I was particularly impressed by The Paul Henry Show’s choice of speed-reading reviewer… A lobbyist. An excellent choice for an impartial review…
Charles Finny? Seriously?
I expect it is more complicated than that. Showing access won’t be enough. You would also need to show the mens rea, the guilty mind. This would be a lot more difficult than just showing some server logs. And how do you show that someone knows they are not authorised to view something.
Yeah, but the correspondence has Ede and Slater talking about not being caught, even though Labour is trying to track IP addresses. There seems to some mens rea in that. They clearly weren't just accidentally finding stuff.
Picking Finney as their speed reader was just insane really. I mean his entire livelihood is dependent on maintaining a good relationship with government – his interest could hardly be more conflicted unless he were actually named in the book.
Quite. He was even more dismissive of Campbell Live's Dotcom/GCSB story in Kiwiblog comments.
The trove of emails included hundreds between Slater and Ms Collins, including one in which she told the blogger: “If you can’t be loved, then best to be feared.” She urged him to pay back “double” any injury suffered, to which he replied: “I learned the rule from you.”
The book also claimed an email directly from Ms Collins was used almost word-for-word on the website, claiming it came from “the tipline”.
According to Hager, Ms Collins provided increasing amounts of material for the Whale Oil blog, including an attack on a ministerial staff member that prompted death threats against the man.
The Collins chapter seems pretty remarkable. It says Collins got a prisoner transferred at Slater's request, among other things.
The Herald's main coverage on their website is "PM's office: Book's claims 'unfounded'", the second story listed after a feel good human interest piece. Have to go quite far down the page to find another piece, but the opinion and politics sections have a fair few pieces.
Stuff only has one article visible, in the rather neglected politics section.
And you’re tone policing – cut it out.
I didn't read the "you're protesting too loud" as tone policing; I read it as a version of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". R.S Surtees may be at least a hundred years out of fashion, but Shakespeare's never gone out of style.
a Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction type of cleaner?
or a CREEP - type operation
I couldn't possibly say...
I'm wondering about the, here and elsewhere, consistent misspelling of Hager's name.
This is rather conspiratorial, and I'm not suggesting I believe this for a moment, but perhaps the misspelling is a coordinated page rank smear. The more likely answer is an auto-(in)correct algorithm. Or maybe both! I can just imagine the dirty memo applauding itself on the latter's clever plausible deniability cover for the earlier.
Folks just how hard is Hager to spell?
Jesus fucking Christ, is Hagar expecting a medal made out of warm cookie dough?
You got the first name right, the second person mentioned is Hager
Hagar is a bad cartoon – but i guess you’d know that, bad ‘comedy’ being your offence of choice…
[edit} Snap! Balance
I’m wondering about the, here and elsewhere, consistent misspelling of Hager’s name.
Whatevs, Balance. I'll happily own to my internal proof-reader frequently being lazy and downright incompetent (I still type "Daniel" for Danyl Maclauhlan and "Sasha" for Sacha with embarrassing regularity), and if you want to put some "conspiratorial" read on that I can't stop you.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and a typo is just a typo.
Danyl's summary is much more useful -- and alarming -- than anything in the news media today. Well worth viewing.
Morning Report interesting. Nothing to see here, move right along. Govts have to feed journalists and bloggers/it's their job. Bloggers get stories from Govt/it's their job. Farrar and Joyce worked on their lines together? Hager's drilling of Farrar was excoriating, I thought, and Susie left him to do it.
"Breathless" seems to be the chosen description of Hager today.
In the Herald's story on Hager's book (current version online) I counted a total of 14 careful caveats ("he claims ..." "according to ..." etc).
I've no problem with this new reluctance at the Herald to report somebody's claims as facts. But I do wonder why it went missing in the recent stories on David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu.
In Korea. Or is it Israel?
South or North Korea?
if Israel - it's probably a Mossad refresher course he's on...
"kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama"
'by way of deception though shalt do war'
[aside] pissed me off all the talk around digging up the Sutch case again - adding nothing really new - and in some cases (DomPost assholes) editorialising. nay trumpeting, his 'guilt' - they all mention the KGB taking dead babies names for false passports - not one story mentioned the more recent arrest and deporting of Israeli intelligence agents for doing the same thing...
I spell Deborah incorrectly on her page, I feel bad about it. It was not intentional. I hope she reads this, because apologizing on her blog would be inappropriate at this time.
Lots of people spell my name with the ph. It’s flattering but incorrect.
Back on thread…
Morning Report interesting. Nothing to see here, move right along. Govts have to feed journalists and bloggers/it’s their job. Bloggers get stories from Govt/it’s their job.
The sick thing is, Cindy, Joyce is absolutely right -- as far as he goes. And if you don't believe me, just find the proceedings of the Leveson Inquiry and try not to roll your eyes too hard as a string of political spin things and their masters lined up for days on end to artlessly claim they never "briefed against" their political enemies, within and without.
The question, as Danyl, put it is have taxpayers actually been paying for conduct that is, at the very best, unsavory if not downright illegal?
finessing the finny end of the wedge...
Picking Finney as their speed reader...
Charles Finney is a great US author,
I heartily recommend his The Circus of Dr Lao
...whereas Charles Finny sounds like a 'right' plonker!
I only caught the tail end of the interview with Farrar. The bit I heard I tend to agree with: journalists and bloggers do get tips from politicians, and presumably very regularly. But there's a difference between distributing tips to journalists, and telling a blogger what to OIA from the SIS - and then declassifying it for him so it can be released.
Here's Farrar out in defence of Finny, 2010, after he was named in Wikileaks as being a "top contact" for the US.
Does anyone know if there's an ebook version available of Dirty Politics?
"Jesus fucking Christ, is Hagar expecting a medal made out of warm cookie dough?"
Craig, I may be naive, but I just read that (as someone who expects people to note their research sources) he was noting what was in the book was not what he was given, and marking out the nature of the area he had excluded.
The morning papers arrive and you might expect the big story of the day to feature large. Instead, it is tucked away on A3 in the Herald and pretty much absent in the Waikato Times. Instead, both feature a near-identical and rather mawkish front-page story about the drowning of a three-year-old in Waihi.
The morning papers arrive and you might expect the big story of the day to feature large.
John Armstrong managed to bang something out for the online edition of the Herald, don't know if he made the print version. To be fair, the book was kept a total secret. Most journalists would have been scrambling to get a copy and read it, digest it, and work out what they think they should talk about. I guess they'll feature a bit of he said/she said this morning as placeholders before running with specific allegations from later today/tomorrow. I doubt the likes of Mike (I never met a mirror i didn't like) Hoskings or Paul henry etc will bother to read the book though.
Slater claims to have had email contact with people in Labour as well. None of this is apparently disclosed in the book.
Of course, he is very selective at only highlighting my communications with the National Party.
He seems to have avoided the leaks and contacts I have with Labour and others.
(I totally disagree with accepting his statement on dirty politics, it shouldn't be necessary or tolerated).
Did Hager ignore any correspondence between Slater and people from other parties? Or was this all filtered before he got the data?
Hager's name keeps getting converted to Hagar by my iPad autocorrect.