Dirty Politics - Election 2014
Your cafe buddies will have enjoyed that one
Hager has made a pretty good fist of explaining this. If he had sought comment prior to publication, he would have been tied up in injunction proceedings indefinitely. The book would never have been published.
So yes, it makes it easy to knock back as a "smear" but he didn't have a load of options.
And it was information that had a genuine public interest, which he released in a thoughtful and contextualised way. Rosemary McLeod in the Dom today has fired up and said that she doesn't consider Hager a journalist, just a commentator. That is enormously unfair and quite wrong. I find it ironic coming from a masthead like the DomPost which doesn't really do journalism any more.
One of his earlier works on a subject matter I knew a lot about - Timberlands West Coast - was quite frankly a deceitful and misleading piece of work dressed up as objective "investigative journalism". I don't think I've ever got quite so worked up over a single book. Here is a link to a damning critique by a forestry scientist [Critique of Secrets and Lies].
He opens his critique:
"The book continually makes a number of implicit general claims that can be considered as themes throughout the book. These themes may be believed by certain readers, particularly those readers without access to the balance of facts. This book makes no attempt to provide such a balance, continually putting a slant on things.
These implicit claims are:
- that the book represents investigative journalism; that is, it is an objective document that is not part of any public relations campaign
- that Timberlands are liars who have duped the public (and by inference that the authors represent "truth")
- that Timberlands is lying when representing to the public that sustainable beech forest management is a beneficial practice (the authors claim it is harmful)
- that Timberlands has an anti-environmental philosophy.
These claims are all false, as detailed below."
The writer of this critique, forestry scientist Chris Perley is no right wing redneck; he is standing for the Green Party this election (unless there is another Chris Perley with the same career path). I suspect he (and the Green Party) would prefer this particular critique of Hager's work and exposure of his technique to stay under the radar.
My experience with a subsequent Hager book "Seeds of Distrust" was similar (I had direct knowledge of events in a couple of the chapters).
Hager is a clever, but highly manipulative writer. He chooses subject matter that will fire up the (under-informed) public emotionally (eg, native tree forestry, GM, super-power spying, Don Brash, Whaleoil) will supply an impressive set of facts/evidence (often including selective leaked/stolen material) and then using suggestive language and insinuation arrive at an "irrefutable" conclusion. Usually with enough skill (as we have seen with the prisoner switch semi-assertion) to be able to say - well, I didn't actually say that.
I have absolutely no time for Cam Slater, so this is not a defence of his odious behaviour. I have been close to previous governments and the actions outlined in the book appear to be not hellishly out of line with what has been going on for years - eg, differential treatment of OIAs, insulating politicians from certain decisions/material, having certain political folk in Ministers offices doing the dirty work (for better of for worse). A "journalist" would have given a little more perspective. (Are there many real journalists left?)
I've probably said too much, but it's been bugging me.
I think most people would look quite shit in one way or another if all their personal communication was made public. Finger needs to be pointed at those that hack and print IMO
For all the big talk on email, this National "attack unit" really didn't have many big wins did it?
Can't understand why Collins and Ede aren't under a bus right now
Hager's big problem with this book is that as a piece of investigative journalism it's fairly poor quality. The emails themselves are of course interesting, but he's not attempted to independently verify the allegations he makes, and has relied on the stolen emails in totality. That means (1) it's easy to retort with a charge of hypocrisy that the emails were stolen and (2) some of the stories in reality were less interesting than implied by the emails which puts a question mark around the whole thing. Slater is a rat bag and a pretty unpleasant individual but he talks a far bigger game than he walks
Hager has made a pretty good fist of explaining this. If he had sought comment prior to publication, he would have been tied up in injunction proceedings indefinitely. The book would never have been published.
So yes, it makes it easy to knock back as a "smear" but he didn't have a load of options.
And it was information that had a genuine public interest, which he released in a thoughtful and contextualised way. Rosemary McLeod in the Dom today has fired up and said that she doesn't consider Hager a journalist, just a commentator. That is enormously unfair and quite wrong. I find it ironic coming from a masthead like the DomPost which doesn't really do journalism any more.
This is a good read for anyone who is interested, it's written by Hagar's lawyer.
Did Nicky Hagar "Make Stuff Up?"
I found this an odd defence, he just repeats the accusations in the book
Fair point but it potentially made more sense in context when it was written? Much of the initial reaction seemed to be writing the book off as a complete fabrication with no factual basis whatsoever. A post repeating the accusations in that context potentially makes more sense, if the purpose is to point out that actually there is a bit of substance to what's written. Now that that's being more widely acknowledged the blog post probably looks a little odd out of context.
Hager has made a pretty good fist of explaining this. If he had sought comment prior to publication, he would have been tied up in injunction proceedings indefinitely. The book would never have been published.
So yes, it makes it easy to knock back as a "smear" but he didn't have a load of options.
And it was information that had a genuine public interest, which he released in a thoughtful and contextualised way. Rosemary McLeod in the Dom today has fired up and said that she doesn't consider Hager a journalist, just a commentator. That is enormously unfair and quite wrong. I find it ironic coming from a masthead like the DomPost which doesn't really do journalism any more.
One of his earlier works on a subject matter I knew a lot about - Timberlands West Coast - was quite frankly a deceitful and misleading piece of work dressed up as objective "investigative journalism". I don't think I've ever got quite so worked up over a single book. Here is a link to a damning critique by a forestry scientist [Critique of Secrets and Lies].
He opens his critique:
"The book continually makes a number of implicit general claims that can be considered as themes throughout the book. These themes may be believed by certain readers, particularly those readers without access to the balance of facts. This book makes no attempt to provide such a balance, continually putting a slant on things.
These implicit claims are:
- that the book represents investigative journalism; that is, it is an objective document that is not part of any public relations campaign
- that Timberlands are liars who have duped the public (and by inference that the authors represent "truth")
- that Timberlands is lying when representing to the public that sustainable beech forest management is a beneficial practice (the authors claim it is harmful)
- that Timberlands has an anti-environmental philosophy.
These claims are all false, as detailed below."
The writer of this critique, forestry scientist Chris Perley is no right wing redneck; he is standing for the Green Party this election (unless there is another Chris Perley with the same career path). I suspect he (and the Green Party) would prefer this particular critique of Hager's work and exposure of his technique to stay under the radar.
My experience with a subsequent Hager book "Seeds of Distrust" was similar (I had direct knowledge of events in a couple of the chapters).
Hager is a clever, but highly manipulative writer. He chooses subject matter that will fire up the (under-informed) public emotionally (eg, native tree forestry, GM, super-power spying, Don Brash, Whaleoil) will supply an impressive set of facts/evidence (often including selective leaked/stolen material) and then using suggestive language and insinuation arrive at an "irrefutable" conclusion. Usually with enough skill (as we have seen with the prisoner switch semi-assertion) to be able to say - well, I didn't actually say that.
I have absolutely no time for Cam Slater, so this is not a defence of his odious behaviour. I have been close to previous governments and the actions outlined in the book appear to be not hellishly out of line with what has been going on for years - eg, differential treatment of OIAs, insulating politicians from certain decisions/material, having certain political folk in Ministers offices doing the dirty work (for better of for worse). A "journalist" would have given a little more perspective. (Are there many real journalists left?)
I've probably said too much, but it's been bugging me.
Did you just use the "I've been close to government/I know more than the average person but I'm not going to say what I know just believe me" approach with a straight face?
As has been said previously, if there was equivalent material from the other side don't you think we'd have seen it by now?
What "balance" or "perspective" would you expect Hager to have shown? He extensively cites his source material in the book, that's pretty robust isn't it?
I think most people would look quite shit in one way or another if all their personal communication was made public. Finger needs to be pointed at those that hack and print IMO
For all the big talk on email, this National "attack unit" really didn't have many big wins did it?
Can't understand why Collins and Ede aren't under a bus right now
Hager's big problem with this book is that as a piece of investigative journalism it's fairly poor quality. The emails themselves are of course interesting, but he's not attempted to independently verify the allegations he makes, and has relied on the stolen emails in totality. That means (1) it's easy to retort with a charge of hypocrisy that the emails were stolen and (2) some of the stories in reality were less interesting than implied by the emails which puts a question mark around the whole thing. Slater is a rat bag and a pretty unpleasant individual but he talks a far bigger game than he walks
Hager has made a pretty good fist of explaining this. If he had sought comment prior to publication, he would have been tied up in injunction proceedings indefinitely. The book would never have been published.
So yes, it makes it easy to knock back as a "smear" but he didn't have a load of options.
And it was information that had a genuine public interest, which he released in a thoughtful and contextualised way. Rosemary McLeod in the Dom today has fired up and said that she doesn't consider Hager a journalist, just a commentator. That is enormously unfair and quite wrong. I find it ironic coming from a masthead like the DomPost which doesn't really do journalism any more.
Without corroboration is it journalism? I'm not sure...these just amount to accusations really. It would be interesting to hear from an Editor as to whether a paper would have published this story in the form he has done without some form of additional evidence.
I think the stuff relating to Slater and how he runs his blog and who his other clients are is interesting as far as political gossip goes. But overall, to me this doesn't amount to a while lot really.
Unless there is evidence that the National government misused the organs of the state to harm its political opponents, a charge I don't see proved beyond Ede speaking with bloggers, what is the public interest angle here which justifies the theft of the emails (I'm pretty sure no-one interested in NZ politics wants to start a process whereby people are stealing each others emails unless the revelations are genuinely serious, unconstitutional or criminal?)?
Something that I haven't heard much about, and if Hager was being balanced should have brought up (having not read the book I don't know if he did), is the wider historical context of the type of behaviours he has accused National of. Close relationships with members of the media, dicking around with FOIA requests, and low-level espionage aren't new in New Zealand politics, though some of what National have been accused of is at the more odious end of things. During the Clark government there were FOIA escapades and the left-wing blog The Standard was being published from an IP address registered to the Labour Party.
Unfortunately for Green supporters I can't see a Green-led government being much different because trying to stay in power is high-stakes and relies a lot on the control of information and how it is disseminated. We have things like the FOIA to prevent the government from hiding everything, but it is part of our political culture to do these somewhat questionable things. It may or may not be okay that these things happen, but they happen time after time because the politicians have figured out that they are useful and generally low-cost if they get found out.
The reason Collins and Ede aren't under a bus right now is because to throw them now would suggest both guilt and a crisis within the party. I wouldn't be surprised that if National lead the next government Collins loses her portfolio, but right now they have to portray Key as perfectly fine with his colleagues.
It depends on the individuals not the parties, all parties have honest and earnest politicians that want to make a difference and sleazy and selfish politicians that just want the power and influence.
As has been said previously, if there was equivalent material from the other side don't you think we'd have seen it by now?
Doesn't that position assume that the information would have to be freely available? We wouldn't know about all of this if someone hadn't hacked Slater. Why wouldn't any evidence from the other side be just as (and now if not more) difficult to obtain? You are assuming that the right would have immediately sent hackers out to gather information.
Besides, apart from the awful blackmail stuff there isn't much previously unseen about the alleged behaviour.
It depends on the individuals not the parties, all parties have honest and earnest politicians that want to make a difference and sleazy and selfish politicians that just want the power and influence.
Unfortunately, it's the latter who get to the top posts.
A few points, Hager has now had a pop at both sides so shows no real political bias. Corngate for Labour and this for the Nats.
I didn't know Rosemary McLeod was still alive? Last I saw of her, she was a 2nd rate hack for the Listener that couldn't understand that not everyone agrees with her sometimes weird perception on some things.
Slater is just a bug, even just by his looks he oozes a man not to be trusted with anything. I guess Key, his departments and Collins and her departments are now in te process of learning something thst was glaringly obvious when Slater first cam to light a few years back. Whaleoil? Try Usedsumpoil instead.
Fixing up my piss poor spelling.
Close relationships with members of the media, dicking around with FOIA requests, and low-level espionage aren't new in New Zealand politics, though some of what National have been accused of is at the more odious end of things.
I think this is false equivalency.
This is not playing the game close to the wind- it's going right over. We're not talking about blogs that promote a partisan position, we're talking political use of the supposedly impartial public service and of mock trials of public servants in the court of WhaleOil. We're talking about blackmail. We're talking about un-acknowledged PR written in a vile manner for some major NZ lobby groups.
There is I'm sure a book to be written about how the way New Zealand politics is played has changed- it will be done by some academic and no one will buy it. It may get a 12 line article in the large dailies and 30 seconds on the news before the first break. Unfortunately that is the rule of WO. There are lots of thoughtful blogs with heavy moderation and low readership, and they don't seem to get the traffic or interest the politicians or traditional media the way this does.
Have to agree that the interesting thing for NZ is how this changes our political and media culture. Will it be SSDD or will we see people lining up to be a sainted government that never did nothing to no one? Though that's what John Key was, it's just that it was a two track thing. Key/Collins, Key/Joyce
A few points, Hager has now had a pop at both sides so shows no real political bias. Corngate fkr Labour andbthis for the Nats.
I didn't know Rosemary McLeod was still alive? Last I saw of her, she was a 2nd rate hack for the Listener that couldn't understand that not everyone agrees with her sometimes weird perception on some things.
Slater is just a bug, even just by his looks he oozes a man not to be trusted with anything. I guess Key, his departments and Colins and her departments are now in te process of learning something thst was glaringly obvious when Slater first cam to light a few years back. Whaleoil? Try Usedsumpoil instead.
But Hager isn't agitating for less redtape, lower taxes, freer trade, smaller snapper sizes etc etc...he attacked Labour from a 'green' issue perspective. While he attacks both parties, his philosophy isn't a right wing one.
Well the Guardian has now called Mr Hager an investigative journalist and Mr Slater a right wing blogger. I how that clears that up.
Pam Corkery is my style of media minder!
Well the Guardian has now called Mr Hager an investigative journalist and Mr Slater a right wing blogger. I how that clears that up.
Believe that was the Herald's and The Listener's own Toby Manhire...
has anyone done that vote compass thingy . I did it twice and got closely related with NZ first ????? what !!!!!! . guess i'd better do some more research
has anyone done that vote compass thingy . I did it twice and got closely related with NZ first ????? what !!!!!! . guess i'd better do some more research
Yeah I did it. I found it quite helpful... not the final result, but instead using the tool to compare my answers with party policies to see where I differed/agreed with some of them.
just did it. Apparently I relate to NZ First.
just did it. Apparently I relate to NZ First.
I relate to Labour and Maori for some reason.
Well the Guardian has now called Mr Hager an investigative journalist and Mr Slater a right wing blogger. I how that clears that up.
Believe that was the Herald's and The Listener's own Toby Manhire...
Arsenal supporter
Edit: Testing
She was a dirty women and now Crusher Collins has been Crushed!!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Yeah she certainly is a dirty dealer and got her comeuppance
She is still an MP with all the perks, and will be back.
What has gotten me is not just what she is alleged to have done but how she has behaved throughout, she shows no remorse and even for the actions that she has accepted as true she has shown a complete lack of compassion - she appears to not care about who she trods on to get what she wants. It scares me that a person like that was put in such a high role - Minister of Justice no less.
If the alegations prove to be true then she almost seems to be a pathological liar.
You can judge a person by their friends and as she considers that slimey slug, slater as one - enough said. She won't be back. Jon Key is many things but a moron he is not
I am always amused by MPs who take the drastic step and resign their portfolios. Show some real integrity and resign as an MP properly, not just the portfolios. Must be a great junket hence the lack of real resignations.
Especially as they were going to be sacked before lunch time the following day
it's only the then Minister of Justice tampering with the Serious Fraud Office.
So Mr Keys own spy agency is going to investigate him. Some serious late night shedding will be going down in his office tonight
I would imagine its time the old hardrives and memory sticks gor their annual spring cleaning.
Judith Collins office should become a crime scene and I think this business has highlighted the dangers of dodgy people using the internet.
I mean if you are going to do dodgy, then for gods sake do it properly like Fifa and use a fax machine.
Try to hack a f$#@ing fax machine
Judith Collins office should become a crime scene and I think this business has highlighted the dangers of dodgy people using the internet.
NZF - forward thinking?
I mean if you are going to do dodgy, then for gods sake do it properly like Fifa and use a fax machine.
Try to hack a f$#@ing fax machine
Judith Collins office should become a crime scene and I think this business has highlighted the dangers of dodgy people using the internet.
FIFA and FFA are so secure they have trouble finding them. Hence so much hacked information getting out early
I mean if you are going to do dodgy, then for gods sake do it properly like Fifa and use a fax machine.
Try to hack a f$#@ing fax machine
"The Mariners faxed us their change of ownership' /Tui
For all the big talk on email, this National "attack unit" really didn't have many big wins did it?
Can't understand why Collins and Ede aren't under a bus right now
Hager's big problem with this book is that as a piece of investigative journalism it's fairly poor quality. The emails themselves are of course interesting, but he's not attempted to independently verify the allegations he makes, and has relied on the stolen emails in totality. That means (1) it's easy to retort with a charge of hypocrisy that the emails were stolen and (2) some of the stories in reality were less interesting than implied by the emails which puts a question mark around the whole thing. Slater is a rat bag and a pretty unpleasant individual but he talks a far bigger game than he walks
Not true. He has put these events in the context of what was happening at the time.
Obviously he couldn't talk to anyone beforehand - they would have put an injunction in and the book would never have been published.
is another website that will help you decide who to vote for.
One of the great things about MMP is that your vote isn't wasted, regardless of who you vote for (unless it's a very minor party, e.g. ALCP)