 

But what is most disturbing about this, is that the majority of media think it’s acceptable to hack Slater’s email and Facebook, for no reason other than that we hate him. Hager even justified the break-in of Mark Mitchell’s office as just how leaks happen. He is an MP. It is unbelievable that anyone can think it’s acceptable, simply because they have opposing politics.

Hager doesn’t want to know where this material has come from. He believes the hacker’s motives aren’t political. For a smart man, at best he is being willingly ignorant. There is no doubt in my mind that Hager is being played. The problem is he doesn’t care. A real journalist would.

We get tipped off all the time to stories. We have PR people pointing us in directions and press secretaries running lines daily. But we always know what their agenda is. We don’t report blindly. Mostly we try to counter it.

Slater is adamant Dotcom is behind this. That it’s a play to buy/screw an election. If he is, he’ll get away with it. I don’t have the skills needed to nail him, or whoever it is, and the majority of media don’t have the inclination. 

Sure, I expect the ‘left’ will dismiss this column as just part of the broad campaign to destroy Hager’s credibility. In reality, anyone with half a brain can see he’s done that to himself. Dirty Politics isn’t journalism. It’s political activism, enabled by crime. We have to question it.

I would point out that I’m not aware of comments by Hager on the break in at Mark Mitchell’s office.

Tags:

151 Responses to “A journalist on the “Dirty Politics” book”

  1. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Sure, I expect the ‘left’ will dismiss this column

    Where was the column published?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    The whole thing is disgusting, but what I find most disgusting is the web of deceit mistrust and cynicism that underpins the National Party and its relationship with Cameron Slater.

    The conversations between Slater and Bhatnager that were released by whaledump showed a complete lack of code. So cynical, manipulative and nasty. Convincing me even more that the National Party has completely lost its way.

    We need far better people in the National Party than we have at present.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    There’s one point I disagree with:

    Hager doesn’t want to know where this material has come from.

    Of course Hager the Horrible knows. It comes from the same source that supplied him with the hack of the National Party in Don Brash days.

    I still think it’s likely this is a leftist within, or previously within the GCSB.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Very well put. The moat in the Left’s eye is blinding.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    So an anonymous piece – that means it hasn’t got much credibility doesn’t it?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. balletgirl68 (19 comments) says:

    Very fair comment. If only the rest of the journalists would take a more balanced approach it would make my day but Im not holding my breath. Nicky Hager is going to regret his actions over time. A very silly man

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Agree entirely with this column, and gives me a small glimmer of hope in Journalism in NZ.

    In stark contrast, Hagar is a disgrace to the profession, and what little good he has contributed in the past is now tainted with the muck-raker conspiracy activist tag.

    Questions Hagar now needs to answer:
    * If he does not ascribe to the journalism standards then he is not protected by them – Can he now be compelled by a court to reveal his source
    * Did he pay, recompense or agree to future benefit to the provider of the information
    * If he incites and encourages an illegal act, has he committed an offense
    * Will Hagar submit copies of his own communications to & from the provider of this information

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. redqueen (562 comments) says:

    A very well put piece. Alas, this sort of journalist doesn’t appear to have much influence in the MSM these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    Very well argued and written by this journalist.

    Two points : 1. I note he/she doesn’t give their name. I can understand why –because they probably would never get a job
    again in NZ or the Union would slaughter them

    2. Sort of related to 1. but it is interesting the article is published on a blog and not the MSM. So blogs really do
    have their place in the media. (NB. W/O had a letter from a journalist on the site yesterday along similar lines)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    In the same vein, is it an offense to impersonate an MP – specifically the faked Collins resignation letter on allegedly Parliamentary letterhead, with a signature.

    Duncan Gardner attempts to defend it as “satire” but it was not released in a satirical manner, by a MSM source. It would be like TV1 publishing a “news story” that was deliberately false.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. publicwatchdog (2,595 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 38 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There seem to be plenty of other columns that are taking the book seriously:
    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=635
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2014/08/why-thrown-in-the-towel-a-brief-response-to-trotters-cynicism/
    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/we-can-do-better-than-this/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    If Mr Hager’s claims are so transparently false, can anyone explain to me why neither Judith Collins nor Jason Ede are prepared to front up and refute them?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ Tom Barker

    The problem with “refuting” details of claims like this is that it keeps it in the eye of the mainstream media and potentially gives more credibility to the source in the first place. Every new headline “Collins denies xxx” promotes the book, delivers a negative message & is a distraction to the election campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    The MSM has yet again proved it is a gaggle of Left wing apologists. The only non Lefties in the MSM are Mike Hoskins Leighton Smith and Larry Williams.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Tom Barker 11.20.

    Refute unproven anonymous alleged claims?

    Let the hacker front up and identify himself with proof that the hacks are valid.

    The Greens and the Left have got nothing but smoke, and the Left-leaning MSM provides the mirrors.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Excellent article. So, we don’t like Slater so its okay to publish his private emails. Another guy is a “National supporter’ so it’s okay to publish his private emails.
    Who is next?
    Do we have any right to privacy at all?
    Do the media have any rules about using private material?
    Or is it all open slather?
    I don’t care what people write in their private emails. Few of us would want all of our private correspondence published.
    Why can’t we write what we want to without fear of public exposure?
    This has been an appalling episode and I hope wiser heads will start to think about the privacy issues involved, once their political objectives have been met.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    Penny Bright says: “Sorry – no name to this ‘journalist’ post – no credibility.”

    Penny misses the massive irony that there’s also no name to whaledump.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    WineOh the answers are that yes Hager has committed a crime. One of the resident legal eagles posted the section of the Crimes Act that clearly defined what Hager did as illegal. not only that but the Courts have recently ruled that authors cant hide behind the cloak of not disclosing their sources as journalists do as the Court ruled authors are not journalists.
    Should Hager wind up in Court ( hopefully) he will either reveal his sources or spend time in the cells at the Judges direction until he does reveal his sources.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    Cameron Slater had no compunction about publishing Matt Bloomfield’s emails.

    Let’s have a little less sanctimony from the Nat supporters please.

    As dirty as this whole episode is there is at least one positive, and that is that it demonstrates just how low the National Party has sunk under the control of its present management.

    We now know more certainly than ever that the party needs a good cleanout of the codeless amoral progressives who today control it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. AJP (20 comments) says:

    Refute unproven anonymous alleged claims?
    Nobody can!
    Anyway get used to it, as this is exactly what will happen when Labour will reverse the burden of proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. twofish (94 comments) says:

    Is Hager’s book not only Dirty Politics, but also crappy writing?

    There is of course the question of how much of the emails, or electronic communications, exist in the book, as I cannot remember seeing an actual fully formatted email in it – being all written up indirectly as phrases in quotes.
    So much so, that is some cases I would be keen to see the actual email to compare it myself to what Hager has written since often Hager adds descriptors, like “he said confidently”, which is Hager’s emotive interpretation as the email surely would not start “I confidently think …”

    [For the record, I have not purchased DIRTY POLITICS, but rather read it as a Library e-book. And a shoddy cheap, lacking in production values e-book it is, with no internal interlinking of Contents to Chapters – DON'T waste your money, particularly on an e-book version]

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘WineOh the answers are that yes Hager has committed a crime’
    Cutting and pasting from the Crimes Act does not a legal opinion make. On the contrary, there seems to be good reason to think Hager is in the clear:
    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/confidential-information-the-legal-rights/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    BeaB You have hit the nail on the head. If the Left wing MSM thought your emails contained any material that they could twist and turn to get a political advantage they would either hack or pay someone else to hack your computer and steal your files.

    The Left Wing MSM has no morals no ethics. They are the gutter press and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Berend de Boer (1,709 comments) says:

    If Nicky Hager had no standing, he would be in court now obviously. Since National left the “public interest” laws untouched, we may assume they agree with him. Look, every journalist would have published if they had these emails.

    And they contain bits in them, Mrs Collins, which are clearly wrong.

    And bits which are in there for reason of #dirtypolitics.

    For now, John Key doesn’t realise Slater is reviled enough that the media is going for full utu and we will talk about this for some time, perhaps until we get some real leadership on this issue, or perhaps until the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    A very good post on the legal arguments for and against re accessing Labour data:
    http://jononatusch.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/was-a-crime-committed-when-slater-accessed-labours-computer-system/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Berend de Boer – I hoped there might be something in this: National promising to set the bar higher
    – but no.

    National’s promising to set the bar higher for student achievement and cutting crime rates, if it’s re-elected.

    I think many voters don’t know about it all or don’t care but Key must have lost some ground over his failure to condemn Slater’s excesses, especially as Key has previously associated himself with Slater.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Take a look at the photo of John Key in The Press. Half his face emerging from the darkness, highlighting his Jewish hooked nose.
    What do you think is the message?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    Whaleoil costing National the election would be ironic and probably justified, if only the alternative wasn’t so damn terrifying.

    Was he paid by corporates while he was still on the benefit?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Cameron Slater had no compunction about publishing Matt Bloomfield’s emails.

    Let’s have a little less sanctimony from the Nat supporters please.

    Implying that Nat supporters are Slater supporters? That’s exactly the line that Hager’s trying to sell. National = Slater. Slater is disgusting. Therefore National is disgusting. That’s what the whole book is about.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Richard (859 comments) says:

    Part of the editorial in the Christchurch Press today says something very similar:

    ”There is a lot that is suspect about Hager’s book and how it came to be written. Its source material was obtained by an illegal act – the hacking of Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater’s computer system.
    Any discussion about what the book reveals about politics, dirty or otherwise, has to be conducted in that context.

    Whoever committed that criminal act filtered the material before making it available to Hager, and he made no attempts to get both sides of the story, so the finished book cannot be a fair and balanced account of anything.
    The subsequent, and apparently continuing, release of material through the “Whaledump” Twitter feed also bears out Key’s protestations of a smear campaign.

    The perpetrators may or may not be Left-wing “conspiracy theorists”, as he alleges, but the releases and their timings seem to be aimed at doing National the most damage. People should bear that in mind.”

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Hacking and publishing private communications seems to be acceptable now, and there’s no putting the cat back in the bag.
    It will be the other way round one day, and the left will scream and shout, and we’ll say “sauce for the goose and all that. Suck it up.”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    The hacking is almost certainly illegal; publishing the material probably okay. Although there is probably a distinction between Hager’s publishing and the whaledump approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ross411 (839 comments) says:

    This is just more pointless discussion of the same thing. The media will do what it will do. This anonymous journalist achieves nothing by making this anonymous post. Labour’s strangely well timed and scheduled “positive” campaign, in alignment with the hacker, is not questioned. Etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    “…The e-mail below was written by a current journalist…”

    How is Mike Hoskings these days?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Aristophanes (5 comments) says:

    This underlines exactly why Dirty Politics is relevant and important.

    “Clearly it’s not meant to be there but, well it is. So they read it, take some snaps on their iPhone and humiliate Labour with it, rather than just quietly telling them about the mistake. Politics. ”

    This is not OK. This is not “Politics”. This is not what we want our society to be like.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    As a journalist, the most basic principle we must uphold is that of fairness.

    That’s an interesting perspective. If asked what is the basic principle of journalism my first thoughts would have been about veracity and the benefits of knowledge.

    Fairness is a bit too broad a thing to be a basic principle, isn’t it? I think we’d all mostly want to be fair but to invoke it begs context sensitive issues of who is being fair about what to whom. The concept of acting in the public interest might be described that it’s only fair the public knows things others would want hidden from them which the public needs to know to act judiciously. But that may require doing something unfair to an individual.

    In the event the material he had proved categorically illegal behaviour had been undertaken or was being undertaken, yes it would be. But it doesn’t. At worst, it could cost Judith Collins her future in Cabinet for passing on Simon Pleasants name to Slater.

    As it is, with context presented, this writer seems to think it unfair a minister be held to account. It suggests to me they misuse the word ‘fair’.

    Slater is adamant Dotcom is behind this.

    And then repeats a unsupported fact after having asserted that is not good journalism. I do not think this writer has a good grasp of the meaning of the word ‘fair’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Redbaiter… et al (DPF excepted) …

    You need to understand that Cameron Slater is NOT a member of the New Zealand National Party. He has been in past years. But not for a few. And his attacks on individuals have, in some instances, been unnecessarily acerbic. That’s my view, but Cameron is entitled to his.

    As a National Party member I agree with many of his comments, but not on every issue. On some I think he ignores reality. But on others, he is exceedingly fair and open.

    For example his restrained use of the data when Labour published (yes published, because anything placed on the net and open to view has been published). He could have gone to a raft of donors and asked for comments. He didn’t. He redacted the personal stuff, and saved his barbs for Labour Party incompetence. I doubt TVNZ, or TV3, Red Radio, or the horrible Herald, or Stuff, (that is MSM, circa 2014) would have been so honourable.

    But while I disagree with him on many matters, I defend his right to make those comments , albeit that they offend some. As he said yesterday, all the predictions of dire legal consequences over his Brown disclosures have come to, wait for it, zero.

    The fact is that Cam Slater, and to a lesser extent, DPF, have got under the skin of MSM types. Why? Because he (they) beats the crap out them at almost every turn. I cannot recall when the MSM last developed and sustained their own “hot news” item. They are pathetic. They are beating at gate doors that will open for them only when they adapt to media circa 2014.

    We know, via the “net”, 90 % of the data and spin before the MSM spins its biased (slanted, and biased as much by omission, as by what is said/shown) version in news bulletins. It is a worldwide phenomenon…. and only Fox and the WSJ have developed, and are meeting the new challenges. Yes, that really pisses off the conventional MSM, and so they continually endeavour to dump on Murdoch, Hayles, Fox and the WSJ…. and now WOHB/Slater/David Farrar .

    But they only need to look at their bottom lines to know what the public wants, and it is not the left wing drivel that is pursued by almost all MSM in NZ and Aust. Only The Australian, and to an extent the AFR have credibility as a good source of objective reporting. The great unwashed are over it. It is like an iron hammer, pounding away, but the folks out there have donned ear muffs.

    As for the lass who wrote the column, I doffs my hat. Well done. Congratulations. Sadly it has taken a new member of the media (blogs) to give your view life. 

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    Where was the column published?

    In a fine, upstanding 21st century media source called Kiwiblog Ryan – rather than one of those 19th century toilet tabloids like The Christchurch Press, Waikato Times, NZ Herald, ….. :)

    … and gives me a small glimmer of hope in Journalism in NZ.

    You have noted that this journalist did not put their name to it or try (yet) to have it published in (cough) respectable (cough) newspaper.

    Shades of Sharyl Attkisson.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    Implying that Nat supporters are Slater supporters? That’s exactly the line that Hager’s trying to sell. National = Slater. Slater is disgusting. Therefore National is disgusting. That’s what the whole book is about.

    Read a few of the emails.

    Look at a few of the comments written by National party supporters on this blog. (TDVM for a good example)

    They’re lowlife, they’ve fucked up and they’re being exposed as lowlife.

    I don’t like to see the left get a foothold but the fact is the Nats are responsible for this. It was bad strategy to get involved with Whaleoil and they were too damn dumb to know that.

    Naturally the left and their media agents are exploiting it for all it is worth but again, what the hell else would you expect?

    As I am a victim of their lies and smears these odious compromisers, who are really just a collection of stupid progs with little to differentiate them from Labour, get no sympathy from me.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    the PeoplesFlag shows once again he/she cannot read. The first line in David’s thread says the journalist has worked in print and radio media for over seven years (ie probably means seven to eight years).
    I think Mike Hoskings has been around in media a lot longer than that –several decades !!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. twofish (94 comments) says:

    Cameron says – Had the Privacy Commission acted immediately, forcefully and pre-emptively, perhaps they could  have avoided the private conversations between Aaron Bhatnagar and myself talking about our mum and dad and their personal issues from becoming public yesterday.
    Perhaps protect too the release of details of people who have emailed Slater in misplaced confidence their communications were secure.

    For personal reasons Cameron Slater wants to be recognised as a journalist with the right to protect his sources.
    Does this particular self interest now conflict with Slater pursuing a court injunction against Hager?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Tarquin North (298 comments) says:

    I don’t know about Hoskings Ross, but I think we can be fairly sure it wasn’t written by John Campbell – it’s obvious, not one “golly gee” or “astounding” anywhere. I didn’t even detect any moral outrage – something Campbell suffers from horribly.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Cameron says – Had the Privacy Commission acted immediately, forcefully and pre-emptively…

    I don’t know how the Privacy Commission could block the release of information that the contents of which are unknown

    I can guess what Whale Oil’s response would be if the Privacy Commission tried to put a blanket ban on them in case they released some information that could breach someone’s privacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Dirty Politics is not journalism.

    And in the same breath, the 20 odd commentors on this thread will tell me that WhaleOil *is* journalism.

    Yeah, whatever, had enough of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    How much criticism did Slater get from National Party supporters for calling Bryce Edwards a “spiteful liar”.

    I don’t see them anywhere condemning this disgusting and cowardly slur.

    If they want to prove there’s distance between them and Slater why aren’t they objecting to worthless smearing crap like this?

    Anyone who knows me understands I have no time for MSM journalists. Edwards is a lefty, but to be fair to him, and I’ve watched his appearances and read his writings, he at least does make an effort to be objective. And he is no liar, an epithet that should only be used in the most serious circumstances.

    As much as it might stick in their craw, the Nats have to put some distance between themselves and Slater if they want this to die down.

    The trouble is so many of them are so morally and politically adrift they can’t see that Slater has done anything wrong.

    The Rot at the Core of National

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    “…I think Mike Hoskings has been around in media a lot longer than that –several decades !!..”

    Actually you are right. I believe Mike Hoskings was born Alexandru Subitolu in Transylvania Province somewhere around 1623 and arrived in Auckland on the SS Demeter in 1884.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. sgthree (13 comments) says:

    Penny Bright’s comment demonstrates a complete inability to understand that it is the message that counts, not the messenger. To disagree with a sentiment because you don’t know the identity of the person expressing it is a a sure sign that you have no other rational argument against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    The far Left who have promised to spend over $28,000,000.000 and stay in surplus are dreaming. They are tearing down billboards , writing smear books and organising hate chants. They will stop at nothing to tear down the government and destroy New Zealand. They must be opposed and nullified.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ShawnLH (5,063 comments) says:

    Any book that is based on material that cannot be substantiated from the source, in which the material was gained by illegal means, is not credible.

    Of course, anything at all written by left wing activists is not credible from the get go. But this book goes that step further.

    The above commentary that DPF has published nails the issues perfectly. It is no surprise the author wants to remain anonymous. We have seen how this network of people who steal and break into other peoples homes operate. Who knows what they are capable of?

    Who is pulling their strings and financing their crimes?

    Until the people behind this come forward and have the guts to face the public and let those they have accused face their accusers, the book in it’s entirety has zero credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    sgthree – I don’t think Penny takes the time to read many if any messages from anyone but herself. She tends to dump and run.

    Dismissing an un-named source sounds like an excuse for not bothering to check it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Berend de Boer (1,709 comments) says:

    ShawnLH: Any book that is based on material that cannot be substantiated from the source

    Keep dreaming buddy. If you think that Nicky cannot backup quite a bit of what he wrote with emails (which are now released in some form as well), and think that’s the out for John Key, you are going to be quite surprised by the events now unfolding (no, Labour is not going to win the election, but John Key is being damaged, and why is Collins still there? Everyone knows she’s going eventually).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ShawnLH (5,063 comments) says:

    “Keep dreaming buddy. If you think that Nicky cannot backup quite a bit of what he wrote with emails ”

    “Quite a bit”???? How much is “quite a bit”?

    Until he can back ALL of it up, and tell the public how the material was gained and by whom, and prove that in between the time it was stolen and then passed on to him it has not been edited in any way, then he has nothing, and his book has no credibility.

    “Quite a bit” is no good enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    How much criticism did Slater get from National Party supporters for calling Bryce Edwards a “spiteful liar”.

    The same amount Penny Bright gets for calling John Key corrupt?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Implying that Nat supporters are Slater supporters?

    No, he was implying that all the Nat supporters on this thread are ignoring the ‘original sin’ in order to hack down Hager’s book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    “Quite a bit” is no good enough.

    Is Slater’s silence and promises to sue WRT hacking, without really denying any of it enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Shawn
    That’s the first suggestion I have seen that Hager has somehow deliberately misquoted from the material. Certainly, none of the persons involved have accused him of that.
    Why do you think Hager has to reveal his source?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Fentex (898 comments) says:
    August 21st, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Slater is adamant Dotcom is behind this.
    This makes me wonder if Dotcom has perhaps hacked GCSB or the PM’s computer and the results will provide the bomb he predicts.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    sg3 posted at 12.54:

    Penny Bright’s comment demonstrates a complete inability to understand that it is the message that counts, not the messenger. To disagree with a sentiment because you don’t know the identity of the person expressing it is a a sure sign that you have no other rational argument against it.

    What rubbish. This means anybody could say anything anonymously that was untrue and outrageous and potentially libellous and the hearer or reader would then just have to “agree with the sentiment”.

    Hager the Horrible is blowing smoke, and his supporters in the MSM are holding the mirrors.

    SG3, I see from the number of your posts, you are new here. Penny Bright, whom you erroneously attack (she’s on your side), is part of the blog’s light relief team.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ShawnLH (5,063 comments) says:

    “That’s the first suggestion I have seen that suggest Hager has somehow deliberately misquoted from the material. Certainly, none of the persons involved have accused him of that.”

    The fact is we don’t know for sure, do we?

    He admits has only partial source material, and we have no way of knowing what was done to the source material before he got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    It’s far from certain Dotcom is involved. He’s got a lot at stake with legal issues now, why risk his future on something like that?

    Sure he’s feuding with Slater but he’s far from the only one who would like to see the Whale rendered down.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Drawing a pretty long bow there. No one quoted has complained and the whaledump material so far has confirmed the accuracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ShawnLH (5,063 comments) says:

    “Why do you think Hager has to reveal his source?”

    That should be obvious. How do we know his source is credible? How do we know anything at all unless the real people behind this come forward?

    Penny not-so-Bright claims the article by DPF is not credible because it is anonymous. Well, so are the sources for Hager’s book. So, the Left cannot have it both ways. Either they have the guts to allow those they accuse to face them, to be honest about how the material was gained and if any laws were broken on the process, or Hager’s book is not worth being used for toilet papaer.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Penny doesn’t speak for me, Shawn. There is ample precedent for the ethical used of anonymous sources. Your saying the book is worthless does not make it so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild posted at 1.20:

    whaledump material so far has confirmed the accuracy.

    So you can confirm questionable unproven-source material merely by providing more questionable unproven-source material?

    What crap.

    Hager the Horrible is blowing smoke until his source is not only identified, but the accuracy, timing, method, and totality of the hack is confirmed, and confirmed by technical and legal professionals.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    SG3, I see from the number of your posts, you are new here. Penny Bright, whom you erroneously attack (she’s on your side)

    How the hell do you apply a side to someone who may be new here? They may or may not have ‘a side’.

    A low comment count could mean they are new, or changed their logon, or they could have been a silent reader for yonks. You seem to be assuming too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Pete (1.24 post) there is Left and there is Right, which of course is truly right.

    A person’s posts reflect that person’s views, unless of course the is just having tongue-in-cheek fun. Are you sg3?

    I agree a person might lurk for yonks before posting, but that is pretty unlikely.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    It doesn’t who Slater claims hacks him, he has no credibility and never will ever again. I think I’d even trust Dotcom’s word over his.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Pete George:
    It’s far from certain Dotcom is involved. He’s got a lot at stake with legal issues now, why risk his future on something like that?

    :lol: LOL – what? Wake up, McFly.

    This election is Slim Dotcom’s last roll of the dice. Why do you think a self-made billionaire entrepreneur spent $4 million buying himself a smelly far-left pressure party to contest the election with?

    National won’t block his extradition to the US. Unless he wins the election, he’s sooner or later going to be in jail playing hide the sausage with an even larger man (probably named Bubba) and he knows it. And the polls aren’t looking too good for him at the moment.

    He also threatened to drop a bomb on the Government in the lead-up to the election.

    It’s now the lead-up to the election, and this is a bomb.

    He’s also by reputation one of the best hackers in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild posted at 1.23:

    … There is ample precedent for the ethical used of anonymous sources….

    Can you give some of your examples, please Mikenmild.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    why risk his future on something like that?

    What future? His only hope of swapping a black onesie for an orange one is a change of government.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    It doesn’t who Slater claims hacks him, he has no credibility and never will ever again. I think I’d even trust Dotcom’s word over his.

    :shock: That’s a BIG call…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Jack5 – I can’t see anything in sgthree’s comment that justifies you from pigeonholing them – unless anyone who doesn’t immediately look extreme enough for you must be deemed the other lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Jack5
    How about the Pentagon Papers, to use the most obvious and famous example?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Pete George (1.36): make your own assessments and I’ll make mine.

    Considering we are discussing the veracity of hacked emails, do you agree with SG3’s:

    the message that counts, not the messenger…

    I don’t agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    “The problem with “refuting” details of claims like this is that it keeps it in the eye of the mainstream media”.

    But Collins and Ede are not simply declining to answer questions about the allegations made against in “Dirty Politics”. They’ve both gone completely to ground, a few weeks out from an election. Is that the action of people with nothing to be ashamed of?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. OneTrack (3,104 comments) says:

    Berend – “For now, John Key doesn’t realise Slater is reviled enough that the media is going for full utu .. ”

    Yes, they do want utu for Whaleoil showing them up, don’t they.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Jack5 – you disagreed with them so you labelled them “the other lot”? That approach is common.

    the message that counts, not the messenger…

    The messenger can matter sometimes, but if the message stacks up then it doesn’t matter who the messenger is. An anonymous message of facts can easily be compelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re mikenmild at 1.38:

    I can’t believe you are comparing Hager the Horrible with Ellsberg. Shame!

    Ellsberg was one of 30 or 40 consultants who were asked the Defence Secretary, McNamara, to review a mountain of Pentagon, CIA and State Department documents. Ellsberg photocopied official documents and spirited them out of offices at night.

    That is far from allegedly receiving anonymously hacked emails from an anonymous source.

    Ellsberg isn’t one of my heroes, but, Mikemild, his material was a million miles away from the hacker smoke blown by your hero, Hager the Horrible. Ellsberg was an intelligent, highly educated ex soldier highly rated by American administrators. Hager the Horrible is what?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Ellsberg wouldn’t be in the Hager role. Ellsberg stole the material and leaked it to the New York Times. I’m not arguing that Hager’s book is as big as the Pentagon Papers; you just asked me for an example and I gave it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Pete George posted at 1.46 of my description of a new poster:

    you disagreed with them so you labelled them “the other lot”

    No, I disagreed with the poster andlabeled him/her “the other lot”.

    Pete George in the same message posts:

    An anonymous message of facts can easily be compelling.

    Only if it is verifiable. Facts must be verifiable. So your statement is a bit of a tautology. The question is whether Hager the Horrible at any stage can turn his electronic smoke into facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild (1.54).

    The official Pentagon Papers have since been released and they total 40 volumes. Ellsberg’s selection of course was for one fairly meaty book.

    Are you retreating to the position that you are comparing to Ellsberg not Hager the Horrible, but the hacker who stole the material that Hager says fell off the back of a truck outside his home?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, Ellsberg is the equivalent of Hager’s source. Hager is the equivalent of the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re mikenmild at 2.02:

    So Hager is now the equivalent of the New York Times of 40 years ago, when it was a far better publication than it is now?

    I find that laughable.

    Hager the Horrible is ignorant of the divide between facts and opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Why buy the book, why read the book, why look at Whaledump, those that have done, are why this was done, just like if there was no demand for stolen goods there would be fewer burglaries.

    I have no interest in looking in Cameron’s knicker drawer, (analogy) nosy voyeurs have and are imo. If you truly believe that private communications should be exactly that, why are you looking and reading what was stolen? Mind you own business, there is no public interest!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Hagar is first and foremost a writer, an author of several books, and a self styled investigative journalist secondly. He is smart enough to know that should he have sought corroboration of his research material he most certainly would have been injuncted and the book would have been a fizzer. To a large extent he relies upon the unproven accusations to promote and sell the book(s) he writes, so it is a case of clever marketing that he is employing to sell his product, not clever journalism.
    However I digress. The majority of New Zealand journalists with a passing interest in his book would love to know who Whaledump is and what his motivations are. That would be the real story behind the book. No doubt when his identity is revealed there will be a flurry of legal papers filed against him and Cam Slater will be the first in line to give him a kicking.
    It will be interesting to see whether Whaledump’s identity is revealed prior to the election to determine the impact his hacks may have on the election outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    FFS Jack – I’m not alleging that he is of the same stature. I gave an example of an anonymous source providing stolen material that was then published in the public interest. Is there something about that which you don’t understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild (2.06).

    I think I understand that you think the electronic thief who supplied Hager the Horrible is the equivalent of Ellsberg, and that you think Hager is the equivalent of the New York Times of 40 years ago.

    And that you qualify that by saying, stature aside.

    It’s appalling that you would rank some petty hacker-burglar with a man of the intellect of Ellsberg. I’m not sure Ellsberg did the right thing, but he was no mere flake.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Tauhei Notts (1,713 comments) says:

    Several days ago, after the publisher of this blog had had his privacy breached in a thoroughly repugnant manner, the host considered throwing in the towel.
    Then Mr Farrar publishes this letter from a journalist.
    Earlier this afternoon my wife, who had been a golf course for a few hours, asked what developments had happened in the Hager the Horrible carry-on. I replied that the main stream media coverage of the affair had so sickened me that I now tuned to the Concert Programme to escape it.
    Then I read the piece cited above.
    Mr Farrar; your country needs you much more than you think it does. Wonderful stuff. Please, oh please keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You’re missing the point still Jack. It’s an example of publishing material from an anonymous source who has probably broken the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Berend de Boer (1,709 comments) says:

    mikenmild: It’s an example of publishing material from an anonymous source who has probably broken the law.

    And our laws give explicit permission to do so in a certain case: public interest.

    So that’s a red herring. WhaleOil has less defence for taking a donor list from the Labour party website, although this is unlikely to have been illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    How about the Pentagon Papers, to use the most obvious and famous example?

    Just a subtle difference between leaking Government source documents under confidentiality agreements and making money out of the private communications of a non-Government employee.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Sigh…I’m not saying the two cases are the same. I’m just saying that there can be a public interest reason to publish material, even if that material has been obtained illicitly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Berend de Boer (2.34) posted:

    our laws give explicit permission to do so in a certain case: public interest.

    Can you please give explicit reference to the law that gives permission for electronic burglary in the public interest.

    And mikenmild posted at 2.42:

    I’m just saying that there can be a public interest reason to publish material, even if that material has been obtained illicitly.

    But we want to know the veracity of the material that Hager the Horrible extrapolates from. This is in the public interest. To establish the veracity we need to know details of the hacker and of the hacker’s methods and timing, and not just take the word of some leftist tit talking to the Hooerald and claiming he is the source.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You’re missing the point still Jack. It’s an example of publishing material from an anonymous source who has probably broken the law.

    How could the source have broken the law? The information wasn’t stolen, and as far as I know no criminal damage was done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Ugly (2.43):

    You are saying it’s perfectly legal to hack into people’s emails, and, in DPF’s case, perhaps burgle his premises, or otherwise as an employee steal your employer’s information?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Don’t go down Ugly’s rabbit hole…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikemild at 2.51.

    You’re right. There’s no light at all down there.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Some plaudits for DPF here:
    http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/whale-oil-up-to-their-necks/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You are saying it’s perfectly legal to hack into people’s emails, and, in DPF’s case, perhaps burgle his premises, or otherwise as an employee steal your employer’s information?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/people_sometimes_say_jerky_things_in_e-mails.html/comment-page-1#comment-1382742

    What is LARCENY?

    In criminal law. The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to his (the taker’s) use, and make them his property, without the consent of the owner.

    (Black’s Law Dictionary)

    Conversion: Any unauthorized act that deprives an owner of personal property without his or her consent.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conversion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Inthisdress (268 comments) says:

    The problem is tht Hager’s book is just what peole who are anti-National wanted. They wanted a rescuer to save them from electoral defeat and take the ‘good fight’ to John Key. So they didn’t care if Hager brought a fictionalised or biased version because it confirms their prejudices.

    However, now they have a problem. That is accepting that they have been victims of a rather slick marketing scam to sell books which essentially peddles prejudice over probity. How would you feel if the $200,000 Ferrari you bought from a ‘trusted’ dealer and which you’d described to all your friends as a fantastic buy, turns out to have a $2000 citroen engine in it? Well you could admit you have bought a lemon, endure the sniggering and suck up the loss, or, you could start telling people what an under-appreciated wonder of mechanical genius citroens are, and besides, your ‘Ferraritron’ is like no other in the world, rather than admit you’ve been ripped off.

    Hager is like the metaphorical used car salesman and ‘anti-nats’ are like the suckers who bought the high-performance car that turned out to be a deux chevaux. However that is a charitable take on it.

    Alternatively one could explore the notion that there are tiers of suckers involved:

    At the top, cynical strategists who know the book is doo-doo, but who ar happy to embrace it into their strategy and keep it alive by fanning the moral outrage of the gullible.

    Next down, the MSN keen to believe the misdirection because it just makes anotherwise dull election more interesting.

    further down, well-meaning border-line conspiracy nuts in the blogosphere who have been sold the lemon, and now can’t bring themselves to face the elephant in the room – that they are being played.

    But of course at the toppermost of the poppermost are those linked to organised political entities who knew the book was coming out, recognised how plausibly it could be exploited and who decided to run with a twin ‘Vote Positive’ strategy alongside an anonymous online smear-campaign and Nicky Hager’s fiction.

    The sum of these parts results in a limited umber of people picking through the ashes of a book which is light on actual news, newness or even verified information, in the hope that amongst the bluster, self-important bragging and idiocies of Whale-Oil they can find one shard of actual evidence which enables them to say ‘Look! I told you so!’

    The irony being that all this is being done under the claim that they wish to to ‘clean up’ politics, and rid new Zealand of shadowy back-room plutocrats who desire to rig general elections by dishonest, subversive covert or devious means….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    I’m just saying that there can be a public interest reason to publish material

    The bit you miss from that is “from a private citizen or journalist”. There’s plenty of cases where anonymous material gets published. The bit I’m struggling with, if you’re ok with this case, is where the line gets drawn. Are all journalists and private citizens fair game now?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I should have thought the key test was about the extent of public interest in the material: if you were (say) emailing your mate about a plan to blackmail a politician then I would think there would be a legitimate public interest in revealing that private conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. sgthree (13 comments) says:

    Jack, the article was not a statement of fact, it was opinion. Facts are not something you agree with or disagree with based on who informed you of them, facts are facts. Opinions are statements of sentiment. They are not factual. They may be valid, or they may be invalid, but they are never facts. Whether you agree with them has nothing to do with the identify of the person expressing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    if you were (say) emailing your mate about a plan to blackmail a politician then I would think there would be a legitimate public interest in revealing that private conversation.

    How would you know that information exists? That’s the key with the Pentagon Papers and is the key to leaking. Legally knowing something exists and exposing it illegally.

    Arbitrarily hacking private citizens or journalists to find information is taking it to a new level and I would like to know where you think the line should be drawn?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There’s the distinction between illegally obtaining the information and legally publishing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Berend de Boer (1,709 comments) says:

    Jack5: Can you please give explicit reference to the law that gives permission for electronic burglary in the public interest.

    I can’t, because you can’t read. Did Nicky perform the burglary? Who is claiming that?

    I’m sure you can understand the difference between burglary (illegal), and someone receiving the stolen material and publishing about that. You can’t do the former to do the latter. But you can receive, if not involved, material obtained in the former case to do the latter. NZ law recognises hat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Of course, Kim Dot Com is behind the hacking

    He has:
    the motive
    the means
    and the history

    This is not a court of law, he does not have to be innocent until proven guilty for us to say that.

    It is far more definitive than any of the accusations in Hager’s book that the media are happy use as headline news day after day.

    Also, I think I know who wrote the email, I recognize the style of the prose.
    DPF, is it okay for me to guess?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Berend de Boer (1,709 comments) says:

    labrator: Are all journalists and private citizens fair game now?

    No, because an illegal act would first have to be committed. Unless you have a few million to spend on that kind of thing, that’s unlikely to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. sgthree (13 comments) says:

    Jack5 wrote
    “I agree a person might lurk for yonks before posting, but that is pretty unlikely.”

    For the record, I have been following David Farrar’s comments since the days when I downloaded the nz.general and other usenet news groups over a uucp link. I think that is possibly more than ‘yonks’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    There’s the distinction between illegally obtaining the information and legally publishing it.

    I see you’ve mastered the obvious. So to sum up your opinion on this matter, as you’re not going to offer it willingly, you’re ok with illegally obtaining private material to see if it contains information of public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    That sounds like yonks++

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    That would be putting words in my mouth. I’m all in favour of having persons accused of illegal acts being charged and tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. OneTrack (3,104 comments) says:

    labrator: “Are all journalists and private citizens fair game now?”

    No, only right wingers who are deemed “Enemies of the People” are fair game.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. idbkiwi (5 comments) says:

    Anyone remember another time the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (then D.P. Neazor) inquired into claims made by Tricky Nicky?

    Hager claimed (as co-author with Anthony Hubbard): “SIS infiltrate and bug Maori organisations”

    What did the Neazor report (Allegations Concerning Activities by NZSIS. 31st March 2005) find then?….”the story, apart from some base facts about dealings with one iwi, was a work of fiction”

    Some questions to ponder:

    • How much have NZ taxpayers forked out over the years to indulge Tricky Nicky’s fantasies?
    • Is this part of the report significant? “25. On the 29th October Mr Hager interviewed representatives of one of the iwi…..The reporters were interested because….their computer could be seen as a source of information”.
    • Did Tricky Nicky arrange to get iwi computers hacked? “38. …working through Mr Hager, the newspaper had a computer expert look at the computer of the iwi…” What does that statement mean in relation to todays subject? In what way did the paper “work through Mr Hager”? and how did the “computer expert” look at the “computer of the iwi”?
    • Was Tricky Nicky honest with iwi? “25…”Though there had been two iwi named or referred to and they had intended to speak to representatives of the second iwi as well, they did not do so because they thought such an enquiry would spark an instant reaction disclosing what they were inquiring into”.
    • Did Tricky Nicky harm iwi? “110. The iwi has been substantially damaged by the publication in two ways: People to whom they provided assistance and services believed that the information they had provided would not be safe, and there was a sense of avoidance of them by others because the finger had been pointed at them as radicals. There was also concern whether those who contracted with the iwi to provide services would continue that dealing”
    • Could the harm inflicted by Tricky Nicky’s fairy story upon the iwi as described above be exactly the same as he intends for KB and WOBH? : “substantially damage”, “the information they had provided would not be safe”, “avoidance of them by others”, “the finger had been pointed at them as radicals”.

    I don’t draw any conclusions, these are just random impertinent questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    That would be putting words in my mouth.

    It’s not like you weren’t given a chance. Unlike Hager, I actually gave you an opportunity to respond.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Bearend de Boer posted at 3.22 in a message directed at me:

    … you can’t read. Did Nicky perform the burglary? Who is claiming that?

    Who knows who the burglar was. The point is to verify that the material is authentic Hager the Horrible needs to give full details of who supplied him with the material, and of the hack then the material he says was passed to him needs to verified. Otherwise it’s possibly all bullshit.

    The Hooerald allegedly talking to one anonymous person who claims to have hacked the material isn’t sufficient.

    Berend further posts:

    I’m sure you can understand the difference between burglary (illegal), and someone receiving the stolen material and publishing about that. You can’t do the former to do the latter. 

    What do you mean by: “You can’t do the former to do the latter.” If you are trying to say you can’t be both the burglar and receiver, that’s bloody obvious unless you sell/give it to someone-else and they sell/give it back to you.

    I presume you mean Hager the Horrible when you talk of “Nicky”.

    Are you yourself able to ask “Nicky” to name his source and verify the source’s methods and means and times of access. “Nicky” needs also to verify that the hacked material exactly corresponds with the stolen material he receives.

    Berend further posts at 3.24 of the hack:

    Unless you have a few million to spend on that kind of thing, that’s unlikely to happen.

    You’re out of touch, Berend. There are high school kids who would do this for kicks, or perhaps for a few hundred bucks if they need to upgrade their PC.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Why should Hager identify his source? No one quoted in the book has disputed their reported comments, and the emails released to date back up the book’s contents.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The point is to verify that the material is authentic Hager the Horrible needs to give full details of who supplied him with the material,

    No, Hager doesn’t need to do anything. Hager’s source was anonymous.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    SGthree (10 comments) posted at 3.28:

    I have been following David Farrar’s comments since the days when I downloaded the nz.general and other usenet news groups over a uucp link. I think that is possibly more than ‘yonks’.

    If you haven’t changed your pseudonym at least once, you’ve been a silent lurker for a helluva long time, SGThree. Sorry, I didn’t realise you were out there watching.

    That’s a helluva long time to be quiet and watch the entertainment then suddenly break into posting. I trust you’re not something like an escaped Trappist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    So an anonymous journalist who could be the reporter at the Eketahuna Times, for all we know, writes a column stating Hager’s book isn’t journalism, and that’s it? No one can see the problems in that conclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    No, Hager doesn’t need to do anything. Hager’s source was anonymous.

    But he has been in touch with his source and returned the data and is certain the source or anyone behind the source is Kim Dotcom. Apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Jack5 – there’s a lot more people reading than writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild at 4.03 posted:

    Why should Hager identify his source?

    To authenticate the material.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There hasn’t been any question about its authenticity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    For all the retards who think that copying something is stealing:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/08/important-whaleoil-advisory-a-message-to-the-hacking-henchmen/

    Instead of “could be”, “might”, “it is thought that” or a 30 minute John Campbell time line journey, the news that will break later will reveal hard evidence conclusively proving who is behind the orchestrated hacking of computers and taking private data illegally that led to the production of Hager’s Dirty Politics book.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Jack5 (4,769 comments) says:
    August 21st, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    No one has said it isn’t true. Even Slater’s initial comment was there was another side to it – but he didn’t deny it.

    You would be about the only person that is arguing it’s not authentic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Judith and Co (4.13):

    I don’t say it’s not authentic, and I don’t say it is authentic. I say it’s not authenticated.

    It could be part bullshit, all bullshit. If Hager the Horrible released full details and names of sources, and they disclosed hacking details, dates, and files, we might soon know.

    At the moment it’s smoke, and the MSM and the gullible (perhaps including you) are the mirrors.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Milkenmild posted at 4.11:

    There hasn’t been any question about its authenticity.

    The material’s not authentic until it’s proven authentic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Well, that would be a neat way of preventing any leaked material being used, ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Slater has said they stole his data and he hasn’t contested any of the data that has been produced so far. He has only said it was cherry picked communications/conversations giving false impressions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Pete George (23,146 comments) says:
    August 21st, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Yesterday’s stuff didn’t look too cherry picked to me, the conversations were pretty complete and gave a full picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Mikenmild (4.24 post), that’s not the case.

    Earlier you compared Hager the Horrible (wrongly in my view) with Ellsberg.

    There are still two view about the ethics of Ellsberg’s leaks, but that didn’t stop leaks by Manning and Snowden. In all three cases the material was obviously authentic or was clearly authenticated before release.

    Compare the New York Times verification of Ellsberg with the present case. Hager can authenticate his material, but to do so he needs to identify publicly the hacker, and let some independent experts verify the hacker’s methods and material. Until then the material is unauthenticated.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    A good summary of how this has all come out today – Felix Marwick: Laying out facts over SIS documents

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Hell:

    Chris Trotter on Radio Labour’s Panel likening Hager the Horrible’s book to Watergate, and warns that, like Watergate this matter will continue after the election.

    For me, conclusive evidence that the Labour-Greens in this election have nothing else but Hager the Horrible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Pete George’s (4.49) pointer to the Marwick piece on the SIS and John Key.

    An update is in the link below.

    But who gives a flying fuck whether the SIS talked to Key or to his staff, or whether the radio journo got a reply to his query later than Slater. I note the radio journo seems to say he didn’t include an Official Information Act reference in his query, which I thought would have been a sensible thing to include. The MSM are self-absorbed.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11312309

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Trotter has been convinced that the end of neoliberalism is nigh (thanks to Dotcom) for a while now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Jack
    You are dancing on the head of a pin. What leads you to doubt the authenticity of the material?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    The Leftist bastards of TVNZ in their 6pm item tonight buried at the very end the most apposite point on the question of the SIS briefing: that John Key was out of the country at the time.

    What biased pricks!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    That Leftist bastard, TV3’s John Campbell, kept the red-green crusade going with Phil Gaffe tonight.

    Talking at first to John Key, Campbell described Whale as a highly partisan, vicious blogger.

    Campbell then challenged John Key to name someone on the Left as partisan as Whale is on the Right.

    For fuck’s sake look in the mirror, Campbell!

    Campbell then went on to give Gaffe a full, unchallenged chance to lambaste the Prime Minister.

    No balancing comment from the Right, of course.

    This is what National gets for letting TV3’s owner escape bankruptcy. It let the IRD forgive tax debts by that owner.

    Campbell is a biased Leftist and TV3 gives him full leash.

    I don’t know why Mazda risks being associated with Campbell.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    What leads you to doubt the authenticity of the material?

    How about the word from both the Chief Ombusdsman and the Head of the SIS at the time, mm? Who both say he didn’t know. Or is that not enough? Are they liars too? Well? Are they? They’d put their own reputations on the line, and lie? Is that what you think they’d do?

    Let’s face it.

    If you really believe this is anything more than a smear campaign, you’re a profound moronic idiot.

    If you don’t believe it but you’re siding with the disingenuous hypocrites who are doing this not because they’ve been any better – recall Hulun – but because they can’t get any traction any other way, then you’re evil. Because you’re abusing the democratic process with outright lies.

    Which one of those two alternatives do you fall into?

    There isn’t a third.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. OneTrack (3,104 comments) says:

    James S – “What future? His only hope of swapping a black onesie for an orange one is a change of government.”

    I wonder what Justice Minister Harre’s decision will be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Jack5

    No balancing comment from the Right, of course.

    You contradict yourself a bit there mate.

    One minute you’re raving about the Prime Minister being interviewed, then you’re complaining because there was no balance from the right – where was the Prime Minister from, if not the right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Milky…
    Your problem is that your pin has gone up your ar..
    Get a life, dickhead

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. KH (695 comments) says:

    Great post !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    All these news outlets have just become tabloids chasing anything that smells of taking down the right regardless of facts and fairness

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Well, I thought the Herald had plunged to a nadir a couple of days ago.
    But I was wrong.

    Since then some moron by the name of Bennett has accosted Ede’s 78 year old mother, a rest home resident, over her son’s alleged actions. They have detailed the conversation. Arseholes, all

    Murphy et al…. Bell, Munro, Hintz, Hardingam, Chappel and more , are about to emerge from their graves and take you down.
    I hate to think what the reporter legends of past years think of the smart arse, incompetent bunch you currently employ, and support.

    Perhaps you should seek guidance. Some are still active in their retirement.

    Your responsibility is to get a grip on a once fine newspaper, Murphy. You are turning it into toilet paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    But who gives a flying fuck whether the SIS talked to Key or to his staff, or whether the radio journo got a reply to his query later than Slater.

    Using the apparatus of the state as your own doesn’t look too flash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Judith asked at 8.04:

    where was the Prime Minister from, if not the right?

    Did you not see the interview, Judith?

    Campbell interrogated, rather than interviewed John Key, with all the usual theatrical Campbell posturing.

    After the interview, there was a long piece in which Campbell chatted with Phil Gaffe, but nothing from the other side.

    This was a highly imbalanced piece of Leftist propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. deadrightkev (469 comments) says:

    Its deeply disturbing that commenters on this blog are apathetic and even dismissive of the seedy undercover dealings between National and Slater in particular. Its not ethical and its not clever when your mark has no idea he is being tucked up. In this case the mark is the NZ public. Its ghastly secret squirrel stuff that is ultimately destructive.

    If it was to create a NZ utopia full of prosperity and unification I might not feel so appalled, but closing ones eyes to National doing this stuff is not going to achieve a lot because National are effectively Labour anyway.

    All the supporters of this clandestine shite are doing is keeping National in ultimate control and stopping the country reforming.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re deadwrongkev at 11.15:

    But the visits of Hager to the Horrible are okay? And the electronic burglaries of the National Party and of DPF’s business?

    And the wall of Leftism in our MSM?

    You give yourself away when you lament that you see your opposition as “keeping National in ultimate control”.

    As one small voter, I disagree with many things National does or thinks, but I think it’s a helluva lot better than what a Green-Labour coalition would do to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote