Cameron Slater and the protection of journalistic sources

Written By: - Date published: 9:53 am, December 2nd, 2013 - 339 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags: ,

emmerson on slater and len brown

There is a saying in the law profession that difficult cases make bad law.  The basis for this is that the facts of a case may tug at the heart strings and determine that one result is the just one but if you approached the case from  a principle based approach then the opposite result may be reached.

Dear old Cameron Slater’s latest predicament is an example of this.

He is being sued for defamation which of itself is hardly surprising.  The plaintiff, a chap called Matt Blomfield, has taken umbrage at a series of hatchet posts that Slater ran about Blomfield’s business dealings.  During the course of the proceedings Blomfield has issued an interrogatory requiring Slater to give the identity of one of his sources for the story.  Slater opposed this claiming that he was entitled to protect the identity as a journalist’s source.  Judge Blackie disallowed this claim and has required Slater to reply to the interrogatory.  Slater has indicated that he will appeal the decision.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act 2006 codifies qualified protection of journalist’s sources.  It states:

68  Protection of journalists’ sources
(1)  If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant’s identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be discovered.
(2)  A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs—
(a)  any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and
(b)  the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts.
(3)  The Judge may make the order subject to any terms and conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate.
(4)  This section does not affect the power or authority of the House of Representatives.
(5)  In this section,—
informant means a person who gives information to a journalist in the normal course of the journalist’s work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news
public interest in the disclosure of evidence includes, in a criminal proceeding, the defendant’s right to present an effective defence.

The Judge said Slater’s blog was “not a news medium within the definition of … the Evidence Act.”

It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news”.

Blackie cited the Law Commission’s report News Media Meets ‘New Media’ which described blog sites as often “highly partisan” and “highly offensive and personally abusive.”  While he is correct about Slater’s site the question is what are the implications for blogs in general?  Because Blackie’s comments suggests that his reasoning would apply to all blogs.

Stephen Price has come out in support of Slater which is honourable given that Stephen has been the subject of Slater’s smearing in the past.

Of the Judge’s decision Price states the following:

It seems a very questionable one. Whatever you think of WhaleOil, it’s hard to deny that he breaks news stories, and that he writes commentary on news. When you factor in the requirement that the courts are supposed to have regard to rights of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act when interpreting statutes – and there’s a respectable argument that protecting sources facilitates the flow of important information – then there seems a powerful argument that this section ought to be construed widely enough to encompass at least some bloggers.

What are the implications for the Standard?  Well the concern is that the decision could be interpreted as stating that no blogs have the ability to attempt to protect the identity of sources.  This puts the traditional media at a significant advantage over the blogs, and one for which there is no justification in my humble opinion.  And the prospect of being required to provide the identifies of sources for a story would have a chilling effect on the ability of blogs to break stories.  There is an associated problem in that the definition of journalist requires the collection of the information to be “normal course of that person’s work” and this would appear to exclude the protection being extended to dedicated amateurs.

It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal.  And like Stephen Price that is a sentence that I never thought I would write.

339 comments on “Cameron Slater and the protection of journalistic sources ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    2 December 2013 at 10:08 am

    Well argued, micky. Don’t read WO’s blog. Don’t like his salacious, smear-mongering of political opponents, but do think he is as much a news outlet as any of our MSM – e.g. look at just how partisan some of the stuff is on the NZ Herald, especially its editorials.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:46 pm

      Or Paddy Gower’s “reporting”.

      I’m not sure Stephen Price supports Slater:

      if the blogger’s delivery of information to the public is so steeped in ideology, invective and irresponsibility, then there’s surely a case for saying it’s not “news”…My prediction is that even if WhaleOil loses this case, it will pretty much be business as usual for most bloggers.

    • Murray Olsen 1.2
      2 December 2013 at 10:04 pm

      My immediate thoughts were also along the same lines.

      “Blackie cited the Law Commission’s report News Media Meets ‘New Media’ which described blog sites as often “highly partisan” and “highly offensive and personally abusive.””
      This also applies to much of what we see in the actual newspapers and on television. Change the last bit to self abuse and it applies 100% to Paddy Gower.

      While I wouldn’t shed a tear to see Blubber Boy locked up, maybe sharing a cell with John Banks, I’d rather see it done another way. This decision seems dangerous.

  2. gobsmacked 2
    2 December 2013 at 10:09 am

    Don’t worry, Judith Collins will look after her best friend. He’ll be fine.

    … although the prospect of the Justice Minister being asked about this court ruling is fun! 🙂

  3. Tracey 3
    2 December 2013 at 10:14 am

    I am not an expert in media or defamation law. Hopefully someone who is can comment further.

    A complete defence to defamation is that the statement/s are true. However the truth of the statement has to be proven. Is there an exception for media “outlets”? That is, can they claim the truth, based on a source, but never have to reveal the source?

    Slater, I assume is relying on the alleged defamed to prove it is a lie rather than himself trying to prove the truth of his statements, or is he relying on the media right to “opinion” statements?

    Would love clarification.

    • lprent 3.1
      2 December 2013 at 10:23 am

      Pretty much highlighted in the post above.

      The point is that you have to prove that your claims are true to use the truth defense. To do that, the plaintiff would normally have an ability to look at that defense through disclosure. affidavits, or direct evidence.

      There is a qualified ability for journalists to protect their sources. Judge Blackie has ruled that the whaleoil isn’t a journalist.

      BTW: Has nothing really to do with media..

      • Tracey 3.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 10:44 am

        Except the media have the defence of public interest, don’t they? I just posted this on Open Mike

        The media issue, I assume is important because if he is media he can rely on public interest but does the press have an obligation to research, avoid bias, and report any surrounding circumstances, would it include an obligation to at least put the allegations to them before publishing and print their response?

        Does the public interest have to be significant, and is it objective or subjective?

        IF Slater is not relying on the truth as defence, he must be relying on the plaintiff not getting his interpretation of the offensive words accepted by a jury. What is known as the “polly peck” defence is not available to Slater, that is proposing a number of different meanings to the words than those ascribed by the Plaintiff.

        • Akldnut 3.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 12:17 pm

          but does the press have an obligation to research, avoid bias, and report any surrounding circumstances, would it include an obligation to at least put the allegations to them before publishing and print their response?

          It would appear the media don’t have, or need a moral obligation to print anything ie: NZ Herald

          The 150 years the New Zealand Herald didn’t want you to see

        • lprent 3.1.1.2
          2 December 2013 at 12:19 pm

          The point is that the Evidence Act doesn’t cover “media” directly. It does cover journalists and “news medium”. The specific ruling here is that Cameron doesn’t meet the criteria of being a journalist according to Justice Blackie. That his blog doesn’t meet the criteria of news medium is probably secondary to that (I’d have to read the ruling)

          Now that is also the way that I have understood the legal situation about blogs as well. Cameron has had pretensions that he is more of a journalist, but virtually no-one else who *runs* a significiant blog operates that way. None of us really wanted to be the test case 🙂 It’d be clearer if the legislation was worded to cover opinionated media with a limited news content like Whaleoil.

          But because he isn’t covered by being a journalist, it means that he must disclose his source or get a higher court to rule the other way. Since from the little that I know about the issue, I suspect that the plaintiff is wanting to find out who stole some material from his office back in 2010.

          The public interest defense is the same as it is for anyone else under defamation or the Bill of Rights Act and I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t cover disclosure of evidence because the whistle blower parts are currently pretty limited. Certainly I wouldn’t want to rely on that in any case I got involved with.

          And as I understand it, this case is not about a political figure. It is about a business figure. So you’d really really have to push to show any kind of public interest defense. I have no idea what Cameron’s posts have been about. However from the past experience of reading them, Cameron usually appears to consider that the fact he dislikes someone is sufficient public interest. I suspect he is about to find out why it is not.

          You may have noted that I’m pretty tight about actual defamation on this site. In particular about what is said about people not previously or currently involved in the political process. There is a reason for that. It is called the current law… I suspect that Cameron walked past it.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2.1
            2 December 2013 at 4:20 pm

            And as I understand it, this case is not about a political figure. It is about a business figure. So you’d really really have to push to show any kind of public interest defense.

            I’d say that a business figure is as much a public figure as an MP if not more so. Such a person is dealing directly with the public and if their dealings aren’t up to scratch then the public need to know.

            • ABS 3.1.1.2.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 4:29 pm

              I agree with you DTB. Where this thread has gone wrong is people think it’s about Slater, when it’s not at all. It’s about the right of publishers to be able to publish verifiable information, while protecting their sources. I think that The Standard and WOBH should be united in their need for this. That doesnt mean open slander season, but it affords the right of privacy to whistle blowers who may lose everything, should their identity become known.

            • lprent 3.1.1.2.1.2
              2 December 2013 at 4:30 pm

              That may be the case and I’d certainly support such a move towards transparency. However that is not how the law currently operates…

            • Tracey 3.1.1.2.1.3
              3 December 2013 at 6:24 am

              agree, a business person accused of criminal activities would be in the public interest, regardless of whether the police are interested.

          • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.2.2
            2 December 2013 at 10:08 pm

            Does the public interest need to be in the business figure, or in the fact that a crime (theft) has been committed and Blubber Boy is seeking to benefit from this?

        • Blokeintakapuna 3.1.1.3
          2 December 2013 at 1:14 pm

          How can anything be “slanderous” or “defamation” using that persons very own emails or words?

          You’d probably do yourself a good deed by educating yourself a little and read some of Yesterdays posts about it all.

          • lprent 3.1.1.3.1
            2 December 2013 at 3:49 pm

            All that has to happen is that you deliberately misinterpret what they said. Since that is Cameron’s usual tactic, I’d be surprised if he hadn’t done that this time.

            Just like I can “interpret” your comment to to understand that you are a legal dickhead

            • Bafacu 3.1.1.3.1.1
              4 December 2013 at 3:57 pm

              Obviously from your comments you are not only the world’s greatest sysop but also a legal genius. It must be wonderful to have so much capability – yet resort to name calling at the drop of a hat if you don’t agree with the premise put forward by someone else rather than debate the topic. I wish you well in your world!

              • Tracey …
                4 December 2013 at 4:00 pm

                do you go to Mr Slater’s site at all?

              • lprent …
                5 December 2013 at 1:19 am

                I mostly just describe my observations without politeness. Name calling would be juvenile. However I have been known to use it for effect when I think that it is required – usually unmasking trolls trying to slide under the radar.

                With the exception of this site that I am sysop’ing (note the verb), I’m a computer programmer and not usually a computer’s dumb minon (like Cameron and a few of his arselickers used to be). “Worlds greatest sysop” is just a name that got pinned on me by some idiots like yourself, who I suspect just couldn’t understand how programming (or much else) operated.

                I’m not a legal genius. However I did have to suffer through a number of legal courses (which I didn’t do too well at) in business papers during at uni. But I later suffered through my ex-partners methods of getting extraordinary marks as she proceeded through law school. I think she averaged a A or maybe a A+ throughout that degree. But being able to read and assess basic legalities is hardly a major skill. Many business people have it. Otherwise they go out of business pretty fast.

                You appear to have invented your “facts” without consideration of reality. Seems pretty normal for an idiot trolling.

          • Tracey 3.1.1.3.2
            3 December 2013 at 6:25 am

            because it is not ok to publish, for example, someone’s diaries just because they are their own words and their truth.

            You need to read up on defamation and publication to a third party

    • Flip 3.2
      5 December 2013 at 7:08 am

      If you want to know what this is all about the law commission has a very good issue paper.

      http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2013/03/nzlc_r128_new_media_web.pdf

      Interestingly enough Slater was involved. I suspect this is all a test case to come up with some common law to fill in the regulatory gaps. Slater is exploring the corners of the law. All sorts of nasties reside there.

  4. Anne 4
    2 December 2013 at 10:26 am

    It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal.

    In the strict application of the law mickysavage you may be right, but I cannot agree with your final words.

    This is a man/boy who has devoted his life to cheating, smearing, denigrating, distorting and generally trying to drag people down into the gutter where he, himself, appears to dwell. He is being allowed to do it with seeming impunity. That is wrong!

    • mickysavage 4.1
      2 December 2013 at 10:40 am

      Like I said Anne difficult cases make bad law. The thought of Slater getting his comeuppance is very tempting but the problem is that other blogs may lose what we think is a protection for sources.

      Imagine a scenario where sensitive information is leaked to, for instance Keith Ng, and the Government then sues him so that it can get the identity of the leaker. Not too hard to imagine this happening and we really need some sort of public interest defence so that this information can be leaked with the identity of the leaker protected.

      • JK 4.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 11:06 am

        Isn’t Keith Ng a professional journalist ? Isn’t that the difference between him and Wail Oil ?

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 11:14 am

          Keith is perhaps the most difficult example for the discussion. He was previously a paid journalist but I understand that he now does technical stuff by day and his journalism is a hobby that he does in his spare time. From his profile at public address he says that he is “now exploring the Batman-model of journalism: Making money elsewhere so I can do whatever the hell I want.”

          He possibly does not qualify as a journalist under the Evidence Act because he may not be “a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.”

          Work may mean that you have to be paid to publish the story. Of course if the money for stories rumours about Slater are true then he is probably ok but as for the rest of us …

          • lprent 4.1.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 12:27 pm

            Yep. One of the best defense (paradoxically) would be for Cameron to show that he is was paid considerable amounts of money for his opinions in his own blog. That might push it up to the point of showing that it is a viable business employing a journalist.

            But I bet that his past finances have been more orientated towards considerations of his insurance company, tax department and WINZ than they are toward running a news medium.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.2
            2 December 2013 at 4:32 pm

            Work may mean that you have to be paid to publish the story.

            Which would be such a narrow term that it would preclude many such instances of news reporting ever since the invention of the printing press. Just because someone isn’t being paid for the work doesn’t mean that it’s not within the normal course of their life.

            • QoT 4.1.1.1.2.1
              2 December 2013 at 7:36 pm

              Ng’s previous work publicising the massive security holes in WINZ kiosks is an interesting case, because he wasn’t “paid for” the work in terms of being commissioned/contracted for pay to do it, but he ran a Givealittle page afterwards for contributions, directly connected to the story.

    • Blokeintakapuna 4.2
      2 December 2013 at 1:16 pm

      Hey Anne – [How about new visitors exercise some restraint. The fact that this post may be supporting freedom of speech does not allow you to abuse others – MS]

      • Blokeintakapuna 4.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 1:40 pm

        My apologies, I don’t know the rules yet.

        So only the original commentator is allowed to abuse another, not those that want to reply?

        Or is it only allowed if the abuse is towards Slater/WOBH/Anyone on the political Right?

        Happy to comply – as I hope to return often, looking for some intelligent debating…

        [The difference is that Anne knows what Slater is like and you do not know Anne at all. If you are want to engage in intelligent debating then go ahead – MS]

        • Blokeintakapuna 4.2.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 2:59 pm

          thanks – because I also know what Mallard, Little and Cunliffe are like also so watch this space…

          [Although TS supports free speech it does not support dickheads – MS]

          Besides – how do you know if I know Anne or not? My real name isn’t Bloke btw…

          So “knowing what someone is like” is all the justification one needs to denigrate them?

          Let me tell you about [You don’t get it do you. Do not confuse support for freedom of the media even in its most corrupted state with tolerance of Slater type behavior occurring here – MS]

  5. Philj 5
    2 December 2013 at 10:28 am

    I challenged political reporter Jessica Mutch’s statement on the Labour party conference prior to the last election when she aid on TVNZ that Labour didn’t have a dogs show of winning the election. I contacted her editor and he said that she was entitled to her opinion.! Really!

  6. JK 6
    2 December 2013 at 10:35 am

    ” What are the implications for the Standard? Well the concern is that the decision could be interpreted as stating that no blogs have the ability to attempt to protect the identity of sources. This puts the traditional media at a significant advantage over the blogs, and one for which there is no justification in my humble opinion. And the prospect of being required to provide the identifies of sources for a story would have a chilling effect on the ability of blogs to break stories…….. ”

    Sorry Mickey – just don’t agree with you, or a number of bloggers here. Journalism is a profession, and there are required standards for reporting stores (altho there may be a number of occasions when you might not agree with this statement !) . Wail Oil’s stories don’t come anywhere near that standard.

    Certainly confidential info needs to be treated as that, but it should also be clarified as to its truthfulness. ie other sources checked for its veracity if possible. And Wail Oil doesn’t appear to do that. eg I note that Edward Snowden didn’t “blog” about his information, he went to a mainstream paper and fed the info through professional journalists who, presumably had some sort of checks done on it, and it would have been passed through their lawyers before publication.

    Opinion statements are all very well, signed by the opinion writer. But when that writer ventures into personal possible defamation areas, then the red warning signs would come up at a mainstream media outlet. In Wail Oil’s case he is both the writer and the “editor” and he steps over the demarcation line for defamation so often, that his stories HAVE to be taken as opinion, not fact. I think (iIMO) that might be what the judge is getting at. Wail Oil’s stories are opinion. Not factual. And he slanders others with his opinions – which many people take to be fact.

    • Tracey 6.1
      2 December 2013 at 10:46 am

      My sparse understanding of the Press and Defamation is indeed that they have some obligations, including putting an allegation to their target and publishing the response, and using words like allegation and not writing as though the person is guilty. I don’t read whale oil (unlike our PM) and so haven’t seen the offending statements.

      Being “media” isnt a get out of jail free pass to destroy people’s reputations.

      If he wants to be seen as media, he probably needs to show he abides by the code of conduct of journalists?

    • Pascal's bookie 6.2
      2 December 2013 at 10:50 am

      Nope.

      Journalism is a thing, not a profession. There’s good journalism and bad journalism. Bad journalists do bad journalism for sure, but it’s still journalism, and it’s kinda stupid having the courts deciding which is which.

      And Snowden went to a blogger.

      • Tracey 6.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 10:58 am

        Snowden had documents to support what he said, his source was not relevant to his proving the truth of his statements cos his statements were the documents.

    • mickysavage 6.3
      2 December 2013 at 10:50 am

      Like I said in the post JK the facts make this difficult to agree with. If bloggers cannot protect their sources then the only thing to do is let the media run any story where there is risk.

      This may or may not be a bad thing but I personally would much prefer that I did not have to offer up the identity of someone who gives me verifiable information on a confidential basis. It does happen.

      What about Keith Ng for instance who has broken some very important stories. Will the decision in Slater’s case mean that Keith can be required to in the future hand over the identity of his sources?

      • Tracey 6.3.1
        2 December 2013 at 11:00 am

        “verifiable information” show your trail of verification without giving up your source, show your research etc…

        it’s beginning to look like ALL Slater had was “someone told me this”.

        • Pascal's bookie 6.3.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 11:02 am

          He had a hard drive, which the complainant says was stolen.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.3.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 12:47 pm

            So, he’s exactly the same as Nicky Hagar. Suck it up. Tracey.

            • Pascal's bookie 6.3.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 1:01 pm

              Nope. Hagar described his sources.

              Also, copies of emails /= a hard drive.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.1.2
              2 December 2013 at 4:41 pm

              The HDD being stolen doesn’t make the information on it inaccurate and I have NFI why the RWNJs think it does. In fact, if the complainant is complaining that the information was stolen from them then it’s effectively them saying that the information is correct.

              And, yes, that really does apply to Nicky Hager and the antics of Don Brash.

              • Sacha …
                2 December 2013 at 9:23 pm

                Though in the case of Brash and the Hollow Men, saying the emails were “stolen” despite the police finding no evidence of that was just a line to avoid admitting they were leaked from the inside.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  3 December 2013 at 1:25 am

                  Oh, the whole thing about them being stolen was a diversion from the fact that they were real. Damn well worked as well but that could be because the MSM wanted it to work.

      • JK 6.3.2
        2 December 2013 at 11:09 am

        Isn’t Keith Ng a professional journalist ? Wouldn’t that be his defence ? Wail Oil aint a proper journalist by any means – he’s just a gossip monger.

    • Ad 6.4
      2 December 2013 at 10:53 am

      If Whaleoil’s sources are not protected, surely anyone writing on The Standard is unprotected?

      With a slippery slope argument arriving any minute, let me put the question:
      If being a “news distributor” is the principle criteria for protecting source anonymity, could all contributors to The Standard be revealed if required to do so?

      Whaleoil’s (uncomfortable) interests are pretty similar to ours.

      • lprent 6.4.1
        2 December 2013 at 12:34 pm

        Yes. Which is why I don’t let people state anything that will walk through the bounds. After all I really don’t want to spend time in jail after refusing a disclosure.

        It is also why I take care to not to know too many of you personally. I tend to restrict it to the ones who understand legal limits and who I can trust not to cause me legal issues.

        But you have to also remember that we don’t particularly target individuals outside of the “political” realm. When we do, we are definitely followers of the news media rather than being instigators.

        There are also some technical issues to disclosing things.

  7. yabby 7
    2 December 2013 at 10:49 am

    I think it is important that any ruling reflects the importance of the fifth estate and the dominant role it plays in information dissemination and that those of us who employ them as news source and interaction set aside partisanship.

    It seems clear to me that historically speaking and with hugely increasing visitors to site, Mr Slater clearly meets the description of a journalist. While sectors of the MSM (namingly Granny Herald) gets their knickers all twisted by him and yourselves and all other fifth estate publications on occasion, the papers they produce are as guilty as anyone else of partisanship and breaching ethical standards. This should be provable in a court of law with support.

    So I say like him or loathe him winning his appeal is important on so many levels and the entire NZ blogosphere would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces were they not to stand shoulder to shoulder with him on this issue.

  8. Brett Dale 8
    2 December 2013 at 10:53 am

    Blogging anit writing.

  9. Tracey 9
    2 December 2013 at 10:57 am

    ” ability of blogs to break stories.” Surely sources would only ever be legally required in a defamation case, and IF other actions are taken by the blogger, like putting it to the potentially defamed and publishing their response, problem solved?

  10. dv 10
    2 December 2013 at 11:02 am

    How would this work.
    The source be revealed in closed court and the Judge makes a decisions as to if the source is legitimate?

    e.g. if the ‘source’ is made up then the defamation is ‘proven’

    if there is hard info from a source that should know the defamation is not proven?

    • mickysavage 10.1
      2 December 2013 at 11:05 am

      How would you feel if Judith Collins sued an author at the standard and her lawyer was told in closed court the identity of the source of a leak the story was based on?

  11. Ennui 11
    2 December 2013 at 11:04 am

    Mickey, very well done. It pleases me greatly that you can see beyond the immediate event horizon and realise the implications of this appeal. Whilst most bloggers here including myself would like to cut WO off at the knees defending him here and now is imperative. Otherwise TS and TDB etc will end up in the same scenario, being sued, fined etc for the same. Well done again.

    PS To those wanting WO to be kneecapped, no hurry, his time will come, just not on this occasion.

  12. Pete 12
    2 December 2013 at 11:20 am

    The Evidence Act says: “journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium”

    I think there are few in the New Zealand blogosphere that meet that definition. Bloggers more often write opinion and commentary, rather than break news stories. And those new stories that are broken on blogs via tiplines or confidential informants are very rare and far from routine and not in the normal course of their work.

    This may change, though. If NZ blogosphere develops something like Politico or the Huffington Post or even TMZ, I would think bloggers for such sites would fall under the definition of journalists. At present, I would say they are more like pamphleteers.

    I would argue a blog is a news medium within the definition of the Act, which is “a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news“. So while a blog is often a news medium, those who write on them are not journalists for the purposes of the Act.

    • lprent 12.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:35 pm

      That would be my interpretation as well. It isn’t like most bloggers in NZ receive any pay for what they do. And I’d be very intrigued at a blogger proving that they did.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      2 December 2013 at 4:50 pm

      And those new stories that are broken on blogs via tiplines or confidential informants are very rare and far from routine and not in the normal course of their work.

      As it does happen I’d say that it is well within the normal course of their work. There may be many legitimate reasons for the source not to go to the MSM. Hell, it may be simply that they don’t trust the MSM to tell the story correctly or accurately.

      So while a blog is often a news medium, those who write on them are not journalists for the purposes of the Act.

      Why not? They’re writing stories and being published.

    • Rogue Trooper 12.3
      8 December 2013 at 5:00 pm

      This, Pete.

  13. vto 13
    2 December 2013 at 11:40 am

    Well it is all getting a bit hot in the kitchen…

    The cowboy days of the blogosphere will be a distant memory in the not too distant future I expect. Plus, given the rampant spying today whereby everything that gets tapped into a keyboard heads straight to some great storage facility in the sky, I have little trust that anonymity can be maintained…

    the writing is on the wall

  14. her 14
    2 December 2013 at 11:58 am

    I get all my news from blogs. I have found them to be quicker and more reliable. The rest is bs.

    • Pascal's bookie 14.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:03 pm

      I bet you don’t actually.

      that most of the ‘news’ you get from blogs is discussion of news sourced from MSM.

      Loved to be proved wrong though, so examples, perhaps?

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 14.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

        +1 Her
        @Pascal’s Bookie

        Reading the discussions of blogs is a way to keep up with the news and I fairly well do the same thing as Her for the same reason – one ends up with a more accurate and deeper understanding of the issues involved in current affairs than watching the news.

        When I watch the TV news these days it is more often to find out what spin they are choosing, rather than to be informed. One is hard pushed to be informed by watching the news these days.

      • Blokeintakapuna 14.1.2
        2 December 2013 at 1:04 pm

        Yeah – read Whale Oil – that’s where the Horrid get their leads from – even if they are a few days late to the party

  15. ABS 15
    2 December 2013 at 12:12 pm

    Just for your information, Cam has applied to the press council for accreditation several times and has been rebuffed. He is attempting to follow the ethics and code of conduct as proscribed by the union and been denied membership. In this case it is the unions protecting their patch so as to no have that nasty WhaleOil in their membership. He is also being treated unfairly by this judge due to the series he runs on crap/dodgy judiciary. Say what you will but the folks here, or at whale oil, or at kiwiblog all have a finger in this pie.

    • Pascal's bookie 15.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:16 pm

      lol

      It’s all a big conspiracy yup.

      Nothing to do with how Cam runs his site and how that affects people’s desire to be within a ten ft barge pole of him nope.

      • ABS 15.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

        Seems to me with over a million visits and 2.5 million page views last month, people are flocking to WOBH, not running for the hills. Rupert Murdoch could be construed as a right asshole too, but did that stop him running the worlds biggest media empire? As Mickey pointed out the repercussions of this threatens EVERY blog not just Cams.

        • Pascal's bookie 15.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 12:58 pm

          What’s that got to do with why organisations don’t want him as a member?

          There are respectable media outlets, and there are sewer media outlets run by fuckwits. Private orgs are perfectly entitled to decline the latter’s requests for membership.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1.1.2
          2 December 2013 at 1:01 pm

          …threatens every blog…

          Stephen Price doesn’t seem to think so. Read the last few paragraphs of his post.

        • Blokeintakapuna 15.1.1.3
          2 December 2013 at 1:20 pm

          So true ABS… Whale Oil’s readership has gone through the roof, the commentators and comments are well thought out in most cases – whilst other blogs languish, stagnate and even slip in rankings – and all whilst doing their utmost to keep up.

        • Anne 15.1.1.4
          2 December 2013 at 2:57 pm

          Seems to me with over a million visits and 2.5 million page views last month, people are flocking to WOBH,…

          Yes ABS. They flocked to WO for the salacious gossip and nothing else. Anecdotal evidence after the Len Brown revelations indicated a massive no. of hits from people who wanted to read the details of that specific case. I can’t think of anything more pitiful but there you go… each to his/her own. Many had never visited the site before and never will again.

          One doesn’t visit WO to become seriously informed.

          • ABS 15.1.1.4.1
            2 December 2013 at 3:43 pm

            Salacious details like the ones that are published in every womans magazine in the world? Or only the ones on the news sites? The muckier the details the more the public loves it. I agree with you, its pitiful but that’s what sells. Didnt stop the MSM reporting all the gruesome details regarding the masturbation and the Ngati Whatua room though, did it?

            • Anne 15.1.1.4.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 5:02 pm

              It looks like we agree on something. If elements within the MSM supplied all the gruesome details then I’m very glad I missed them… but I should like to know which media outlets did the reporting so that I could avoid them in future.

        • tricledrwown 15.1.1.5
          3 December 2013 at 11:40 am

          ABS crocodile tears Murdoch is a perfect comparison gutter press .Camoron is on his 3rd strike. and can’t Hide anymore.
          How come Slater can work tirelessly on his blog yet can still claim ACC.
          Others are thrown off Acc or denied Acc with way worse disabilities.
          Surely he can work in a call center or something like that if he can manage to type on a keyboard all day.
          Where is nick Smith or paula bene basher when you need them.
          One rule for the peasants another for the National party elite.

          • ABS 15.1.1.5.1
            3 December 2013 at 11:59 am

            Not being his case worker, I can’t answer that. But to answer your question with another, how come drug addicts can claim the sickness benefit? One rule for the peasants and another for the workers? Apologies for the short answer, I am at work and catching up on the replies to my posts from last night.

  16. Tracey 16
    2 December 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Perhaps he doesnt meet the criteria for accreditation. Do we know what the criteria are.

    did he put the allegations to his subject before publishing… did he use the words alleged in his publication…

  17. Pascal's bookie 17
    2 December 2013 at 12:20 pm

    probably worth remembering how well slater protected his sources in the Len Brown thing.

    “The wheels on the bus go bump bump bump.”

    • ABS 17.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Anyone with half a brain could have guessed it was Bevan. Discretion is not part of the Lord Mayor of Aucklands makeup. But let’s also look at how the Herald then interviewed and hounded and chased her down after the story broke, shall we? It wasn’t WOBH who first published her name, he tried to protect his source until it was obvious that it was pointless to go on doing so because that paragon of virtue the MSM had already named her.

      • Pascal's bookie 17.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 12:55 pm

        lol. If you think ‘protecting a source’ extends only as far as ‘not naming them’ then you’re an idiot.

        He threw her under the bus.

        • ABS 17.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 1:11 pm

          Funnily enough, I think people who open sentences with ‘lol’ are idiots too, but you wouldn’t want me to assume that about you, would you? Fairfax named the woman in question as Bevan Chuang hours after the story broke on WOBH. What should Cam have done? Threatened to sue? But like all the enablers of Len Brown, you can only see your slant on the issue. I haven’t come here for an abuse fest, I came because of a well written post on the rights of bloggers to disseminate and report on news in NZ, one that affects all people who strive for an open and democratic society. Guess I came to the wrong place for a discussion.

          • Pascal's bookie 17.1.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 1:15 pm

            Flounce away.

            Protecting a source means more than just not naming them. It means being very careful about how you report their story. They way Whale went about it was appalling in the first instance. In the second instance, he turned on her and started attacking her as the story turned against him.

            Not seeing that, is what makes you an idiot.

            • Blokeintakapuna 17.1.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 1:25 pm

              Pascal, you need to open a window when using solvents in enclosed spaces without adequate ventilation.

              If you bothered to read Whale’s full story when it broke – and I’m sure you probably did, just to see what all the fuss was about – then you’d know what you’ve written is more invented than Labour’s next “Crisis” invention.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                2 December 2013 at 1:34 pm

                It’s about what happened as the story developed bloke. The protection of surces is an ongoing duty. Throwing them under a bus is not usually considered good form, nor is running a story in a way that could lead to that being a temptation.

                • Blokeintakapuna …
                  2 December 2013 at 1:46 pm

                  Putting Bevan up in motel at their cost, repeatedly telling her of the impending media scrum and advising her all throughout the event is most certainly “protecting the source”

                  What WOBH couldn’t do though, is protect her further when she ran off to other media outlets, changed her story and then started doing TV interviews – all against the advice she was given.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    2 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

                    Why did she do those interviews again? Oh yeah, she wasn’t happy with the line WO was driving the story along.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    2 December 2013 at 3:06 pm

                    Yeah, perhaps she decided the advice she’d been given was toxic. That seems quite likely.

            • ABS 17.1.1.1.1.2
              2 December 2013 at 1:33 pm

              I don’t believe the story turned against him. Sure a whole slew of you blamed everyone but Len Brown for sticking his dick in a Chinese girl the age of his daughter, it was a vast RWC right from the start, it was Pallino, it was Wewege, even John Slater got his name dragged through the mire, yet one person was to blame, really. None other than the Lord Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. Failing to see that makes you the idiots bitch.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                2 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

                Yes yes, I know, it was all a big conspiracy to make Slater look like a dirt bag.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                2 December 2013 at 1:39 pm

                Temper temper, ABS 🙂

                It was all a left wing conspiracy to make the Right look like a bunch of panty-sniffers, but you didn’t have to go along with it.

                • ABS …
                  2 December 2013 at 1:51 pm

                  And what’s wrong with panties may I ask? 😀

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    2 December 2013 at 1:58 pm

                    Nothing. For your convenience, however, read the previous comment as saying “…a bunch of prurient peeping Camerons.”

              • red blooded …
                2 December 2013 at 6:40 pm

                Listen, mate, I don’t give a shit about Len Brown or his sex life. I do care about some dodgy attitudes being revealed by your language, though:
                1) How is Bevan Chuang’s racial background relevant?
                2) While she may be younger than Len Brown, BC is a woman, not a girl. (How old would she have to be to make it to adulthood, in your world?)

                When you talk about Brown “sticking his dick in a Chinese girl” you reveal a sadly sexist view of woman and a very limited view of a woman’s ability to make active decisions about and play and active role in her own sex life.

                Just something for you to think about.

                • ABS …
                  2 December 2013 at 7:17 pm

                  Then mate, your priorities are asshat backwards I must respectfully submit. My choice of language and syntax to make a point is worse than Brown banging broads on the public dime? Get outta here!

                  • QoT …
                    2 December 2013 at 7:39 pm

                    “banging broads”. Yep, you’re clearly the person occupying the moral high ground here.

                    • Tracey …
                      3 December 2013 at 6:31 am

                      love it

                    • ABS …
                      3 December 2013 at 11:32 am

                      Where anywhere did I preface my statements with “Speaking with the highest moral authority”? Does your post add anything apart from a sly dig? Hardly worth the 2 minutes it took to write this reply to you. Cheap shot.

                  • Tracey …
                    3 December 2013 at 6:31 am

                    rape culture anyone?

                    • ABS …
                      3 December 2013 at 12:13 pm

                      Offensive, anyone? I haven’t come here abusing people, and find your statement uncalled for. If you can’t respond with intelligent debate without trying to undermine someone with spurious and slanderous accusations, don’t comment back to me.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1.1.1.2
            2 December 2013 at 1:17 pm

            Cry me a river.

            Then read Stephen Price’s post and register the fact that he predicts little effect on bloggers even if Slater loses.

          • Puddleglum 17.1.1.1.3
            2 December 2013 at 8:14 pm

            Hi ABS,

            Prior to the revelatory post WhaleOil had already made a big hint about Brown having an eye for Asian women. Given what he knew he was hoping to do, in what way is dropping that hint ‘protecting his source’?

            • ABS 17.1.1.1.3.1
              2 December 2013 at 9:38 pm

              Hi Puddlegum, to be honest as soon as I read Len Browns texts, I posted on WOBH that the texts were directed at an Asian woman. The particular segment of course was ‘Geisha Girl’. I think personally that in the end, a whole slew of players ended up being played. I also think that the main player was Wewege, he encouraged, cajoled, pleaded and played the Lover card. As soon as the story was in the blogoshpere, a semi-anonymous call to any reputable media outlet would finish the job.

              • felix …
                2 December 2013 at 9:48 pm

                “played the Lover card”

                wtf does that even mean? For someone who pretends not to be Slater you sure write just as stupidly.

                • Tracey …
                  3 December 2013 at 6:33 am

                  is ABS mrs slater, he/she seems to have a very intimat eknowledge of “Cam” an dhis motivations etc… you know, for a sometime visitor to the blogoshpere

                  • ABS …
                    3 December 2013 at 11:45 am

                    Some time visitor here. I do post on WOBH, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. It may surprise you I used to vote Labour, voted for David Lange and Helen Clark. Grew up in Wainuiomata, so please stop with the assertions I am one of the Slaters.

                    • tricledrwown …
                      3 December 2013 at 12:04 pm

                      abs typical so where would you be if you had not had a hand up from the state.
                      in a soup kitchen cue most likely.

                    • felix …
                      3 December 2013 at 3:02 pm

                      You don’t actually get to make untestable claims about your real life self while posting under a pseudonym, dickhead.

                • ABS …
                  3 December 2013 at 11:22 am

                  Figure it out. You’re not really as stupid as you make out are you? And no, I have nothing to do with the Slaters, don’t even know them. I am simply a commentator like you Felix. Unless you’re really Trevor Mallard?

                  • fender …
                    3 December 2013 at 11:55 am

                    LOL, you sure are new around here if you think Felix could be Mallard. You may be better to observe for a while lest you make a fool of yourself to an even greater extent.

  18. fender 18
    2 December 2013 at 12:22 pm

    The big difference here seems to be that WO is not happy to just give his opinion and put his spin on the news but he actively seeks information via (alleged) illegal means like reporting on the contents of a stolen hard drive. TS opinion pieces always have citations via links to explain how a conclusion was made, and these citations are already in the public domain. It’s only natural imo that the judge should ask how WO obtained this information that was private and held on a device WO had no right to spread around. If it was the Herald that was stupid enough to write pieces based on the contents of a hard drive that mysteriously went missing I’d look forward to seeing their ass get a good kicking also.

    • Puckish Rogue 18.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:30 pm

      The police decided there was no case to answer over the hard drive

      • lprent 18.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 12:38 pm

        Unlikely. What they probably said was something like that there wasn’t enough evidence to lay a charge. That is their usual formulation.

        • Blokeintakapuna 18.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 1:09 pm

          You’re all wrong.

          [deleted]

          [lprent: Assertions, and in this case, what sounds awfully like a criminal act. You have to link. ]

          • fender 18.1.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 1:21 pm

            That should be a lesson to all who use cloud storage. Disgusting to think the facility can then sell or give away private information in that situation. Not likely to attract customers one would think..

            • Blokeintakapuna 18.1.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

              How can you store something physical “in the cloud”?

              • fender …
                2 December 2013 at 1:44 pm

                It’s not a real cloud in the accepted sense, it’s just stored on someone else’s hard drive and they look after your data for you, and they should have to just delete it if the bill is in arrears.

                • Blokeintakapuna …
                  2 December 2013 at 1:49 pm

                  Ever hear of National Mini Storage or Storage King?

                  • fender …
                    2 December 2013 at 1:56 pm

                    Yeah and they too should not be allowed to sell sensitive information if the bill is not paid. Sell the antiques, jewellery etc. but not the love letters or tax records.

                    • Blokeintakapuna …
                      2 December 2013 at 2:10 pm

                      Says who? By whose standard? Only yours?

                      When commercial agreements are entered into willingly, costs and payments agreed to – in writing – then signed up to – if the party responsible for payment then neglects their payment, then the terms agreed to take effect.

                      Not even a new Government should be able to tear up a commercial agreement / contract – not that CunningCV would try and stop something like say… a Convention Centre in Auckland – because all the times he’s been asked, he just flakes out with a response…

                      All noise and no trousers…

                    • fender …
                      2 December 2013 at 2:47 pm

                      Not a good look for any company selling personal information out of spite just because their customer can’t/won’t pay their storage fee. But obviously there are others who think it’s fair game, not me though.

                      See if slater has your missing trousers by any chance.

        • Cam Slater 18.1.1.2
          2 December 2013 at 3:05 pm

          Actually the Police looked at the evidence properly and didn’t accept Blomfield’s claims.

          [deleted]

          [lprent: Assertions – no links. ]

      • fender 18.1.2
        2 December 2013 at 12:45 pm

        Did Slater find it while going through Blomfield’s rubbish bin I suppose, garbology your honour !

        The police have made many errors lately, this could be another one.

    • ABS 18.2
      2 December 2013 at 12:53 pm

      Yet stolen information from ACC and WINZ is fine. Both of which NZ Herald used in stories.

      • fender 18.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 1:01 pm

        “Stolen”….did the police lay theft charges?

        • ABS 18.2.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 1:21 pm

          Right back at you. Did the police lay charges at Cam?

          • fender 18.2.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 1:30 pm

            Good point only the ACC and WINZ info was given away rather than stolen wasn’t it?

            • ABS 18.2.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 1:36 pm

              So if I break into your computer and steal all your personal data, as long as I give it away to bloggers, I havent committed a crime?

              • fender …
                2 December 2013 at 1:50 pm

                The ACC info was sent to people in error, the WINZ kiosks were for public use, only poorly set up so private info was accessible by anyone.

                • ABS …
                  2 December 2013 at 2:09 pm

                  I get that part fender, however if I come to your place of business, use your computer and suddenly discover I can access your client list through a deficiency in the security systems, does that give me the right to take your information and disburse it?

                  • fender …
                    2 December 2013 at 2:28 pm

                    The actual sensitive info wasn’t disbursed though was it? But it was highlighted there were deficiencies in the system so a ‘beware’ message was disbursed.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 December 2013 at 10:37 pm

                      The other point is that the WINZ (and possibly ACC) vulnerabilities were made public only after the organizations were advised of the problems and failed to take action.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    2 December 2013 at 10:25 pm

                    If the computer had a big sign on it saying “For public use”, yes. I doubt if fender’s computer has such a sign.

                • Blokeintakapuna …
                  2 December 2013 at 2:12 pm

                  That reminds me of a time WOBH was able to access all manner of stuff on this site because it was left more open than an open door…

                  But I do still hear there’s some people that still think there must have been more to it…

                  [lprent: You are a complete moron. It was labour.org.nz and had absolutely nothing to do with us. It was also something that he should have been prosecuted for. I was surprised that the Labour party didn’t lay a complaint. ]

                  • BM …
                    2 December 2013 at 2:28 pm

                    That was the official labour party site, not this one.

                    • Blokeintakapuna …
                      2 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

                      fair enough – I stand corrected.

                      So the official Labour Party website exposed all their supporters – dozens maybe even a few dozen – to massive Privacy Breaches?

                      Russell should call for an Enquiry!

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    2 December 2013 at 3:00 pm

                    Did whale tell you about time Robinsod found the backdoor of whaleoil unlocked?

  20. Puckish Rogue 20
    2 December 2013 at 12:27 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11165604

    Relevent part:

    Today, the blogger told Radio New Zealand when he was convicted in 2010 of breaching court suppression orders, Judge David Harvey “clearly outlined in his judgement against me…what constituted being a medium for news dissemination”.

    “Under that definition I quite clearly meet the requirement for being a news medium.”

    Anyone who wants to donate to Cameron Slaters defence fund only need to go to his site to find out his bank account 🙂

  21. Tracey 21
    2 December 2013 at 12:30 pm

    People get “news” from wail oil. Thats stretching it a bit

    lyn. If someone might be committing a criminal act and is not a politician that would be in the public interest.

    • lprent 21.1
      2 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

      Usually that would be a reason to lay a complaint to the police.

      You could argue that it is in the public interest if the police took no action.

    • Blokeintakapuna 21.2
      2 December 2013 at 1:30 pm

      Tracey – has the Horrid ever ran a story The Stranded ever broke? Has the Stranded ever broke a story?

      The Horrid ran a 5 page story from Whale’s exclusive of the corrupt Len Brown. Political cronyism and nepotism is political corruption I’m sure you’ll agree – but the Horrid threw a few red herrings into the mix and slanted the story so it was all about a “married man having an affair” then plenty of useful idiots jumped all over it with a thought to the political corruption. Strewth – the Horrid still shelter the corrupt Len to this day…

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 2:16 pm

        …why don’t you,
        cry, me a river…

      • lprent 21.2.2
        2 December 2013 at 7:31 pm

        We don’t try to manufacture stories except on some special instances (mostly when we’ve been looking at something else). Although there have been a few that we have done inadvertently because of opinions expresssed on this site. But then the “news” has come from primary news mediums.

        We aren’t a primary news medium. We are an medium where authors and commenters comment on our own opinions. This is often about the news.

        The reality is that “breaking the news” usually takes a lot of time, effort, and resources that few if any of our authors have.

        This site is here because most journalists (especially in the political, scientific, business and economic spheres) tend to be quite ill-educated in any practical sense about what they are reporting on. Basically they tend to become victims of fast talking and semi-plausible spinners campaigning on behalf of their clients.

        So as members of the public we discuss the news offering our own opinions and facts, and frequently educating journalists 😈

  22. One Anonymous Knucklehead 22
    2 December 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Read the “about” section of Lusk/Slater’s blog. It quite clearly describes the site’s ethics to be “whatever I decide at the time”.

    Journalist? Pfft.

    • ABS 22.1
      2 December 2013 at 1:18 pm

      And Lyn decides who can or can not post on his blog. As his his right to do so. FYI that description is more than 5 years old and probably hasn’t been updated since Moses was in nappies.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 22.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 1:26 pm

        That hastily-cobbled-together melange means Slater is a journalist how?

        All noise, no signal.

      • lprent 22.1.2
        2 December 2013 at 7:48 pm

        And Lyn decides who can or can not post on his blog.

        Lyn is my partner. She has absolutely no say about this site and seldom reads it. She is on her own favoured blogs instead…

        However if I’d had my way then the policy would have been somewhat more draconian. I was restrained by the others at the time we put the policy in place into a gentler stance than I’d have preferred.

        • ABS 22.1.2.1
          2 December 2013 at 9:45 pm

          Apologies Lynn. +N. Wait, that adds Nitrogen. Checks periodic table of elements and avoids critical reaction.

          • lprent 22.1.2.1.1
            3 December 2013 at 12:31 am

            Should check your periodic table more closely. It takes a lot of energy or some highly improbable catalytic pathways to attach nitrogen to almost anything. The element is very close to being inert.

            Of course to extend your silly analogy.. Yttrium (Y) is anything but inert. Of the 5 “L”s in the periodic table only Lithium (Li) is common but highly reactive and only Lutetium (Lu – the rarest of the rare earths) is particularly stable. The others are all chemically reactive or decompose radioactively quite rapidly.

    • Blokeintakapuna 22.2
      2 December 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Is it life imitating art when the comments of a commentator match their namesake?

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 22.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 1:51 pm

        What’s your opinion of Price’s argument?

        …if the blogger’s delivery of information to the public is so steeped in ideology, invective and irresponsibility, then there’s surely a case for saying it’s not “news”…My prediction is that even if WhaleOil loses this case, it will pretty much be business as usual for most bloggers.

        I think he’s right.

  23. Tracey 23
    2 December 2013 at 2:07 pm

    I sense a major confusion of issues.

    Its great that slater has supporters. Some who post here seem to have forgotten the thread was started by an article in favour of slater.

    im not sure that how many people view your blog determines if you are a news outlet or journalist.

    How many read the press councils principles?

    • ABS 23.1
      2 December 2013 at 2:16 pm

      Many people support the idea of what Cam does without supporting him, or subscribing to his views. What is important is if someone gives him, or lprent information that is verifiable, but does so under the cloak of journalistic protection – knowing full well it is to be published, do they not have the right to be protected under the same law as protects Andrea Vance from revealing her sources?

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 23.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 2:30 pm

        In your hypothetical example, Lprent could do what any responsible person would: find one or two separate, independent sources to confirm or deny, and then confront the object of the article and offer to hear their side of the story before publication.

        Or just direct the source to a media organisation with the resources to do the same.

        • ABS 23.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 2:42 pm

          And likely be either stonewalled, whitewashed or gazzumped with no mention of the journalist who discovered the story. Would you let others take the credit for work you have done?

      • lprent 23.1.2
        2 December 2013 at 5:09 pm

        What is important is if someone gives him, or lprent information that is verifiable, but does so under the cloak of journalistic protection – knowing full well it is to be published, do they not have the right to be protected under the same law as protects Andrea Vance from revealing her sources?

        I make no claims to be a journalist to anyone, nor do I have any particular aspirations to be one. I’m a programmer who helps to run a blog. None of the writers here try to make any kind of a living off the site. It is run as a non-profit trust with no employees.

        I don’t think that Cameron is a journalists arsewipe. However there are some pretty crap journalists out there, especially at The Truth.

        But in particular it has been rumoured and even agreed to by Cameron on Russell Brown’s media show (and later refuted) that he takes money from some organisations to target other organisations. He may also be making more than we do here in advertising. This means that he has a financial/professional stake in what he does.

        Is it at the point where he and others can be considered to be employed as journalists? The question in my mind is if writing some news opinions and articles is sufficient to overcome the impact of writing advertorials for pay when the two are indistinguishable?

        Anyway, not being journalists means that we run our targets much more to the political than Cameron does. We have no incentive to target private citizens. This means that as private citizens writing opinions on politics and public policy that we are covered by the Lange vs Atkinson public interest decisions than Cameron is when he targets private individuals.

        It may well be that the results of this case changes the legal position of blogs and their authors. We’ll look at that after it happens.

        • bad12 23.1.2.1
          2 December 2013 at 5:17 pm

          Are you not being a bit harsh on ‘Cam,’ Lprent, charity would say that at the least we allow Him the title of ‘arse-wipe’…

        • ABS 23.1.2.2
          2 December 2013 at 5:58 pm

          Thanks, I appreciate your reply. In response to your question about advertorials for pay, I find that eerily similar to the ‘story by numbers scenario’ that was highlighted recently on WOBH regarding the state of aged health care in NZ. In that instance several reporters are given a line of inquiry, emanating from ‘on high’ to do a butcher job and report all the worst stories that they can find on the sector. Obviously news is already manufactured to a flavour in NZ, so I see no conflict of interest when blogs do the same.

          I agree with you with the need to not character assassinate someone or put them through trial by media, that is a fair point. In the end you rely on your name to trade on as a reflection of your character and that can be hard to maintain if someone has publish slanderous material about you.

          However if you are the author of material that can convict you of quite serious crimes and that information falls into the hands of another person, who then publishes it – potential grey area?

          I am also interested in, if you yourself would offer anonymity to someone who dropped a secret National Party file in your lap, hypothetically of course…

          • lprent 23.1.2.2.1
            2 December 2013 at 6:49 pm

            In that instance several reporters are given a line of inquiry, emanating from ‘on high’ to do a butcher job and report all the worst stories that they can find on the sector. Obviously news is already manufactured to a flavour in NZ, so I see no conflict of interest when blogs do the same.

            Your example would be of interest if you could reasonably show that the news medium was doing it after being paid to do it. Otherwise we’re talking about differences in how the public interest is perceived.

            The question is about payment. Don’t know about you, but I find that Cameron admitting that some of his stories are paid for by spinners for organisations in an unacknowledged manner whilst trying to portray himself as a journalist simply means that he isn’t.

            However if you are the author of material that can convict you of quite serious crimes and that information falls into the hands of another person, who then publishes it – potential grey area?

            It is called receiving and you can usually find it in the Crimes Act. All that really has to be shown is that it is of potential economic benefit. Advertising revenue would be sufficient. These are figleaf arguments. They have bugger all chance in anything apart from TV drama.

            …you yourself would offer anonymity to someone who dropped a secret National Party file in your lap, hypothetically of course…

            Yes. But that would be on a strictly personal basis, ideally would not involve me knowing who gave it to me (which isn’t that hard to do), and having some idea of how it was obtained (which would have to be reasonably legal). It’d also have to be actually important to the public debate rather than the panty sniffing that Cam specialises in.

            But it would not be relying on being a “journalist”. Basically I’d be arguing as an individual that it was political, in the public interest, and therefore a defamation case based on it has no merit.

            And of course it isn’t a private individual that I’d be collecting information about…

            • ABS 23.1.2.2.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 7:08 pm

              Your example would be of interest if you could reasonably show that the news medium was doing it after being paid to do it. Otherwise we’re talking about differences in how the public interest is perceived.

              Since the objective was to embarrass the government, I doubt if money changed hands but there were definite political motives and manoeuvres. Short of being a conspiracy theorist, I can only image what the end game must be.

              But it would not be relying on being a “journalist”. Basically I’d be arguing as an individual that it was political, in the public interest, and therefore a defamation case based on it has no merit.

              Semantically speaking, that would be glorious, but really, despite the synonyms, The Standard is as much a political news site as WOBH. Hope the law reflects that if you ever find yourself in the same situation.

              Thanks, I appreciate the opportunity for the discussion.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                2 December 2013 at 7:19 pm

                Since the objective was to embarrass the government, I doubt if money changed hands but there were definite political motives and manoeuvres. Short of being a conspiracy theorist, I can only image what the end game must be.

                Or the motivation was to do a series on rest homes and whether they stack up to what people might expect.

                How do you go about that? First thing you do is try and find as many verified bad stories as you can. Then, you print them. If the worst you can find isn’t very bad at all, then your story ends up either not running or being a bit of a flop in terms of scandal, but you might be able to salvage some human interest angles out of it.

                If you do find some bad stuff, then you have a different story.

                • ABS …
                  2 December 2013 at 7:57 pm

                  The draft copy doesn’t reflect your version of how the events would go. It was to uncover increasingly insidious events and finish up with a shock horror report of what actually occurs in our rest homes. Complete with scorning reports from representatives of unions, Labour and the Greens. Manufactured news and manufactured outrage from the supposed keepers of the 4th estate.

                  THIS is why the ability of blogs as bastions of further discussion and scrutiny of current affairs becomes of utmost importance. Your and my communication and exchange of ideas highlights this because we ARE public opinion.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    2 December 2013 at 8:18 pm

                    Yeah it does.

                    Obviously they wanted to find bad stories (because bad stories are better stories, bleeds/leads etc), were confident of doing so (because if they hadn’t heard anything then the story wouldn’t have been floated as an story) and were mapping out the story arc. This is what journalism looks like. You map out the what the story is, ‘shit treatment in rest homes’ map out who are you are likely to get good quotes from, ‘staff, unions, children of rest home clients’ and plan out the different angles for various pieces, and assign journos to write them.

                    The response from the other side is what develops in an investigative series. They comment, or not, depending on how the story goes and is reacted to.

                    Had there been no bad stories, then there’d be no point in getting quotes from unions etc, but planning to get those quotes isn’t evidence of anything other than a conspiracy to commit journalism.

                    It’s only ‘manufactured outrage’ in the sense that journalism uncovers things that get people outraged. The outrage isn’t faked, nor were the stories.

                    Maybe if Slater had of planned stories out like this when he was running the Truth, it wouldn’t have been such a shambles.

                    • felix …
                      2 December 2013 at 8:32 pm

                      It’s pretty funny how someone with no apparent understanding of how journalism works is so upset at not being called a journalist.

                  • lprent …
                    2 December 2013 at 8:22 pm

                    THIS is why the ability of blogs as bastions of further discussion and scrutiny of current affairs becomes of utmost importance. Your and my communication and exchange of ideas highlights this because we ARE public opinion.

                    Yes. Doesn’t require that we are *journalists* though. There is a reason why journalists are given special protections under the law. They need them. However they also have to act like journalists.

                    Keith Ng and so do many at Public Address do. I think that Farrar frequently does. Many of our authors* do. I can see it peeking through in the authors at TDB.

                    But Cameron Slater? Therein lies the problem. He has been many things over the last 6 years. But I’d be hard pressed to call Cameron a journalist based on his behaviour. It is difficult most of the time to figure out if he has actually researched, or actually believes what he says, or if he applied any thought to it, or takes responsibility for it. Much of the time it appears to me that he says stuff because someone said “wouldn’t this be a cool idea (and wouldn’t you like to be better off)” or it appeals to some kind of reactive bigotry. Most of the time you can’t even seperate the two… He damn near defines blogging irresponsibility.

                    My general opinion is that we’d be better off having better protections for actual journalists and a clearer definition of what standards they are required to uphold to get those protections. What is probably also required is to diminish the importance of news medium in those protections. The strange thing is that would require some kind of guild controlled well outside the handful of traditional news media organisations left here and run on a relatively secretive basis by journalists (excluding jonolists).

                    * Incidentally I don’t, and have no intentions of doing so. I’m an opinionated programmer damnit. I don’t want to be a journalist.

                    • idlegus …
                      2 December 2013 at 8:43 pm

                      whaleoil said on rnz this morning that he is not a journalist, but his site disseminates news.

                    • felix …
                      2 December 2013 at 9:38 pm

                      That’s not how you spell “misrepresents”

                    • ABS …
                      2 December 2013 at 10:06 pm

                      I suspect many people end up in a calling they never expected, and that then becomes the path of their life, and lprent by proxy you have become more than ‘the greatest sysop in the world'(tongue in cheek, don’t ban me LOL!), whether you admit it or not. When you report the news, often you have a choice to be a news maker, as soon as that happens the imaginary line is crossed.

                      Why Cam Slater? Hard to answer without being a fanboy….Honestly though, why not? Wishart was a prat once upon a time, with experience came the ability to reason. Sometimes as I have seen cracking skulls while brutal is effective. But with a leash. While Cam is a wild card, he can print anything he wants because it’s personal opinion. Maybe the restraints of professional ethics would mean something?

                    • lprent []
                      3 December 2013 at 3:14 am

                      Silly bloody label that the morons of the right decided to pin on me.

                      I’m pretty good as a c++ programmer on a variety of platforms doing greenfield work. But as a technical sysop I’m only mediocre because I really don’t have time for it.

                      After all I’m a programmer with the permanent learning curve that involves a 20-30% learning curve per year. I actually spend less than 10% of my possible time doing the blog. It gets to be considerably less when I’m heading up to project completions. That has happened 3 times during the lifetime of the site. It is more when I’m starting new projects. It will be interesting to see what happens now as I’ll be in the maintenance, systems development, and enhancement part of the current project. I rarely do those (last was back in 2004) so I have no feel for what that will do for my available time.

                      But what I find interesting is that the “world greatest” idiots latched on to simple technical operations (I guess that is all that the techs amongst them knew). They sure as hell ignored the creation of a functioning minimal maintenance multi-author coop and (eventually) a viable comment stream with a much lower troll frequency. Now that is something that is hard to do.

                    • Tracey …
                      3 December 2013 at 7:57 am

                      idlegus

                      if he is not a journalist why is he trying to get accreditation from the press council?

                    • lprent []
                      3 December 2013 at 8:03 am

                      Perhaps you should look to that word “trying”.
                      At age 53 or 54 I can “try” to get back into the army again… Yeah right..

              • Tracey …
                3 December 2013 at 6:45 am

                why wouldnt money change hands to embarrass the government? Are you saying slater would never do anything to embarrass the government, ergo the payment issue is redundant.

                You still need independent corroboration, if you are a journalist because anything can be put on a hard drive, altered etc. Not saying it was in this instance, just saying it is very possible in this day and age and accordingly you find a second independent source, if you are a journalist.

                I’m not sure about this idea of if he is paid that magically makes him a journalist. If someone pays me to do a house design, can I now be an architect?

                • ABS …
                  3 December 2013 at 11:52 am

                  If someone pays you for a painting, that makes you a painter. Doesnt matter whether you are a great artist or not otherwise Banksies crap would be worth $5. Thats my take on it.

        • Sacha 23.1.2.3
          3 December 2013 at 7:28 am

          “and later refuted”

          you mean either ‘retracted’ or denied’. Refuted involves an element of proof.

    • Blokeintakapuna 23.2
      2 December 2013 at 2:27 pm

      “Press Council’s Principals” bwahahah!

      That’s like asking a mugger for some of your loose change back so you can catch a bus home… and expecting to get some.

      When the Press Council has EPMU Union members imbedded into the organisation, it will hardly stick to any “principals” besides those they can say are proudly displayed on the website. The reality is a completely different story indeed.

      Consider this – the Media / 4th Estate is the other half of our democratic coin with democracy. The 4th Estate is charged with keeping elected officials and politicians honest – holding them to account, publically shaming them into correct/honest behaviour.

      Yet, with having Labour’s funders and financiers – the EPMU imbedded into the Press Council – that is akin to asking the Mafia to oversee the Judiciary. It’s the political watch dog turned into the fox, that now has the run of the chook house.

      …and when reviewing recent political events such as Campbell’s love fest and reach around on Len compared to the MSM’s hounding of Richard Worth… or, the complete silence about Shearer’s secret off shore bank account and all the probing, investigative questions about that matter…or even the thorough asking of CunningCV about the veracity and accuracy of his CV… the public hear …nothing…

      No – the Press Council are a self-regulating, self-policing industry body that has been captured by the very funders of a main political party. Political Cronyism and corruption is one word for it…

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 23.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 2:33 pm

        It’s all co-ordinated through HAARP broadcasts. Buzz Aldrin was in on it but they got to him.

      • red blooded 23.2.2
        2 December 2013 at 7:02 pm

        Why do some people find it so hard to believe that a union can also explore professional issues, help drive thinking and contribute to the development of policy regarding professional matters and represent professional standards? What do you think unions are – gangs?

        My union (the PPTA) puts a lot of emphasis on professional matters and has professional ethics and standards embedded into its constitution. We are represented on the Teachers’ Council, and it’s nothing to do with cronyism – it’s a way of making sure that at least some of the people making judgements about professional practice and claiming dominion over teachers are actually teachers, and so have the on-the-ground expertise. I’m sure the same principal applies to the Press Council.

      • felix 23.2.3
        2 December 2013 at 8:19 pm

        “When the Press Council has EPMU Union members imbedded into the organisation…”

        How does being a member of a union disqualify a person from being involved with the press council?

        And what else disqualifies one?

        • Tracey 23.2.3.1
          3 December 2013 at 6:47 am

          being a union is enough to be disqualified, even if you represent all the journalist in NZ, if Slater hates unions.

          Not sure how often he has railed against the business round table and its current incarnation

      • Sacha 23.2.4
        3 December 2013 at 7:30 am

        The press council is directed by its staff rather than the publishers? You’re hilarious.

  24. Tracey 24
    2 December 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Paragraph 17 of the judges ruling makes interesting reading.

    ABS

    How did slater verify what his source said was true? Did slater put his allegations to blomfield. Did slater publish blonfields respinse

    • Blokeintakapuna 24.1
      2 December 2013 at 2:28 pm

      YES, Yes and YES.
      Blomfield even has an unedited Right of reply posted only yesterday…

      • Tracey 24.1.1
        3 December 2013 at 6:48 am

        This question cant be answered by YES

        How did slater verify what his source said was true?

    • ABS 24.2
      2 December 2013 at 2:35 pm

      Yes, at all times Cam published responses unedited and with full right of reply on his blog.

      [deleted]

      [lprent: Assertion of facts. Links ]

    • ABS 24.3
      2 December 2013 at 2:37 pm

      And in answer to how did Cam know what was true, they were Blomfields OWN words. About how he had ripped off this company and that and charged for advertising and services that were never completed. That is why Cam is in court, Blomfield is being hoisted by his own petard.

    • ABS 24.4
      2 December 2013 at 2:44 pm

      There is also audio on Cams blog from phone calls where Matt says, “I don’t give a fuck” essentially.

      [lprent: Link to it. ]

  25. Tracey 25
    2 December 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Thanks. Did slater write his piece in 2012 or 2013? If he published blomfields response yesterday but made his posts in 2012 can you see where that might not make him a journalist…

    it is publication to a third party which makes up one part of a defamation claim. That can explain how something written in own words and not for publication might become defamatory when published by slater.

    bit, how did slater verify the info and has he released his will say statement etc to the public?

    if someone puts forward a denial of press council accreditation as a kind of defence then the principles of that organisation are relevant

    • ABS 25.1
      2 December 2013 at 2:49 pm

      I think it was 2010-2011. And at the time Cam rang Matt and asked him for his side. When Matt threatened to have Cam punched over for reporting it, Cam went ahead and published. At all times Matt was afforded the right of unedited reply. Principles upheld in my (humble) opinion.

      [lprent: Link? Not from Whaleoil unless it is a MP3. ]

      • ABS 25.1.1
        3 December 2013 at 11:37 am

        Lynn, feel free to delete any of my comments regarding MB (not Bradbury), I would rather not link to the content until the court case is over. Since he is vexatious, I will not post anything more on the subject on your blog to avoid a similar scenario occurring.

  26. Tracey 26
    2 December 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Is there a contradiction between defying a court ordered suppression and seeking to rely on the judiciary ruling in that case to defend himself.

    even if he doesnt have to reveal his source it doesnt mean the case is over?

    Anyone know why he went to the media yyesterday when the decision was late september? Just curious about timing.is blomfield about to try something in business?

    • Cam Slater 26.1
      2 December 2013 at 3:15 pm

      [deleted]

      [lprent: Open case. This sounds like something that wasn’t presented in public court, so I’m removing it as opening this site to liability. If you want to use something here, then provide a linked source outside of your own site. ]

  27. Tracey 27
    2 December 2013 at 2:52 pm

    Thanks abs. Did cam record the threat to have him punched out?

  28. loadedquestions 28
    2 December 2013 at 2:52 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Assertions. No links. ]

  29. Penny Bright 29
    2 December 2013 at 2:56 pm

    According to this definition – is Cameron Slater a ‘journalist’?

    In my considered opinion – NO.

    “As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news, information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins our role as journalists.” New Zealand ”

    ‘Freedom of expression’ is not an unfettered right to defame people (by telling lies / untruths about them.)

    Cameron Slater does NOT allow ‘freedom of expression’ on HIS ‘Whale Oil’ blog.

    He has banned me from making comments on issues on Whale Oil , although I am never personally abusive (unlike him), and my opinion is usually considered, backed with facts and evidence.

    (Mind you, Martyn Bradbury is no better. He too banned me from making comments on HIS ‘Daily Blog’, because he did not agree that I should have stood against John Minto as Auckland Mayor.

    So – on that basis, and definition, I don’t regards Martyn Bradbury as a ‘journalist’ either. )

    I note that in the Len Brown matter, Cameron Slater made sure he got a sworn affidavit from Bevan Chuang before he broke that story?

    (And, Ms Chuang’s identity was hardly ‘top secret’?)

    If Matt Blomfield believes he has been defamed, doesn’t he have a right to defend himself?

    Doesn’t he have a right to know what his ‘accuser’ has said about him, and who his accuser is?

    What attempt did Cameron Slater make to get Matt Blomfield’s side of the story – because if he made no attempt, then he’s arguably not a hair on a genuine journalists backside (as it were), in my considered opinion.

    If Matt Blomfield’s accuser believes Matt Blomfield has committed an offence – why hasn’t he made a complaint to the Police / SFO / FMA?

    If Matt Blomfield’s accuser has the FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up his allegations about Matt Blomfield’s ‘business dealings’, then why hasn’t he taken this to the appropriate authorities?

    If If Matt Blomfield’s accuser doesn’t have the FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up his allegations about Matt Blomfield’s ‘business dealings’ – then he/ she + Cameron Slater deserve to be sued for defamation, in my opinion.

    Remember – there are always (at least) two sides to a story……

    ‘Seek truth from FACTS’!
    __________________________________________________________________________

    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/resources/definitions-of-journalism.html

    What is Journalism?

    Over 400 journalists from all over the world have taken part in the Fellowship Programme over the past 25 years. We asked a selection of our former Fellows for their thoughts on the profession, its challenges, and how it is perceived in their country. Here is a sample of their responses to the following question:

    Is there an accepted brief definition of ‘journalism’ in your country and what do you see as the major challenges facing it?

    “As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news, information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins our role as journalists.” New Zealand

    “In HK, journalism just means mass media. The challenges it is facing is the increasing trend of self-censorship as HK is relying more and more on China. A lot of media owners have business interests in China. At the same time, HK citizens realise the need of HK to depend on China for future growth and survival. So they also want the media to be less critical of China. Pragmatism dominates.” Hong Kong

    “Concerning the definition of journalism in Egypt and the major obstacles facing the profession, I think it really needs a lot of effort to achieve any kind of agreement concerning a one solid definition for journalism – but I can say on my way of thinking that many of the Egyptian journalists in Egypt consider this job as the fourth estate or the watchdog of the society, and considers the lack of professional training for journalists one of the biggest problems that faces journalists in Egypt.” Egypt

    “There is no accepted brief definition of journalism in the United States. The issue stems partly from the rise of Internet communications, in which people without experience or qualifications present themselves as reporters or commentators (unvetted, unedited), and in which the audience self-limits the information it receives and grants credibility to the information that supports its point of view.” USA

    “Regarding your question: No, there’s not an ‘accepted brief definition of ‘journalism’ in Argentina, at least not in terms of what you can get from an academic point of view. In general, I think the major challenge journalism faces these days is the Internet, the Age of Information, the Digital Revolution: how traditional media can make the adjustments and survive; what sort of impact is getting from non-traditional expressions such as the so-called ‘citizen journalism.’” Argentina

    “Definition of Journalism: Journalism in Germany is often called the fourth pillar of the state; its rights are stated in the German constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech. The founder of one of the most famous journalism schools in the country, Wolf Schneider, defined journalism as follows: To cut a path of information through the jungle of worldly affairs and to keep an eye on the people in power. Its greatest challenges: At the moment, the greatest challenge to the freedom of the press in Germany is the uncertain economic situation and, because of this, the pressure on the media from declining advertising revenue as well as growing demands of proprietors to cut costs often to the detriment of journalistic quality.” Austin Mahone Germany

    As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news, information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins our role as journalists.” New Zealand

    “As journalism in Brazil has become less analytical and investigative in the past ten years, it means essentially description of reality. In the newsrooms these days in Brazil normally there are no discussions, planning nor evaluation of the articles. Any search of new approaches is very rare. The old idea of journalism as mere writing still reigns. Major challenges are motivating journalists to research, to analyse, to evaluate their own work, to grow intellectually and culturally, and do have more of a global view.” Brazil

    “Journalism is a word that covers a multitude of sins – perhaps too many. Change challenges us all – journalism is nothing terribly special in that regard (although we like to think it is).” UK

    “My definition about journalism: gathering news for newspaper or website. This is in Holland a job that can be done freely.” Holland

    “I really can’t speak on behalf of the ‘scientific community’ or all the practitioners, but I would say that the accepted and prevalent definition refers to journalism as a process of conveying information in an objective and impartial way. Briefly, the major challenges relate to ‘infotainment’ – sensationalism and triviality which are seizing an increasingly larger proportion of the media content (in mainstream dailies and weeklies and on the national public television); lack of quality investigative and follow-up reporting. Also, studies of journalism have questionable standards and too traditional curriculum (they lag behind the times, and don’t keep pace with numerous changes in the profession, such as online journalism, new communication technologies, etc…).” Croatia

    “I think the U.S. has the broadest definition of journalism in the game. The challenges facing us are 1) getting the thoughtful and intelligent content heard above the roar; 2) ensuring the economic future of journalism; 3) ensuring that journalism, freedom of the press and the freedom of citizens to inquire about and monitor their government and private industry are not unduly abridged by government.” USA

    “I suppose the definition of “journalism” in Poland is much similar to that in Britain. In my personal opinion the greatest threat comes not from bloggers and the like (who in Poland are very often journalists anyway), but from lack of professionalism and tabloidisation. Not that it will kill us soon, though.” Poland

    “As a former President of the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago, I can say that here the agreed definition of a journalist is someone involved in the gathering and disseminating of news as their premier occupation. The Media Association was challenged for this somewhat vague definition which explicitly sought to exclude talk show hosts, newspaper columnists who were academics or otherwise employed; and other media personalities who sought to be included sometimes for no other reason than gaining access to a press pass. The debate over this issue has still not been settled and there is also some ambivalence over the status of persons who work State-owned information dissemination organisations. We now have bloggers to add to the debate.” Trinidad & Tobago

    “In my opinion, the major challenge is how to maintain high quality news reports and uphold the journalist values in such a small but extremely competitive market in HK.” Hong Kong

    “I would like to say that every journalist in my country would like to think that our profession means sourcing for the true, objective presentation of the reality and expressing the judgements. Yet, in reality, journalist often means serving the interests of the different social groups, and business in particular.” Croatia

    “As for the question about the definition of Journalism in Japan, it is difficult…actually we do not have its specific definition as there is no completely equivalent words for ‘journalism’ in Japanese language. It is a complicated linguistic matter: we imported the word ‘journalism’ in our language with Japanese pronunciation ‘ja-narizumu’, which is misunderstood as to be something quite sophisticated and somehow different from news media. How can I explain this distorted perception?” Japan

    “There are two types of definitions of journalism in America. The journalists’ definition, which British journalists would recognise, involving integrity, objectivity, rigour, etc. Then there is the definition critics of the media use. Here I mean folks who think the ‘mainstream media,’ now often identified with an acronym, MSM, has failed the USA. Those critics are on both the left and right. The left thinks the MSM has failed to capture real Americans’ lives (the experience of the dishwasher, the teacher in the classroom, the 20-something who works in an office by day and spins records by night). The right thinks the MSM is biased, and it probably is. Most MSM reporters are from the coasts or Chicago, are over-educated and have no scruples about drug use, premarital sex, homosexuality, government intervention in the economy and the other bogeymen of people from Alabama. The challenge is simply figuring out how the journalists can continue to work for publications (including websites) that make money in the face of competition from media critics who create their own publications and websites that reflect their (in my view) bowdlerised version of journalism. I see it less as an issue of journalism practice than of corporate practicality. The money people need to figure out their side. The journalists are already adapting, but can’t compromise their values too much.” USA

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    • Blokeintakapuna 29.1
      2 December 2013 at 3:10 pm

      Hi Penny,

      Are you the Penny Bright that has refuses to pay your Rates, and “your fair share” yet enjoy all the services and infrastructure the rest of us pay for? The same Penny that tried to run for Mayor?

    • Puckish Rogue 29.2
      2 December 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Penny you were probably banned because you post long-winded diatribes and then never answer any of the replies to what you post (and thats the biggest sin)

      You seem to think you can Whaleoils site for your own means without having to back up anything you say, you want to use his site you play by his rules (just like we have to play by this sites rules)

    • Chooky 29.3
      2 December 2013 at 5:45 pm

      Penny …this is very interesting and informative !…thank you!

      …Journalism is an honorable profession (when it is done by the likes of Robert Fisk)..

      …personally if I were ever to go on Slater’s blog site seriously, I would take anything I read there with a ‘grain of salt’ ( I have only ever glanced at it and them leaped backwards and out again)…I don’t see him as a journalist, or the site as a site of reputable, high minded journalism aiming at the truth….which is not to say that he does not get the embarrassing truth sometimes…….I guess there- in lies the dilemma…he wallows in the muck and occasionally finds a truth diamond or lead……does one ban/sue/put on the rack the muck-rakers? ….when we don’t expect too much of them anyway?

      ….on the other hand what about the rights of the injured innocent parties in this muck raking?

  30. Tracey 30
    2 December 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Loaded… proof?

    Bit

    Do you believe everything slater writes or do you attempt to verify it for yourself before repeating it?

    the only person I can find writing about a press council epmu conspiracy is slater who has tried on many occassions to get accreditation from them but been rejected and also seems to have an ideological dislike of unions. Can you see how that might not be a reliable source for the allegation?

  31. Tracey 31
    2 December 2013 at 3:08 pm

    Epmu and press council

    http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/…/31_epmu.pdf1. Google it cos I coukdnt get full link from my phone

  32. monty 32
    2 December 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Ohh goodness, can some one bullet point Penny’s download/dump to less than two lines.

    The only things I agree with her on There are always two sides to a story and until you know both its hard to work out the facts and know the truth.

    Secondly people get banned abused on the standard as well. Its choice of the site if they ban and or allow the abuse. accept it

    [lprent: Correct. We finally agree on something. The people running a site set the rules of behaviour. Both you and Penny have had to be taught that by bans from here in the past. ]

    • ABS 32.1
      2 December 2013 at 3:25 pm

      People who won’t publish her = bad not journalists
      People who will. (like here) = Good awesome journalists.

  33. Tracey 33
    2 December 2013 at 3:15 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Assertions – no links. ]

    • loadedquestions 33.1
      2 December 2013 at 3:22 pm

      [deleted]

      [lprent: Assertions. No links. ]

      • ABS 33.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 3:30 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: If there isn’t a link to something credible, then an assertion of facts isn’t either. ]

      • Cam Slater 33.1.2
        2 December 2013 at 3:31 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: Assertions – no links. Adding to auto-moderation for my attention. ]

        • mickysavage 33.1.2.1
          2 December 2013 at 3:38 pm

          Cameron, Cameron, Cameron, Cameron …

          I post something supporting you because of a principle and you come here and start threatening to sue?

          The rumours have been around for a while. Has money ever been paid the consequence of which your site has then put up a story.

          • loadedquestions 33.1.2.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 3:43 pm

            [deleted]

            [lprent: Assertions. No links. Moderated for my attention. ]

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 33.1.2.1.2
            2 December 2013 at 3:44 pm

            Can a shill be a journalist?

          • Cam Slater 33.1.2.1.3
            2 December 2013 at 3:53 pm

            I won’t do that Mickey, I am simply pointing out to your commenter the implication’s of his constant smears.

            It was a very good post and I commend you for seeing past politics and you can always count on reciprocal support.

            • loadedquestions 33.1.2.1.3.1
              2 December 2013 at 4:03 pm

              news media dont take cuts from shabby PR people and then run snowjobs and vendettas against people in there stories and then hide behind protecting sources. You cant be defamed blubberboy because your reputation in the eyes of reasonable people cant be lowered any further than it is. How many carrick graham posts are you going to run tomorrow blubberboy?

              • Cam Slater …
                2 December 2013 at 4:27 pm

                [deleted]

                Normally commenters here require people to provide evidence rather than personal vendettas unsupported by evidence.

                [lprent: We do. A particular instance of that is people trying to out commenters and authors.

                I realise your standards are pretty lax on your site. But bearing in mind the number of times you have accused various people of being authors and/or commenters on this site, I think that you’re being just a tad hypocritical. Especially since most of them were in fact wrong made or done for completely idiotic reasons. For instance the time that you claimed that r0b was Rob Salmond because of the first name…. Now that went into the moronic stupidity level.

                The actual evidential standard required here for addressing a pseudonym with a real name is a link to somewhere verifiable where they deliberately outed themselves under that pseudonym. And no, your site is not an acceptable verifying site. It seems to have a high level of “revisions” ]

          • tricledrwown 33.1.2.1.4
            3 December 2013 at 11:54 am

            i wonder if Cameron slater is declaring his full income to ACC.

        • loadedquestions 33.1.2.2
          2 December 2013 at 3:41 pm

          HTFU blubberboy!

  34. Tracey 34
    2 December 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks for answering some of my queries Mr Slater.

    you said above

    Actually the Police looked at the evidence properly and didn’t accept Blomfield’s claims.

    Did they make any determination about whether what you claim against blomfield was proof of criminal behavior?

    Did you take your evidence to the police and then publish it?

    • Cam Slater 34.1
      2 December 2013 at 3:50 pm

      Yes I did at the time. In an attempt to settle this silly vexatious claim…and it is because where this finally ends up is the publishing of 15,000 emails in court where I will explain in detail all of the detail…I removed them from public view.

      Subject of course to proceedings.

      I of course will present the findings of the Police in evidence as well.

      • bad12 34.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 4:31 pm

        There is Cam, in my view only one course of action for you to take and that is to stand up for your journalistic integrity, we cannot allow the judiciary nor a mere business-man to impose any restrictions on the freedom of the press,

        Refuse Cam, to obey all court orders that you hand over to them the documentation the court requires you to produce,

        Freedom of the press Cam, must be the paramount consideration from now on, going forward with this matter,

        The judiciary may take a very dim view of such a position of refusal Cam, and as LPrent says toss your dietary challenged lump into a jail cell, but Cam, that’s a small price to pay to be seen as hero of all bloggerdom and all of us here at the Standard are bound to back you 100%, yes 100% Cam,

        Snigger, the sooner the better is what i say, bout time you got taken down a peg or two…

        • chris73 34.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 5:04 pm

          Snigger, the sooner the better is what i say, bout time you got taken down a peg or two…

          – Don’t hold your breath

          • bad12 34.1.1.1.1
            2 December 2013 at 5:10 pm

            What don’t hold my breath coz Blubber will fold in five seconds when the going looks like getting as rough as a trip to jail…

            • Adele 34.1.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 10:49 pm

              It vexes me greatly that in order to demean Cameron Slater you resort to childish name-calling. You only serve to diminish your own mana in doing so. Its ugly and unnecessary.

              However, in saying all that, I recently called someone a fuckhead. Oops, my bad.

    • greywarbler 34.2
      2 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Tracey
      You get a citation for trying to keep to a straight line to get to the point. Whereas excursions off the way by others have left them bogged down and confused and if they aren’t then I am but then I am just a bear of little brain.

      • Tracey 34.2.1
        3 December 2013 at 6:57 am

        thanks

        facts are few and far between.

        slater seems to be borrowing some lines from dotcom to build up suspense and long term attention.

        I am MOT interested that Slater wont answer my question about what the police said about HIS allegations against Blomfield. Did the police tell slater they thought it was evidence of wrongdoing by Blomfield or not.

    • lprent 34.3
      2 December 2013 at 4:02 pm

      Did they make any determination about whether what you claim against blomfield was proof of criminal behavior?

      Did you take your evidence to the police and then publish it?

      That is probably why he pursued a civil action. There is quite a different standard of evidence and proof required. Something like 90% of all claims to the police do not result in the laying of charges because it requires a fairly high standard of evidence to successfully carry it through to a conviction.

      A civil action, which doesn’t involve the possibility of criminal jail time, requires far less evidence to get a judgement. Furthermore it is a awful lot easier for a person of means to pursue their target to get a full disclosure.

      Of course there is a possibility of jail time. Depends if the judiciary thinks that there has been a non-compliance with their judgements.

      • Tracey 34.3.1
        3 December 2013 at 6:58 am

        are you saying that the police maybe rejected Slater’s claims of criminality against blomfield and on that basis blomfield felt “safer” to sue slater?

        • lprent 34.3.1.1
          3 December 2013 at 8:00 am

          Sorry I was referring to it the wrong way around.

          I was referring to blomfields allegations about receiving stolen goods against Slater. When that didn’t proceed, he started a civil case instead.

          • Tracey 34.3.1.1.1
            3 December 2013 at 8:20 am

            I thought you probably were, so did Slater, who when I clarified my question never replied.

            I thought Slater wrote here that he did take the info to the police, hence my interest in whether they reached a cconclusion

            • lprent 34.3.1.1.1.1
              3 December 2013 at 8:25 am

              That may be because he was making assertions of fact without links about another person’s identity and facts about that person – effectively trying to “out” someone on this site.

              After the 5th one I auto-moderated him as well as the person he was arguing with. They too were also making assertions of fact about Cameron.

              Effectively both are on the shitlist for causing a moderator too much work.

              • Tracey …
                3 December 2013 at 8:35 am

                Understood, however he skipped my question while going off on his tangent yesterday. He chose not to answer…

  35. Pascal's bookie 35
    2 December 2013 at 3:44 pm

    Funny how the most read blog can only manage 90 something comments so far on its post about this story.

    Whale’s readers aren’t a very talkative bunch, it has to be said.

    • felix 35.1
      2 December 2013 at 7:54 pm

      To be fair though, Cameron writes about half of them himself. So it’s not a bad effort.

    • Murray Olsen 35.2
      2 December 2013 at 10:53 pm

      Most of his contributors seem to be here, spreading the gospel. The rest are still trying to figure out how to fit “Bloody Maori sxxxs just need to learn to close their lxxxs” “Why are my taxes paying for Maori sxxxs to root their asses off.” Give them time, they have to work Sky TV aerials into it as well.

  36. vto 36
    2 December 2013 at 3:49 pm

    the screen keeps emitting a horrible smell when this thread comes up…

  37. Draco T Bastard 37
    2 December 2013 at 3:57 pm

    news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news

    Which is what Slater does. Ok, fine, his articles are usually badly biased, quite probably wrong and the section of the public he’s disseminating to happens to be RWNJs but it’s still what he’s doing. If we want to change any of that then we need laws on accuracy and honesty (Which is what I’ve been calling for for ages anyway).

    The Judge said Slater’s blog was “not a news medium within the definition of … the Evidence Act.”

    Which means that the judge is wrong because Slater does what the meaning says.

    • lprent 37.1
      2 December 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Which means that the judge is wrong because Slater does what the meaning says.

      That is why it goes to a higher court. The interesting thing in any decision lies in the wording of how they define a news organisation.

  38. Tracey 38
    2 December 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Sorry one last question. You dont need to tell me the specifics but did the police tell you if they thought there was evidence enough for them to pursue a criminal charge or not. Just asking if police came down for or against your claims not which way they came down if that makes sense.

    • Cam Slater 38.1
      2 December 2013 at 4:23 pm

      The Police advised that there was no case to answer and they said as much to Blomfield, who actually published their response in court documents he filed.

      [deleted]

      [lprent: Remainder is assertions of fact that I can’t check and for which you have provided no links. ]

  39. Tim 39
    2 December 2013 at 4:04 pm

    This thread so far has resulted in a huge response.
    Sometimes I wonder about our collective willingness to provide oxygen to the dysfunctional.

    It’s all greed … in Cam Slator’s case, the greed and avarice involved in building a personna of legitimacy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8 Symbolic of his ego.

    What’s worse is that I’ll be expected to feel sorrow, or guilt should he ever get to the stage of self destruction. No doubt there’ll be a Lusk or some other pathetic specimen trying to pull a machismo stunt on me if I regard the mess he leaves as an inconvenience.

  40. Tracey 40
    2 December 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Ive googled and found references to a hamish price as spokesperson for bevan chuang and also this

    National Party campaigner and volunteer Hamish Price

    slightly off the topic. Sadly when you play in the gutter you get confused with the rats.

    Mr Slater you probably do some good stuff but you also play in the gutter thats why this stuff will continue to happen to you.

    I am waiting for the day you break something aboout a current serving right wing mp whose ideology you support

    • Jenny 40.1
      2 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

      So Hamish Price is a PR guy? Is his abuse of Wail Oil related to his work with Bevan Chuang?

    • ABS 40.2
      2 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

      You need to get out more. Perhaps visit. Cam is currently trying to shame a high ranking National Party member over allegations of spousal abuse. He also called for the resignation of Aaron Gilmour over his drunken actions.

  41. Tracey 41
    2 December 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Thanks lprent @ beyond reasonable doubt versus balance of probabilities.

    when someone stops answering questions can be more revealing than what they answer.

    Tim

    m

    If there is truth to slaters allegations notwithstanding he asserts them as facts it is important.

    [lprent: It is important for this site – we could be in the frame to get involved in a court case that we have little direct interest in. Consequently I am deleting them as they open us up to a civil liability and/or contempt of court. FFS: I’m at work. I haven’t had time to do more than a skim through the judges decision and a brief look at google.

    Since every man and their purse poodle is asserting facts like a maniac without linking to anything, then I’ll be moderating them out. I have no particular interest in taking any particular position until I’ve had some time to consider our legal position.

    Mickey did a good job on the post and he limited it to being well within the legal bounds. In particular how difficult this case is as a possible precedent setting case. But when it comes to doing case specifics of a case in front of the courts, then the material that is cited as being fact must be something that is public in front of the court.

    Argue about the legal position all you like. But be very cautious about assertions of fact in this case because I’ll ban anyone who tries to send my arse towards a contempt of court issue. ]

  42. Tracey 42
    2 December 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Abs

    going to whaleoils site does not meet any rational definition of “getting out more”. It may register as the opposite

    • ABS 42.1
      2 December 2013 at 4:38 pm

      Some of us like a good debate….Just like coming here is the antithesis of what I would call having a good day, but I can agree with what is being said. I have a fantasy that some things transcend the political divides. Crazy, I know!

  43. Tracey 43
    2 December 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Lprent

    didnt think I made any assertions

    slater

    your answer was unclear. Can u confirm that tge police said as a result of your assertions anout blomfield the police said tgere was no case to answer.

  44. bad12 44
    2 December 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Thinking about Blubber Boy’s little predicament tho does throw up the odd question of interest, having not read any of the particular blogging or comments surrounding the alleged defamation i do not know for sure but there appears to be the suggestion that far from being journalistic in nature the blogs and comments thus far have been more in the vein of a personal vendetta,

    Perhaps therein lies the ‘rub’ for the Judge, to grant Blubber status of ‘media’, if the insinuation of the ‘personal vendetta’ as opposed to ‘honest journalism’ were to prove to have been the case would in my opinion be wrong…

  45. chris73 45
    2 December 2013 at 5:02 pm

    The Standard defending Cameron Slater =

    Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
    Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
    The dead rising from the grave!
    Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

    • bad12 45.1
      2 December 2013 at 5:06 pm

      Chris73, Freedom of the press is paramount don’t you know, when such freedoms are threatened we all must act with unity, and Ha Ha Ha there’s a small chance that our commentary will stiffen up the lardacious ones resolve to such an extent that He defies the Courts and they toss the creep into a jail cell,

      Now that would make all that unity well worth while…

      • chris73 45.1.1
        2 December 2013 at 5:16 pm

        Oh please in this country you have to do something pretty major to get a jail term

        • lprent 45.1.1.1
          2 December 2013 at 5:22 pm

          Not really. It is hard to do so via the police charging you – yes. However to be picked up on a friday evening and then held over the weekend to be presented in court on Monday happens an awful lot. Just ask any activist with an warrant against them for anything.

          However it is extraordinarily easy to get considerable time if you cross a judge…

        • bad12 45.1.1.2
          2 December 2013 at 5:28 pm

          So Chris 73, you think Blubber is going to stick to His guns and refuse the order of the Court, push comes to shove i reckon He will fold like a damp wheat-bix packet,

          Stuck between a rock and a hard place of His own making it looks from here that getting away with the attack on Len Brown has over-blown His ego and lead Him to believe the image He looks at in the mirror was invincible,

          i can hear the clang of that cell door now if He don’t cough up the details of what the Judge ordered like a good little boy…

          • chris73 45.1.1.2.1
            2 December 2013 at 5:56 pm

            Just because you want it to happen doesn’t mean it will happen…don’t get your hopes up is all I’ll say

            • Pascal's bookie 45.1.1.2.1.1
              2 December 2013 at 6:08 pm

              Well if he fails in his appeal of the current decision, and sticks to his guns about protecting this source, then what usually happens is you get found to be in contempt of court. Which often means jail till you stop being in contempt.

              As an example, see

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation#Journalists_and_contempt_of_court

              Doesn’t happen here much because our media aren’t fucking stupid, and consequenttly don’t find themselves having to protect the anonymity of a source during a defamation case.

              • felix …
                2 December 2013 at 7:48 pm

                Remember last time Cameron went to court and all his groupies thought he was gonna stand up to the judge and stick to his guns?

                Yeah.

                Of course if he doesn’t stick to his guns and does fold like the big boy’s blouse that he is, doesn’t that kinda rule him out of the journo club for good?

                • chris73 …
                  2 December 2013 at 8:15 pm

                  You mean how like the use of name suppression has changed because of what he did?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    2 December 2013 at 8:19 pm

                    What, like when he broke suppression that was protecting a victim of sex abuse?

                  • felix …
                    2 December 2013 at 8:23 pm

                    Nope, I meant exactly what I said. The Slater child was all guns-a-blazing on the webz about making a principled stand and never bowing down to the man and if it meant going to jail he bloody well would etc etc

                    And then he walked into court and folded immediately.

                  • lprent …
                    2 December 2013 at 8:32 pm

                    You mean how like the use of name suppression has changed because of what he did?

                    I hadn’t noticed. Has a bill snuck through when I wasn’t looking?

                    • felix …
                      2 December 2013 at 8:47 pm

                      Perhaps chris meant to say Cameron’s abuse of name suppression. That’s certainly changed since his big brave day in court.

                  • Tracey …
                    3 December 2013 at 7:04 am

                    you mean like how he didnt “out” the big millionaire up north to protect the women and children of the north???

    • mickysavage 45.2
      2 December 2013 at 5:09 pm

      I (the Standard does not do anything) am defending the notion that a blog can be a news medium with the various protections that then attach, nothing more and nothing less.

      • chris73 45.2.1
        2 December 2013 at 5:18 pm

        Now now just think what could happen if The Standard joined forces with Whaleoil

      • lprent 45.2.2
        2 December 2013 at 5:26 pm

        I’d personally agree with you that many of them are. I suspect that quite a few are not. However I’m not sure that it is within the current legal framework.

        Consequently as one of the trustees of this site (whose arse is most likely to get in the sling), I tend to err on the side of caution.

    • Tracey 45.3
      3 December 2013 at 7:02 am

      Which proves many of your assertions about the writers here are false

  46. miked999 46
    2 December 2013 at 5:18 pm

    @MickySavage thank you for your considered and well-written piece; I’m sure some parts of it can’t have been easy.

    There are some who believe and agree with everything WOBH publishes, and some who loathe and detest everything he stands for. Likewise with The Standard, but true debate, and by that I mean an exchange of views by intelligent people prepared to consider other viewpoints, in fact exists on both blogs.

    Cheers

  47. adam 47
    2 December 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Micky my problem is – Slater had the opportunity to produce this story via the weirdest oxymoron The Truth – a weekly newspaper. I felt the judge, rightly or wrongly took this into account. So the Slater story could be seen in a different light – one were by those who are in the main stream media, should break stories in the msm, especially when they are editors and the like of such publications. Rather than fall back to blogs to to tell stories and push agendas. Time will tell on this one.

  48. joe90 48
    2 December 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Well done tory boys, the torrent of dirty laundry prior to the boss’s deletions was an absolute delight to behold.

  49. Penny Bright 49
    2 December 2013 at 8:14 pm

    FYI

    Sometimes I get ‘whistleblowers’ who come to me with very useful information.

    What I often do, is then use their information to make OIA or LGOIMA requests to get this information confirmed (or denied) under the relevant public official’s /organisation’s official letterhead.

    (Of course OIA or LGOIMA requests do not apply to private citizens or companies).

    So – I don’t reveal my sources, and get information directly from ‘the horse’s mouth’ (as it were).

    ‘Seek truth from FACTS’?

    Then, I (and often others) usually try to get the statutory ‘Public Watchdogs’, who get paid public monies to do their jobs, and investigate complaints which are based on researched FACTS and EVIDENCE.

    Unfortunately, and more often than not, the statutory ‘Public Watchdogs’, are, in my considered opinion, effectively ‘lapdogs’, who don’t do their jobs, as with the complaint Lisa Prager, myself and Trevor Mallard made to the NZ Police, alleging John Banks had committed electoral fraud arising from the 2010 Auckland Mayoral election.

    However, private prosecutor Graham McCready, has now helped set QUITE a precedent – by not only getting a District Court decision for John Banks to be committed to trial for alleged electoral fraud, but for the highest acting lawyer in the land – the Solicitor-General – to take over the prosecution.

    Well done Graham McCready!

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  50. Tracey 50
    3 December 2013 at 7:07 am

    Thanks Penny, about how you try to verify information. It’s not a hard question really, what steps did slater take to verify the information, given in this electronic age anyone might have put it on Blomfields hard drive, or editted.

  51. captain hook 51
    3 December 2013 at 11:29 am

    whoever called slater a journalist would not know shit from shinola.
    he has all the morals and ethics of a dung beetle.

    • fender 51.1
      3 December 2013 at 11:47 am

      Only dung beetles play an important role in the eco-system by improving nutrient recycling and soil structure.

      Slater produces waste that even a dung beetle wouldn’t want to touch, however there is a sub-species that swallows this waste, Puckish Rogue, Chris73 belong to this sub-species, but because they regurgitate this waste anywhere and everywhere there is no benefit to the eco-system; they just compound the damage to the environment.

  52. northshoreguynz 52
    3 December 2013 at 2:27 pm

    “The Press” is a very broad church, ranging across the spectrum from learned journals, newspapers, magazines and so on. Within those examples again there is a huge range. From car mags to the national newspapers of record. Yet they are all covered by the same press laws.
    Perhaps blogs fall into the same category. There are blogs that aim to inform and encourage wide ranging debate. I am sure if I looked I’d find blogs for fetishists discussing hot rods.
    Maybe they should all be covered by the same umbrella.

  53. red rattler 53
    3 December 2013 at 4:27 pm

    I believe in freedom of speech. No censorship and no law of libel and slander that allows the rich to silence freedom of speech.
    We can’t rely on the state to defend freedom of speech because the state has an interest in suppressing the truth that it rules on behalf of the ruling class. And I don’t make a distinction in this instance between dictatorships and Murdochracies.
    If we win and defend freedoms from the state its only because the ruling class fears us.
    They will certainly fear us if the new media become more independent and critical and the people begin to think more freely and critically.
    To keep that media open and independent we have to defeat the very state that is part of a global spy network.
    How can we then appeal for protection of sources to a state that is globally denying a fundamental right to privacy.
    Doesnt it sound ridiculous to beg for protection from a spy state that employs NSAs 3 degrees of freedom?
    We know what protection whistleblowers get – life or loss of life.
    So we should defend Whaleoils right to lie from state repression, and equally TV3s Frogface, because we, the people, demand to judge them and all other liars, since we have justifiably no confidence in the ruling class or their state.

    • Ian 53.1
      3 December 2013 at 7:38 pm

      If Slater took the time to read the different opinions posted here,he would lose no sleep. Your all clutching at straws ,and he is not going away ,although he probably needs to take heed of the more psychotic among you good folk.

      • Tracey 53.1.1
        3 December 2013 at 7:40 pm

        My God, does Slater really need this many people to defend his corner? For my part I am finding the law around this fascinating. Ian, careful hanging too much on Slater’s every word, you start to think the world is out to get him.

    • Murray Olsen 53.2
      3 December 2013 at 8:29 pm

      I agree with your considered commentary, but wonder if there comes a point where Blubber Boy, as with Murdoch, become mouthpieces for the most reactionary parts of the state? Of course in such a case, the courts would never close them down, but I would also be less than interested in fighting for their freedom of speech. By that stage, the campaign on behalf of tuna with ingrown toenails would be using all my energies.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.