Scott Campbell: Liar on The Nation

Written By: - Date published: 11:26 pm, November 30th, 2014 - 92 comments
Categories: blogs, David Farrar, journalism, making shit up, Politics - Tags: , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

However he has provided a pretty tight frame of events to check on.

The site started in August 15th 2007 and the 5th Labour government got voted out of office on 8th of November 2008. It is also about Scott Campbell or possibly who he was working for at the time.


Pass1 – Scott Campbell

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

So we’d expect to see references to Scott Campbell in the quite small volumes of posts and comments from 2007 and 2008.

But there is absolutely nothing mentioning Scott Campbell until 2009, and that was in two comments separated by about 5 months.

Scott Campbell 2

Scott Campbell 1

In February 2010, well over a year after the Helen Clark government left office, we finally see the first mention of Scott Campbell in a post.

Scott Campbell 3


Pass 2 – TV3 News

But maybe Scott Campbell was talking about TV3 News (or Radio Live) in general?

He was employed at TV3 News from Jan 2007 and Jan 2010  and at Radio Live during the same period according to his Linkedin profile

Scott Campbell 4

Well, just knock yourself out like I just did. The site was a whole lot smaller and slower in content in 2007-2008 compared to now. But I read every post (and many of the comments) referencing TV3 and Radio Live.

This link has every reference to TV3 ever made in the posts pointing at the last page in 2007. There are only about 30 odd posts to look at in the timeframe that Scott Campbell specified.

“TV3 promoting a National/NZF government?” pointing out a strange google ad bias that showed up only on TV3 is the only one that is vaguely critical of TV3.

This link has every reference to Radio Live in posts. There are just four in the time period and while they are critical of some of the reporting, it is had to see where they had a go at a political commentator. The nearest was a question about why Mickey Havoc was pulled to allow Bill Ralston to interview John Key – Ralston being John Key’s media advisor at the time.

I also did long scan of the comments mentioning either during the period. The comments are just the usual range of criticism and plaudits of the coverage. Just use the advanced search functions on the right of any page.

 


 

Conclusion – Scott Campbell is deliberately lying.

Scott Campbell just displayed that he was more than just a simple liar on the Nation. As a PR dick, he’d have to know what he was doing. Presumably that was why he was quite so specific about time and that ‘we’ targeted journalists for the parliamentary Labour party. For that authentic allegation feel.

Presumably even if someone was telling him this crap, then as a responsible journalist at the time, he would have gone beyond just listening to other bullshit artists and checked himself.

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

Since Scott Campbell was quite specific that there was and that he was a target of it, he must have deliberately decided to smear our site with a lie. Presumably trying to make us look like being arsehole sockpuppet bloggers just like that idiot Cameron Slater. And presumably to try and cover for his mate John Key.

It is unlikely that we’d get a retraction or an apology from Scott Campbell or The Nation. I will probably just settle for mentioning Scott Campbell and The Nation as an example of a program enabling a duplicitous PR liar for  a while.

I think about 4 or 5 years of pointed denigration for everyone around Scott Campbell will be a far more effective deterrent than the ridiculous press organisations or the long tedious and expensive civil litigation.

I’m getting rather tired of this silly PR line being used against this site…

 


 

* For the usual conspiracy theorists who think the site may have been sanitized. We aren’t the only people who store the site. So changes to the site content tend to be quite visible.  The National Library regularly archive the site and have done so since soon after its creation. I have specific exclusions in our security against webbots to allow them through. You can also find the site on the Wayback engine and other archives.

92 comments on “Scott Campbell: Liar on The Nation”

  1. Ad 1

    A little fear from them is a good thing. The false equivalences are going to get louder as TS’s readership stats grow and grow.

    Loved the speed with which you could search every instance. One could always email him inviting/challenging him to set out his evidence for his claim.

    • lprent 1.1

      Why?

      He made his claim in public. I countered it and made my opinion clear that he looks like he is deliberately lying – in public.

    • felix 1.2

      He has been asked on twitter to back up his claim. So far he has declined.

      (And I use “declined” very loosely. What he has actually done is pretend not to understand the question, decline to answer a different question, and has now moved on to ignoring the question altogether.

      • karol 1.2.1

        Well, his claims that imply ‘Labour did it, too’ were that Clark’s people attacked journalists via The Standard.

        But why would Labour attack journalists, rather than attack Nats once removed?

        ie: for a political party to attack journalists, the journos must have been (seen to be) promoting or working for the party’s opponents…. surely?

        • lprent 1.2.1.1

          The curious thing looking at The Standard in 2008 was how damn nice we were about journalists then compared to now.

          These days we criticize them for cause, whenever they walk over the line from being journalists and fair commenters to thinking themselves as the egos of wisdom.

          Was journalism better back in 2008? Then we appear to have taken their lines at face value.. Or were we simply trying to not piss off the paragons of the airways?

  2. kath 2

    sharing (on twitter etc)

  3. B. Adam 3

    Many of these so called Rt Wing political PR guys seem like nothing more than bs artists. Political prostitutes to serve their own and their Rt. Wing masters interests.
    Short of truth just like key! come over here, Scott Campbell. defend your claim

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1

      Many of these so called Rt Wing political PR guys seem like nothing more than bs artists.

      That does seem to be what they are. The problem that they’re having lately is that what they say can be checked pretty quickly in most cases and they’re getting caught lying.

      • weka 3.1.1

        Just watch the piece on the Nation (starts around 5.50mins). Scott Campbell comes across as a reasonable and nice young man doesn’t he? 😉

  4. felix 4

    I tried searching for a few of the obvious possible misspellings of his name too. Still nothing.

    I don’t want to believe that a PR guy would go on tv and just make stuff up, and I don’t want to believe that TV3 would just allow it to happen, but it’s not looking good.

  5. Pat O'Dea 5

    A lying journalist. Now, who would hire such a person?

    Let us just sit back and watch

    • Pat O'Dea 5.1

      P.S. They are only useful if it cannot be proved that they are a liar. A journalist that is a proven liar is useless to everybody including his current employers.

      No doubt he will be kept on for a while, just to demonstrate good form, but with damaged credibility he is of limited use and will be let go after a decent period, or when his current contract comes up for renewal. To be replaced with some younger fresh faced more ‘credible’ mouth piece.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1.1

        Its no coincidence this guy pops out of the woodwork, paraded as some sort of ‘independent voice’ when all along its arranged and set up by Keys press office.

        Again Keys hand is hidden but he and his underlings are pulling all the strings

  6. Colonial Rawshark 6

    Scott Campbell appears to price his own integrity and professional reputation at the same monetary level as his next paycheck. I wonder how he manages to look himself in the mirror each morning.

    • tc 6.1

      Same way any salesperson does in effortlessly telling porkies to get a sale.

      The right are all about selling out, recall hairdo ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ over GCSB. Everything has a price.

      TV3 is just another corporate serving its Oz owners.

  7. swordfish 7

    I’ve had a very quick look on a few other sites, just to see if he’s come in for attack anywhere…very little from the time-period…just:

    Farrar on Kiwiblog taking minor issue with the precision of Campbell’s description in September 2008 News item:
    “Scott Campbell on Three News tonight in reporting on the PM’s reaction to the possible free trade agreement with the US said she was “quite literally blown her away”. Do I need to point out how silly this statement is. Unless of course there has been a cyclone you forgot to report on.” (Note: Farrar manages to compound things by – as you can see – completely fucking up his intro, making things even sillier).

    Russell Brown having a little dig in June 2008:
    “But one more act of raging numptyism warrants mention: Scott Campbell on 3 News this week, pronouncing portentously on “Labour’s anti-smacking law”. That would be the private member’s bill from a Green MP for which both major parties, and, indeed, most of Parliament, voted. You’d think a political reporter might know that.” And a few critical comments follow in the Hard News thread.

    Apart from a few neutral/routine mentions on Kiwiblog and elsewhere, that’s about it. He’s hasn’t exactly been a lively topic of discussion on the blogosphere.

  8. You’ve done name searches and “a long scan” and can’t find any evidence, so that makes a strong case that Campbell made an incorrect claim. But it doesn’t prove it. You’d have to read all the posts to prove he’s wrong – or get someone neutral to do it, someone’s perception of attack (possibly veiled attack) can be different to another’s and it doesn’t have to reference it by name.

    But that still doesn’t prove he is “deliberately lying”. It could be mistaken memory or confusing who was being ‘written against’ (a very general term), or some other reason why he might get it wrong.

    He can’t disprove an allegation of “deliberately lying”. You’ve both made public accusations that may or may not stack up.

    There’s no proof that “he must have deliberately decided to smear our site with a lie”. He could believe he was correct, or made an off the cuff mistake.

    You’ve quoted something else he said “But the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen.” That’s a bigger claim, the main point he was making is that Labour under Clark used bloggers too.

    And Campbell responded by tweet: “Three people who blogged there I know well.” That could also be wrong, but you haven’t addressed it. You may be caught between a rock and a hard place on that one.

    • Paul 8.1

      Obfuscating, as ever pg.

    • tc 8.2

      Weak at best petey, you have not changed one bit defending the BS artists so at least its points for consistency.

    • (note to moderators..)

      i have tried reading comment 8..repeatedly..

      ..and i can’t make out the words..

      ..and all i am getting is a high-pitched whining-sound..

      ..why..?

    • lprent 8.4

      Scott Campbell made the claim that the beehive under Helen Clark were using this site to make attacks on journalists. He should prove that. I personally couldn’t give a pigs arse which staffers were spinning big stories around. The fact is that I can’t find a trace of the “attacks” on journalists he is referring to.

      Sphinx search isn’t the piece of crap search that you have on your site. Nor am I as lazy a fact checker as you proved to be.

      I read all of the posts referring to Scott Campbell, TV3 and Radio Live. I also scanned *all* of the comments just in case this professional liar was being clever. It took a long time. There is no trace of any such attack.

      There’s no proof that “he must have deliberately decided to smear our site with a lie”. He could believe he was correct, or made an off the cuff mistake.

      So he can apologize on air. I’m not holding my breath. Basically I can’t see a difference between him and Cameron Slater. They appear to both make lies up and then expect others to believe them.

      And Campbell responded by tweet: “Three people who blogged there I know well.” That could also be wrong, but you haven’t addressed it. You may be caught between a rock and a hard place on that one.

      So he should name the staffers who were in the Clark government at the time who did write such posts. It is absolutely no skin off my nose if some bullshit artists get outed. Or point to the posts that they did. If someone was sneaking posts (apart from HFee post) into the site in violation of the about, then I’ll get pissed off at them.

      But the fact remains that Scott Campbell made a *specific* claim, which so far has proven to be a complete fabrication. There were no posts attacking him as a journalist. There were very few (by todays standards) posts or even comments referring to his employers at the time.

      Scott Campbell appears to have deliberately lied on a national program about politics. He smeared the reputation of this site. The real question is if this is a blowhard by an individual trying to fluff themselves up, or is it part of a paid campaign on behalf of a client like John Key’s National party?

      • The main point Hager had just made was collusion between the Prime Minister’s staff and bloggers. As you quoted Campbell’s main response was to that, saying “But the beehive under Helen Clark were writing posts on The Standard. This used to happen.”

        The big question to you might be that “he smeared the reputation of this site” but there’s a bigger question being ignored or diverted from.

        Or are you saying to that”
        “I personally couldn’t give a pigs arse which staffers were spinning big stories around.”

        • karol 8.4.1.1

          Missing the point. Diversion.

          Spelling it out.

          The post is about a smear against The Standard.

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

          • Pete George 8.4.1.1.1

            [deleted as being diversonary]

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

            • karol 8.4.1.1.1.1

              I repeat. This is secondary from the post.

              If there’s no evidence of posts – and there will be if they were published here – then the comment about the staffers writing posts is wrong.

              You are diverting from the argument in the post.

              End of.

            • TheContrarian 8.4.1.1.1.2

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

              O rly?

              • karol

                Sometimes a comment is removed when the moderate first sees it – it may take a bit of time over the course of 24 hours.

                But nothing is removed at a later date.

              • lprent

                Cameron Slater has been known to remove 10s of posts with their entire comment sections. For instance the Blomfield posts, posts that appear to have been written by Cactus Kate, and I once ran a partial scan that identified about 20 posts that just weren’t there any more.

                I suspect that there would be some fruitful work in just identifying what Cameron has removed over the years.


                There are some operational exceptions for us.. (on comments)

                1. Ones where we have received a defamation complaint. If we decide to uphold it , usually because we missed it, it will get changed with a moderator mark.

                2. I will also backtrack a few days if someone managed to bypass a ban, and make sure that they don’t receive the benefit of their comments. Typically [deleted] + note

                3. I have lost a couple of comments because of database crashes over the years and having to revert hour(s) backwards in the backups.

        • lprent 8.4.1.2

          I know there weren’t wasn’t meant to be any such interference by any political party. If there was it was minor and in direct violation of what was agreed. The HFee post is the only one that I suspect may have come out of the parliamentary wing. But even that seems like it was way too inept.

          I do know that there were numbers of people in Wellington who were big noting themselves about The Standard at the time. Few had any actual contact with the site, and most of those were just involved in discussions before the site was operational.

          But journos are generally suckers for a good story – ask any politician.

          So really if Scott Campbell wants to make those staffers (Labour, Greens, whoever) names public then I have no issue with it. I really don’t like bullshit artists. You included.

          What I want to see is proof that they actually authored posts and the posts attacked rather having some bullshit derived from beery boasts with journos.

          Talk and lies are cheap. Evidence and proof of facts should be solid.

      • tc 8.4.2

        My monies on it being a paid for campaign by the right, they’ve been caught feeding slater and co so now they are going down the ‘ they did it too’ smear route to diffuse.

        An easy route when the MSM are onside as your lackeys.

    • B. Adam 8.5

      It is up to Scott Campbell to come here and defend himself and show some proof. Not for you to pimp for him.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.6

      You’ve done name searches and “a long scan” and can’t find any evidence, so that makes a strong case that Campbell made an incorrect claim. But it doesn’t prove it.

      Yeah, actually, it does.

      Now fuck off you apologist for the right-wing smear machine.

    • NZJester 8.7

      They did a very through search and reprinted every single comment/post with a mention about him for you to read in this article. 2 from 2009 and one from 2010 is hardly him being targeted on here.

      The standard is a left wing attack blog and Labour uses it just the same way as National uses right wing blogs has become the mantra of the right to justify sleaze sites like those run by attack bloggers like Cameron Slater. Every bit of so called evidence they have quoted does not add up with the evidence found by searching this site.

      The story on “The Nation” is yet another finger pointing exercise by the right to make people look left where nothing is happening while the right is doing something devious behind their back while they are trying to see what is being pointed at. Spoiler alert: Nothing is going on in the location they are pointing to. It is a magicians distraction technique to hide what is really going on. They are magically making attack posts disappear from their websites!

      It seams strange that all these people on the right seam to know more about who is posting on here than those running The Standard. If they have actual facts why is it they are not willing to share it with the rest of New Zealand?

    • David H 8.8

      Oh give it a rest. FFS Petey. Unlike you. I have confidence in Lynn’s ability to conduct something as simple as a search, no matter how stringent, of his own website.

      But then again you are the Fact Checker /sarc

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9

    Human memory being what it is (sloppy, self-serving and unreliable) it’s entirely possible that Campbell even remembers the attacks, despite the fact they didn’t happen.

    Or perhaps he’s just lying deliberately.

    The Nation, on the other hand, has no excuse.

    • Paul 9.1

      TV3 is owned by Ironbridge Capital an Australian equity firm.
      Their interests are not served by impartial journalism.
      They want a country they can make money out of.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1

        Then they’re doing it wrong: if they don’t provide a good product they’ll lose market share.

      • Ron 9.1.2

        Is this correct. I know that TV3 entry on wikipedia states this but I was under impression that Ironbridges share had been weakened and that Oaktree and TPG now appear to own a big piece of TV3 debt.

        TV3 is owned by Ironbridge Capital an Australian equity firm.

    • lprent 9.2

      Human memory being what it is (sloppy, self-serving and unreliable) it’s entirely possible that Campbell even remembers the attacks, despite the fact they didn’t happen.

      I have heard people like Duncan Garner, Matthew Hooton, and Josie Pagani all deliberately lie about this site and who is or has authored on it at different times.

      I’d say that if it wasn’t deliberate, then they have issues with the memory of time. Most of them talk as if the people who write here now are the same ones who wrote here years ago but in the positions they hold now.

      But like all blowhards they tend to get pretty damn prickly when others do it to them. For instance if Josie Pagani said the same things when she was a Labour candidate as she does on radio now, then she’d have complaints running against her from members. Instead she has a go at Clinton Smith because he is a staffer now, but used to author on The Standard 4 or 5 years ago. Typical bullying coward. No real difference between her and Cameron Slater (and others on the right) pushing out Clinton’s home address as they did for many years.

      • RedLogix 9.2.1

        Besides the question of poor memory or faulty recollection is easily put to bed. If SC has made a genuine error then all he needed to say as soon as this matter was raised is “Crap – I’ve made a mistake. I retract that statement and ensure it’s made on an equivalent public platform”. We’ve all made this mistake.

        SC must be aware of this post by now – either we see the apology in a fairly reasonable timeframe (like several hours), he produces the evidence to support the claim he thought he was making, or he is a liar.

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.2.1.1

          tick…tock…tick…tock

        • lprent 9.2.1.2

          He was challenged on it during the weekend. I didn’t get time to look at it until last night (Lyn’s early arrival back from her India/Europe trip has screwed my sleep patterns). He has had lots of prompts and time.

          • greywarshark 9.2.1.2.1

            Hope Lyn’s project went well and she is firing on all cylinders after the travel and work.

            • lprent 9.2.1.2.1.1

              Most of the project went well – the parts she went over for originally. Some of the stuff tacked on later on wasn’t quite as good because one of the multiple Apple display jacks had a converter to VGA that didn’t work too well. So it couldn’t connect to the projector she was lugging around. Never trust Apple and especially not in the regional areas of India… They don’t have stores there (hard enough to get those oddity plugs here).

              I suspect she will be updating everyone sooner rather than later.

              After that she went to Europe for work. Came back pretty shagged out because she gets jet-lag (people with diurnal cycles…). Somehow she manages to transmit that to me (and I don’t get jet lag)…

              • greywarshark

                lprent
                Give up those new fangled diurnal cycles – stick to the old tried and true bicycle. The new improved version with battery and pedal charging will give you that extra boost. Hope she got something useful in Europe. It’s such a lot to do in a few short weeks. No wonder she is jetted-out.

        • weka 9.2.1.3

          Looks like he’s going to play the ignore game

          • karol 9.2.1.3.1

            And he’s subtly shifting his story – from himself as target of TS posts, to journalists generally, and now saying he should have originally said TS and other left blogs.

            All he’s claiming to know is “some Labour staffers told me they did that”.

            • lprent 9.2.1.3.1.1

              Eventually it always will get to “I heard it from a friend of a mate who heard it in a bar”

              Someone has got to have pointed out that fiction fabricators like Scott Campbell always get to that point. Godwin’s law for liars.

              • weka

                What’s TV3’s responsibility in this? Do they have an onus to correct what one of their guest commentators claims? Are they likely to if Campbell does nothing?

              • greywarshark

                Just thinking that would be a good name for perhaps a Wellington bar where there is a lot incestuous political chit chat. Call it Godwin’s Law and Bar.
                Have to put Bar in otherwise there would be a whole lot of confused lawyers milling around. Though that would just be BAU?

          • felix 9.2.1.3.2

            He’s been trying that from the start. His first response was to pretend that we were asking him to name names.

            And now Pete George #factcheckerextraordinaire is helpfully muddying the waters for him by pretending that that is the real issue at stake.

      • David H 9.2.2

        It almost makes me throw my coffee mug at the TV when Pagani comes on Q+A with her supercilious bullshit. Sitting there with a look on her face that says. What’s that funny Smell. Because she’s got shit on her upper lip.

  10. Sanctuary 10

    Building the case for false equivalance – the “you do it to” defense. Build a big lie, then sit make and let the rightwing talkback Taliban discuss it as part of the received wisdom of the cult of Key.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      “Everyone talks to journalists”.

      The Wakem inquiry is going to shine some light on that, I expect 😈

    • greywarshark 10.2

      False equivalence – thanks for supplying that term Sanctuary as it is one we need to understand and memorise as we see the practice so often in the pollies discourse.
      edited

  11. les 11

    PR man Malcolm Boyle got it right when he was asked -aren’t PR people just paid liars,his reply…’well paid liars’!

  12. Saarbo 12

    National also work this way, they just broadcast a lie and then by the time it is discovered to be bull shit, its already been publicised by all of the media. Bill English also did it when he made the sound bite that “this government is the most transparent government in NZ’s history” on the Nation on Saturday.

    Nicely called out though LP, how embarrassing for him…Scott Campbell”s credibility is gone.

  13. Sanctuary 13

    The right want the media talking about who posts on the Standard – if they are, then they won’t (hopefully) be talking about John Key and Cameron Slater. Diversion, distraction, confusion.

    • lprent 13.1

      Yeah I know. Part of the reason for writing this post is that I am going to start getting more aggressive about such tactics. I don’t care who it is.

      Go and run a smear against The Standard in politics or the media and expect to see me calling people on it. I will start with the facts and then start spirally out into the motivations and if people paid for it.

      I am tired of us being the convenient diversion for the right.

      We don’t act like that arsehole Cameron Slater. We have never done so. We also have never been as sycophantic towards Labour or the Greens as David Farrar is with his money supply at National.

      If I really get pissed off, I will find a test case and push them through civil court in a defamation case by way of an example. Defamation laws being what they are, it is up to the person accused of defamation to prove that they did not defame or play fast and loose with facts.

      • halfcrown 13.1.1

        Well said Iprent, and I would go along with that.
        For too long these type of arseholes have adopted an attitude of, throw enough shit some of it will stick, or where there is smoke there is fire by telling these lies
        We need a good strong hose and disinfectant to wash some of this shit away.

      • weka 13.1.2

        There’s also the possibility of ts becoming a target in its own right.

    • lprent 13.2

      Not even that. They appear to want to get the media to talk about who was writing posts on The Standard in 2008.

      Six years ago? With a set of authors who no longer write posts on the site? And haven’t done so for years?

      FFS now that is conservative…

      • ianmac 13.2.1

        Lyn. I wrote to TV3 re Scott Campbell and esssentially said that they had broadcast an untruth and that I (we) expect an on-air retraction and/or apology.
        Surprisingly that tonight I received a form response:
        “Hello Ian,

        Thank you for your email,

        Thank you for your feedback, we appreciate and take seriously your comments and suggestions, I will pass yours along to The Nation team for their consideration.

        Thanks again for your feedback.

        Kind Regards
        The Team at TV3 and FOUR”

        It went somewhere perhaps.

      • David H 13.2.2

        What is it about the Nats fascination with the past? They did the same to Cunliffe smears from years ago over what should have been ARE trivial and imaginary deeds, and imaginary writings. Unfortunately the skids are greased with Whaleoil.

  14. Whateva next? 14

    Trying to balance the Whaleoil blog with The Standard to somehow “neutralise” Slater, is farcical, but that seems to be the latest angle.
    The Left have NOTHING as venal as the Slater blog, ( it’s what Labour is about, to cooperate, not compete) so don’t even go there Crosby Textor puppets,….. let your conscience be your guide,and ask at the end of your days how you made a difference?

  15. ianmac 15

    Wonder what effect it would have if each of us sent to the Nation a demand that they apologise on air for the lie/mistake/mis-speak that Scott Campbell made in falsely accusing TS and its directors?

    • Anne 15.1

      Could someone post the TV3 email address and the person’s name to send it to? I don’t have time to check it out right now but would like to lay a complaint later today.

      It’s not a bad idea because if TV3’s response is unsatisfactory, then one can take the complaint to the BSA (Broadcasting Standards Authority). That has the potential for publicity and when I took that step re-a certain Q&A programme a few years back, the TV host in question markedly improved his behaviour.

      • weka 15.1.1

        How do I make a formal complaint?

        3 is required by the Broadcasting Standards Act 1989 to comply with the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

        These codes have been developed by Broadcasters in consultation with the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA).

        If a viewer believes that a programme has breached any standards in those codes he or she may make a formal complaint to the broadcaster.

        The law says that formal complaints must be in writing and sent to Broadcasters first and that they must have procedures to deal with such complaints.

        If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of a formal complaint she or he can refer it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for investigation and review.

        A formal complaint to the Broadcaster must…

        be in writing (and preferably include the words “formal complaint”)
        identify the specific programme – time of day and where broadcast (channel or station)
        identify the reasons for the complaint- preferably citing specific standards from the Codes of Broadcasting Practice
        be received within 20 working days of broadcast

        Privacy complaints are handled differently. Where a Broadcaster is alleged to have invaded someone’s personal privacy, the formal complaint can be made directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, without first going to the broadcaster.

        IMPORTANT ADDRESSES:

        Formal complaints must be sent initially to the Chief Executive of the Broadcaster.

        TV3 and C4
        Private Bag 92624
        AUCKLAND
        Phone: (09) 377 9730
        Fax: (09) 366 5999

        Broadcasting Standards Authority
        PO Box 9213
        Wellington

        http://www.tv3.co.nz/How-do-I-make-a-formal-complaint/tabid/52/articleID/77/Default.aspx

        Can’t believe there is no email address in that (very poor form tv3). Best I can find is this replies@tv3.co.nz

        http://bsa.govt.nz/complaints/formal-complaint

        • Jenny Kirk 15.1.1.1

          Hey – thanks for this info, Weka. I HAD written to TV3 about this matter – using their online form which only allowed for 1500 “characters” – and didn’t realise I needed to specify the actual “standard” which was breached – so I’ll now put in a more formal complaint and see if there’s any reaction.

  16. A Voter 16

    Just another right wing ego with the belief in that their value is greater than that of the majority of opinion
    get real if the hell that this govt thinks is so imminent to be descending on this nation maybe he could find something better to write about other than himself

  17. Chooky 17

    Well Scott Campbell, whoever he is , ( never heard of him before ) is certainly getting a good airing on ‘The Standard’ now..let’s hope he is satisfied

    ….and from his picture he doesn’t look very attractive ( personal remark, as my Mother would say)

    ….maybe he should just shut up and crawl back into his hole

  18. greywarshark 18

    What a lot of leg work lprent. It is good to be able to fly through the cloud of misinformation and allegations and land safely on firm ground. And we won’t believe anything he says from now on.

    It is a shame that he has damaged his name and standing by this sort of partisan willingness to bolster a shaky political framework with more shaky words. Bad workmanship!

  19. adam 19

    That interview got emailed to me, and I almost wet myself thinking, if you don’t have your facts right – Lprent will sink you. Oh and guess what.

    Lprent, as one of those suckers out on the far left who gives grief to labour on a regular basis – I find it almost impossible to believe the are running with the standard being a labour party vehicle. I’m not the only person who says labour are a dead weight on the left, and it is a corporate elect liberal hog show. Hell, I’ve even had a go at labour MP’s by name. And I know I’m not alone on this.

    I think Lprent you have again done a good job pointing out to yet another propagandist, they can’t justify their lack of morals, just by saying other people do it.

    • lprent 19.1

      Especially since every person trying it so far has appeared out of a cryostasis. Haven’t any of the dumb drones on the right PR actually read the site since 2008?

      I had thought that Guyon Espiner was an aberration at the RNZ interview when he appeared to have stopped politics about the time he left the press gallery. But recently the ‘journalists’, ex-journos seem to be acting exactly like moranic trolls. Locked in some mythological age that none of the rest of the world are aware of.

      So they thaw out Scott Campbell and put his brain damaged carcass and obsolete knowledge out on National’s broadcast TV. It was no wonder that Hager and Manhire were looking at him as if he was a stuffed puppet.

      • Draco T Bastard 19.1.1

        I had thought that Guyon Espiner was an aberration at the RNZ interview when he appeared to have stopped politics about the time he left the press gallery. But recently the ‘journalists’, ex-journos seem to be acting exactly like moranic trolls.

        If they’re all doing the same thing at the same time then, IMO, chances are they’ve received instructions on what to do and what to say.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts