So Slater is a political vehicle, bribed, fed information used to facilitate certain perceptions and results for monetary gain, is completely bias, and is also a journalist.
If the judiciary decided that, the standard of NZ news reporting is a bit of a worry.

Exactly. This is public interest, and also concerns the general need to maintain a fourth estate and a democracy. If 3 news, the NZ Herald and Fairfax are restricted from reporting issues that could be considered to be within the public interest, where does it stop? It is up to the judiciary to maintain a check on the government through ensuring certain media organisations can hold these people accountable. Not only that, the public needs access to the information so that the issues can be addressed.

In this case, the judiciary would be protecting government and political actor interests and therefore are not really upholding standards of a democracy. Additionally, if there are “journalists” that defame and selectively report for personal gain, there should be journalists who can expose this. The media should provide investigative journalism that facilitates public debate.

“The idea of news organisations being forbidden to report on a story everyone knows is there is weird.” So true, and the public needs to know full contexts of situations in order to make social, cultural and political decisions.