TV3, Cameron Brewer and more of the same

39 comments on “TV3, Cameron Brewer and more of the same ”

• Comments are now closed

1. George Hendry 1

   17 January 2015 at 2:39 pm

   Greetings MS.

   Months ago I started noticing that news reports on Auckland City Council business nearly always included a response comment from Cameron Brewer. And wondered why.

   Thanks 🙂 , now I know. He represents both the attack blog AND the alcohol industry (as in, yeah, (political) right).
   • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1

     17 January 2015 at 4:26 pm

     he is an Councillor!

     The story is sourced from him, so thats his deal: “, I have this juicy news which you can run if Im the only person mentioned for comment”
2. Paul 2

   17 January 2015 at 2:44 pm

   Stephen Joyce’s links to TV3 may be key.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     17 January 2015 at 4:44 pm

     I still scratch my head about the $43 million. The Government did not have to defer collection. It could have insisted on it being paid.
     • Paul 2.1.1

       17 January 2015 at 4:47 pm

       It would be interesting to have been privy to the discussions.
       • Truth Will Out 2.1.1.1

         17 January 2015 at 5:19 pm

         I saw the receivership as utu for TV3’s coverage of Kim Dotcom, which was initially extremely damaging for Key. It certainly fits with Key’s well known vindictiveness and allergy to criticism. When I factor in who the receiver actually was, Korda Mentha, all of my instincts screamed at me this we were witnessing a coup against TV3 for daring to retain a shred of editorial independence. One look at the history with Korda Mentha shows how Key has used that firm to do a lot of his dirty laundry on high profile issues:

         * Sky City – paid to write the report saying the pokies deal in return for the convention centre was “a good deal for New Zealand”.
         * Crafar Farms – appointed receiver after Bernard Hickey took a sudden and highly unusual (as well as completely isolated) “interest” in animal welfare by sneaking on to Crafars farms and uploading a video to YouTube of a few hungry cows.
         * South Canterbury Finance – paid to write the report describing it as buggered and justifying the receivership (two weeks before the receivership was announced – and took less than a week to produce that report).
         * South Canterbury Finance – appointed (joint) receiver (go figure).
         * Solid Energy – paid to write the report describing it as buggered (do you see a pattern emerging here?).
         * TV3 – appointed receiver after a tax liability was raised. Proceeded to gut the board and appoint a new one, changing the editorial direction of TV3 entirely.

         Notice how dramatically TV3 has changed it’s stance on Kim Dotcom since then (as just one example)?

         Do the math.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.2

       18 January 2015 at 11:15 am

       The business was bought by private equity, when credit was cheap and easy and leveraged to the hilt. The business wasnt making any money and couldnt get any more cash.
       There was Bank of Bill English. I remember an interview where English was questioned about the ‘loan’ but he denied this…until the interviewer said he had the documents describing it as a loan ( with interest)
       • Truth Will Out 2.1.2.1

         18 January 2015 at 12:59 pm

         TV3 was placed into receivership because of a disputed tax debt of $22 million to IRD.

         http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/137826/tv3%27s-owners-in-receivership

         The receivership “would kill off potential obligations to the IRD”…

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10891449

         Like I said, do the math.
3. The Murphey 3

   17 January 2015 at 2:48 pm

   Q. Cameron Brewer under what mandate as local council ward representative do you have in making comment regarding the business of a ‘leader of opposition’ at central government level ?

   Q. Were you speaking as a local ward representative or in your capacity as business partner in a PR firm with documented connections to the ‘Dirty Politics’ scandal ?

   [or any comments and questions you feel are appropriate]

   http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/Pages/Wardcouncillors.aspx

   [include all listed representatives in the emails and be sure to address directly to Cameron Brewer]
4. Karen 4

   17 January 2015 at 2:53 pm

   I found it interesting TV3 said Brewer was a former press secretary without revealing who for. Viewers may have been interested in the names: Jenny Shipley, John Banks and Rodney Hide. Now I believe this is relevant information in a political story. So why was it withheld?

   Brewer’s partnership in Carrick Graham’s PR company and the coverage by bloggers Cameron Slater and David Farrer makes this clearly a “Dirty Politics” beat-up. There’s the real story TV3, but I bet you won’t be telling it.
   • Murray Rawshark 4.1

     17 January 2015 at 8:01 pm

     Brewer has that same slimy ACT operative look about him as Carrick Graham and the others. I have a close relative who used to be involved with ACT a while back (he grew up) and I gave him Dirty Politics to read. He said what they did was filthy and unacceptable, but having mixed with them, not at all surprising. He said none of that clique discussed policy, it was all about personalities and how to destroy people. Brewer is trying to do that to Little.

     Dirty Politics has not stopped.
     • The Murphey 4.1.1

       17 January 2015 at 8:28 pm

       Every last one of them are cowards who would not stand in front of someone to cut a deal or to cut them down

       It’s back handers back stabbing and posturing of the most callow variety on all fronts
5. Clemgeopin 5

   17 January 2015 at 4:09 pm

   What a shame that TV3 has descended into such a shameless unfair outfit. Thankfully, there are still a few people, very few, with their integrity and honour in tact. Hopefully, they will remain so and resist the gutter route.
6. Ffloyd 6

   17 January 2015 at 4:31 pm

   Maybe Andrew Little could ask for clarification of that piece next time he is on The Nation. Why was it even on the news. It was an obvious attack piece on Little. As for this constant pushing by the media that key is to be *feared* it is just getting tedious.
7. Neil 7

   17 January 2015 at 5:23 pm

   Slater & the Nats will do whatever it takes to discredit Andrew Little, no matter whether its legal or not. They have got their knives sharpened & are already starting to use them.
   • Weepus beard 7.1

     17 January 2015 at 9:58 pm

     Yep. The strategy is so obvious because of it’s clumsiness.

     The counter?

     Discredit Key: not possible because he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars via an Australian PR company on his image.

     Discredit Slater: he’s angry, way angrier than Andrew Little. Ironic because Slater has stolen the term “Angry Andy” from some other fascist commentator, yet as I have said, he is so much more angry than Andrew Little. The discrediting of Cameron Slater is a real possibility given his constant and repeated forays into racism and abuse of ordinary people. Let’s not forget, Slater and the National Party are inextricably linked.

     I think Slater is the weak link.
     • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1

       17 January 2015 at 10:39 pm

       Good god, you’re not going to get anywhere using the Left or Labour to attack Slater; all Slater will do is show his backers how effective he is being at riling up the Left and then he will raise his hourly charge out rate!
     • Rodel 7.1.2

       17 January 2015 at 11:47 pm

       Slater should always be referred to as, ‘National party blogger’. Always.
8. JanM 8

   17 January 2015 at 7:21 pm

   Guyon Espiner’s piece on Andrew Little in The Listener is an extraordinary piece of garbage, too, in my opinion. I mean ‘cold eyes’ – FGS!
9. Bill 9

   17 January 2015 at 10:14 pm

   Probably wouldn’t win any popularity contest held between comments on this thread if I suggested people be a bit less precious, but hey.

   A job advert that puts raising fb likes out there as a target to be achieved by successful applicants deserves to have the piss ripped out of it. Now, if you’re going to rip the piss, do you go to loaded, acerbic commentators, or to nice middle of the road ones? Well, the former, right? And where would you find the most acerbic comments on this matter?

   Look, if the news article/report was over something important, rather than bouncing off the stupid wording of a job ad – and running with it, and spreading it for as far as it has legs – then sure, there might be an issue over offering up a Cameron Brewer. But it isn’t. So there isn’t…except in a world of princesses atop mattresses atop annoying peas. imo
   • mpledger 9.1

     17 January 2015 at 10:53 pm

     It’s not about the ad, it’s about the shallowness and un-profesionalism of tv3 to run with a lame-arse story that they sourced from a pro-National party blog-site and then used a national party hack to comment on it.

     It’s as if all the journalists have gone on holidays leaving the school kids on holiday jobs to do all the work.
     • Murray Rawshark 9.1.1

       18 January 2015 at 12:24 am

       It’s about both the ad and the TV3 piece. Both were the work of schoolkids.
   • Pete George 9.2

     18 January 2015 at 5:57 am

     Probably wouldn’t win any popularity contest held between comments on this thread if I suggested people be a bit less precious, but hey.

     There does some to be some over-preciousness here.

     Sure TV3 used a couple of snarky soundbites from Brewer. Crappy but normal approach. But it is relevant that he has been a press secretary.

     However he wasn’t the first or most quoted person they went to for commentary, that was Auckland University politics lecturer Jennifer Lees-Marshment.

     Should an item like this be a PR puff piece and only seek favourable comments? That would be worse than what they’ve done with this.

     The connection to ‘Dirty Politics’ is a stretch. Going by the index Brewer didn’t feature at all in the book.

     He is apparently in partnership with the infamous Carrick Graham and Ricardo Sumich, who also has exquisite National Party links. Graham is one of the three people whose reputations were most damaged by Dirty Politics. But this background was not mentioned by TV3.

     Why should they have mentioned a tenuous link like that? They never have time to go into detail about the histories and associations of every person interviewed.

     Even worse is that the TV3 story has been seeded by earlier posts by David Farrar and Cameron Slater.

     Do you have any evidence of this?

     Farrar’s post on it was at 2.00 pm on the 15th. He quoted a Stuff report from the previous day, last updated at 13:37 January 14. As did Slater and his post on it was also on the 15th. Why would TV3 be ‘seeded’ by just one of several posts a day about Little on Whale Oil?

     I didn’t think the TV3 report was bad considering it was a political filler. It was publicity for Labour, it got Andrew Little on the 6 o’clock news and overall I don’t think it was negative for him at all. And it helped advertise the position, surely that’s a good thing.

     Claiming this is all a continuation of ‘Dirty Politics’ is creating a negative about what should be a positive, getting Little in the news and getting the best possible press secretary for him.

     As Brewer was quoted:

     “The Labour Party haven’t been on the news at 6pm in a positive light since Adam was a boy, so this is a huge ask,”

     He’s right, it is a huge ask. Trying to seed it into being about ‘Dirty Politics’ won’t help shine ‘positive light’ at all, it’s just futile glowering on a dark past. Get over it. Getting more positive will help more.
     • lprent 9.2.1

       18 January 2015 at 6:40 am

       It is rather hard to see what your point is?

       Does this come back to your weird interpretations of what “dirty politics” is about? For some reason they sound quite different to what was in the book. Generally I’d have called them almost diversions if I didn’t know you were such a balanced person… /sarc

       But really the people you should be looking at are the shallow arseholes at TV3 who brought on a posturing fool who has no particular value to do his emulation of stupidity of Michael Bassett.

       Actually coming to think of it I am rather surprised that the dumbarse people at TV3 didn’t descend to that level. I guess he was unavailable?

       Disclaimer: Please note that all of these opinions are my own and are not some kind of dirty politics. I just dislike how all of the people mentioned here operate politically and consider that none of them contribute anything useful to local politics. They appear to me to be useless parasites on the body politic more interested in narcissistic self-promotion than any analysis of interest.
       • Pete George 9.2.1.1

         18 January 2015 at 6:46 am

         It is rather hard to see what your point is?

         Ditto.

         I just dislike how all of the people mentioned here operate politically and consider that none of them contribute anything useful to local politics. They appear to me to be useless parasites on the body politic.

         Jennifer Lees-Marshment? Andrew Little?
         • mickysavage 9.2.1.1.1

           18 January 2015 at 7:59 am

           Do you think Pete that TV3 should have acknowledged Brewer’s links to the National Party?
           • Pete George 9.2.1.1.1.1

             18 January 2015 at 9:00 am

             Why? Did they acknowledge anyone else’s links to parties? I know a bit about Brewer but nothing about Jennifer Lees-Marshment, should they have acknowledged her politics connections or leanings if any?
             • mickysavage …

               18 January 2015 at 9:04 am

               Because they presented Brewer as a supposed independent commentator. Surely the media, even the commercially owned media, have an obligation of presenting stories without spin. Marshment is a diversion, I could not fault her comments. She is also not a paid up publicly elected member of the other party the way that Brewer is.
     • sharon 9.2.2

       18 January 2015 at 5:33 pm

       It may seem small but the cumulative impact of deliberately biased journalism is massive. Corporate media have been winning over the hearts and minds of ordinary New Zealanders for several years now, with their biased right wing commentary.

       It was not balanced reporting, and as such yes, it is a big problem. I would go so far as to blame this politically contrived journalism as the reason we still have a National Government in place and that the ‘Labour is a shambles’ mindset was a media invention. I saw no evidence of deep fundamental problems within the party.

       Options are to make a formal complaint to TV3 and / or submit a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
10. Sacha 10

    17 January 2015 at 10:56 pm

    “the very talented and dedicated Simon Cunliffe” – citation needed.
    • Rodel 10.1

      17 January 2015 at 11:45 pm

      No it isn’t.
      • Sacha 10.1.1

        17 January 2015 at 11:51 pm

        Cos your argument is so powerful, you mean? I’ve seen no evidence of his talent. Never even heard of him before he helped Labout to its worst defeat.
        • Rodel 10.1.1.1

          18 January 2015 at 9:47 am

          No and I’m sorry you can’t see or hear.
11. OhMyGodYes 11

    17 January 2015 at 11:47 pm

    Key’s achilles heel is Slater’s threats to undermine him if Key doesn’t play Slaters game. The way to undermine both of them is to divide them. The way to divide them it to embarrass Key for having a relationship with him. The way to embarrass Key is for Labour to keep publicising aspects of Dirty Politics which cause Key to distance himself from Slater, increasing the risk for Key of Slater retaliating against him, and increasing Key’s stress levels accordingly. Slater is unstable, ergo the best way to rattle Key and keep him that way is to destabilise Slater. He is most dangerous to Key when he is cornered and unpredictable. We all saw how increasingly farcical and embarrassing for Key he became when Dirty Politics was playing out so there is the evidence. Labour WANTS Slater going on about suicide and death threats and his mental health issues. It’s beautiful because it’s more embarrassing for Key every time he does it. My advice to Labour is “go for the face”…
    • disturbed 11.1

      18 January 2015 at 11:50 am

      1000% OhMyGodYes,

      This will make Pete George the NatZ puppet to spew in his morning coffee.

      First know your enemy.
      Then attack the weakest link .
      Third publically ridicule the association of the enemy.

      NatZ do this all the time.

      Don’t listen to Pete George, as beside not offering any constructive help anytime I can see.

      He is playing the NatZ game of trying to use diversions.

      Key also has attended the nasty black ops Global Elitist Group called The Bilderberg group as Prime minister of NZ in 2011, and has never ever been approached about this yet?

      This nasty NAZI founded organisation (Prince Bernard) is planning to destabilize governments, and take over in a “One World Government.”

      Know your enemy so can Andrew Little request details of why in 2011 the NZ People who paid tax dollars were never informed about PM attending this evil Group of power hungry Elitists?
      Below he was in attendance as John Key Prime Minister of New Zealand.

      Attended by most the biggest industrial and richest elite globally their aim is to dominate the globe and control all activities.

      http://twochurchesonly.com/supmat/03/most_influential/bilderberg_group/
      list_of_bilderberg_attendees.pdf

      List of Bilderberg participants 4
      New Zealand
      • John Key (2011-2012), Prime Minister of New Zealand
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg
      • Truth Will Out 11.1.1

        18 January 2015 at 1:08 pm

        Personally I hope Cameron Slater launches his new media outlet and calls it “Freed”.

        That will allow the left to rebrand it “Fraud” in less than 30 seconds, and lampoon it from here until kingdom come.

        With any luck Slater will stop simply threatening suicide then, and just put us all out of his misery.
        • Ian 11.1.1.1

          19 January 2015 at 8:56 pm

          Thats not very nice.The elephant in the room is still andrew cold eyes angry little.
12. Jrobin 12

    18 January 2015 at 12:51 am

    Nothing wrong with anger when it is in response to the low life tactics of Key. Anger totally appropriate, feel free to get angry Andrew Little. Apathetic and slimy as in Brewer, Slater, Carrick Graham et al, repulsive bunch of emotionless bean counters. Anyone not getting angry yet about the many and ever multiplying attacks on our democratic rights to free speech and sovereignty doesn’t give a fig for New Zealand.
    • whateva next? 12.1

      19 January 2015 at 10:38 am

      Anger? Guts, intelligence, stamina and sheer force of will to do what is right, which I think Little has plenty of. National is aware that he is tuned in to their schoolyard style of manipulation of the electorate, hence the daily, or even twice daily posts from Whaleoil “Who is Andrew Little” which are tell us more about Whaleoil than Little. I read that he and Key have kissed and made up, and Key is intimidated by Little.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS