Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Never mind the quality ...

329 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 14 Newer→ Last

  • Sacha, in reply to Pete George,

    His office leaks from MFAT in 2012 which led to a fight through the courts to hide the identity of the Labour associated leaker.

    I thought the leaker was never identified, let alone their associations?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19633 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to Pete George,

    I haven’t seen anything yet that contradicts this.

    I haven't seen anything yet that would make me trust a single word that Slater says or writes.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 580 posts Report Reply

  • JLM, in reply to Stephen R,

    My recollection is that nice Mr Key was saying that David Cunliffe couldn’t be trusted to run the country because he couldn’t remember a letter he wrote in support of Mr Liu 11 years ago, and was therefore shifty and unreliable.

    Since Mr Key now appears to be unable to remember a briefing five years ago, does that make him twice as shifty and unreliable?

    This is what I would rather the media would focus on, rather than the minuteae of who said what, when.

    I also hope that David Cunliffe resists the temptation to drag this out in the leader's debates, by which time most people will be starting to flag. These debates really should be about policy, with a wee bit of trust and leadership on the side.

    Judy Martin's southern sl… • Since Apr 2007 • 239 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz,

    But when policy (ooh say for example combating cyber bullying) is promulgated by people who engage in contrary behaviour, what confidence can you have in those policy statements?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • Rufus McEwan, in reply to Pete George,

    Two flags for me here:
    1) How is anyone outside of the Prime Minister's office gaining access to classified information to then leak it to Slater. If confirmed this surely raises new questions about the running of the SIS.
    2) The PMs office is directly encouraging him to withdraw the request still implies more involvement in this particular release then they are currently prepared to admit and only confirms Hager's assessment that the Prime Minister's office works closely with Slater.

    Auckland • Since Apr 2007 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • simon g, in reply to Pete George,

    I think this sums it up pretty well:

    I won’t be told what to do by anyone.

    and

    I am happy to swear under oath what happened

    Feel free to take Slater - or anyone else - at their word, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to fall into line.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1298 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    I haven't seen anything yet that would make me trust a single word that Slater says or writes.

    This.
    The more he says/writes, the less credible he appears. Given the now exposed duplicity I couldn't accept any of his statements without independent evidence.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    I haven’t seen anything yet that would make me trust a single word that Slater says or writes.

    When you wrestle with pigs, Lucy, you only get muddy. ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Rufus McEwan,

    Two flags for me here:
    1) How is anyone outside of the Prime Minister’s office gaining access to classified information to then leak it to Slater. If confirmed this surely raises new questions about the running of the SIS.
    2) The PMs office is directly encouraging him to withdraw the request still implies more involvement in this particular release then they are currently prepared to admit and only confirms Hager’s assessment that the Prime Minister’s office works closely with Slater.

    Two excellent points.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • Josie McNaught, in reply to CJM,

    I used to do the panel regularly (goodness knows they could do with a few more women regardless) but after having a couple of swipes at Key, I ended up way down the list - and heard unofficially that the govt media team didn't like the cut of my jib - but that might also be the fact that RNZ only want Jane Clifton (and the other Josie who inhabits that murky world between "communications and journalism" ) to talk politics. Because I do arts stuff I'm not allowed to step over the line into big boy politics stuff. I recently heard they had a new chick on - she runs a PR firm - but did she tell the listeners who her clients are??? No way. You'll just have to work that out from who she "promotes" on the show

    Auckland • Since Oct 2012 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Josie McNaught,

    I used to do the panel regularly (goodness knows they could do with a few more women regardless) but after having a couple of swipes at Key, I ended up way down the list

    Wow. Thanks Josie. The rot runs deep.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2087 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to Josie McNaught,

    Yes, I noticed you were 'missing'. Disappointing.
    Jordan Williams was on last week on the afternoon of the Hager launch. Be very interesting to see if/when he next appears. Mary got a few sharp digs in when she had him on the phone the other night for Checkpoint. If his pieces for Whalearse (with Slaters name on them) are anything to go by I don't think he shares your enthusiasm for more woman guests on the show. Unless Judith C becomes available when her current gig falls through…..

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Andrew, in reply to nzlemming,

    When you wrestle with pigs, Lucy, you only get muddy. ;-)

    And the pig enjoys it...

    Hamiltron - City of the F… • Since Nov 2006 • 900 posts Report Reply

  • Susi Maclean,

    Josie, I am sure you were great on the Panel, and you'd have a whole bunch of interesting perspectives on this sort of thing. I agree, it's great to see some women there. I think they rotate through people a bit, though.

    I'm a bit frustrated by the ongoing implications around my motives on this thing: you'll know what it's like to be thrown a bunch of topics at late notice, on the road, and amongst a busy working day.

    I didn't have time to buy the book on the way from the airport to the studio. Even if I had there was no way I could have digested it sensibly, and I said up front, I hadn't read it. My 2 key points were 1) sadly, this is the game of politics, and I am surprised people are even surprised by the sorts of things I was hearing about the book in the media. From what I see, it's the way the game is played, by all sides, and I am not confident there'll ever be anything different now that it's deteriorated this far 2) I'd have no idea who to believe, all 3 parties, the politician, the blogger and the author, had controversial reputations.

    Regarding my work and clients, whatever I have to say on the Panel or anywhere else, are my own views. To be honest, I would suspect that many of my clients, knowing them well as people, may be more inclined to take the Hagar perspective than the stand I did. And in fact, it was something that was in the back of my mind when I came off air.

    I do not have strong political views either way, aside from how they impact my life - which, having been utterly thrown in the air firstly by the quakes, and then by EQC for 2 years following - are pretty damned strong. Don't even get me started on that whole thing, or *I* will go all grassy knoll on you.

    I am by no means a political commentator - I thought Andrew and I were both pretty clear in giving context around our views as being those of 'lay' people, especially since we had a political scientist in the studio and a political reporter on the phone at the time.

    Please don't read any more into my perspective than that. I supposed I could be flattered that people would think I have that close a connection to ctrl govt. Plain truth, I don't. My life is a heck of a lot simpler and cleaner than all that muck, thank God.

    I just bought the damned book, because I passed a rare thing after my lunchtime coffee today - an actual real honest-to-goodness suburban bookshop and I love to keep great stuff like that alive. So I will digest. And ponder.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Susi Maclean,

    From what I see, it’s the way the game is played, by all sides, and I am not confident there’ll ever be anything different now that it’s deteriorated this far 2) I’d have no idea who to believe, all 3 parties, the politician, the blogger and the author, had controversial reputations.

    This really bugs me.
    If you have dirt on all politicians, or on Nicky Hager, please divulge. Otherwise, you're engaged in smearing- saying nasty things about people without any evidence to back them up.
    I sounds like you still haven't read the book. You should.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2087 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Susi Maclean,

    I just bought the damned book, because I passed a rare thing after my lunchtime coffee today - an actual real honest-to-goodness suburban bookshop and I love to keep great stuff like that alive. So I will digest. And ponder.

    So, you called Hager a grassy knoll conspiracist without having read the book? That makes you the quintessential Panel guest.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Bill Patterson,

    I don't really understand why people who are primarily in PR are a good choice for panelists; you're more likely to get earnest views elsewhere. Or is that not valued? Or does my perception of them not jive with the reality?

    Auckland • Since Jul 2013 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • James Francis, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    I think, to be fair, that Susi was referring to the quakes and EQC.

    St John's, Newfoundland • Since Nov 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Creon Upton, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    This really bugs me.

    Me too.

    There are two primary issues here:

    1. Dirty, nasty "attack" politics.

    2. Serious constitutional abuses that -- and this is no overstatement -- erode the fragile democratic conventions of this country.

    To say that everyone is involved in #1-type behaviour is "true" in a crude, insensitive, grandly equivocating kind of way, but it's a vacuous position to take.

    To say that everyone is involved in #2-type behaviour is really to miss the point quite enormously. Because everyone is not. And if they are, and we can see it as plain as day, they should be held meaningfully to account.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 68 posts Report Reply

  • CJM, in reply to James Francis,

    You need to listen to Susi's spot on the show for the 'knoll' context.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • James Francis, in reply to CJM,

    Thanks. I missed that.

    St John's, Newfoundland • Since Nov 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to CJM,

    You need to listen to Susi’s spot on the show for the ‘knoll’ context.

    That would require me to subject my ears to Jim Mora, and I don't want another HRC complaint from them.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2925 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to Susi Maclean,

    My 2 key points were 1) sadly, this is the game of politics, and I am surprised people are even surprised by the sorts of things I was hearing about the book in the media. From what I see, it’s the way the game is played, by all sides, and I am not confident there’ll ever be anything different now that it’s deteriorated this far

    From what I see the stuff on Whaleoil is significantly worse than anyone else is doing or has done in the past in NZ politics. I don't think the idea that "everyone is doing it" is valid - if it is then please provide some examples from the left (same challenge goes to Key who also promotes this idea).

    I also find your conclusion weak. Why can't the situation be improved?

    2) I’d have no idea who to believe, all 3 parties, the politician, the blogger and the author, had controversial reputations.

    This seems a simplistic position to take. Are you really suggesting that Key, Slater, and Hager have equivalent reputations?

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • Myles Thomas,

    "But the Herald’s editors presumably believe the value of her dull, clunky prose and facile zingers outweighs the reputational damage of showcasing someone who solicited a journalist’s address in the hope of “vicious” retribution."

    Bob Jones?

    Auckland • Since Apr 2011 • 130 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Susi Maclean,

    all 3 parties, the politician, the blogger and the author, had controversial reputations

    That’s just lazy rubbish. Two of the three are serial professional liars while the third is an internationally-respected investigative journalist who has never had a single fact in any of his books successfully challenged.

    Why else do you think people like the PM go straight to personal attacks on Hager (which when repeated often enough may result in people who do not do their homework forming an impression of a ‘controversial reputation’, exactly as intended)? You’ve been cheated.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19633 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.