The proper media, they wouldn’t lie, would they?

The whole argument out on the Interweb about Whaleoil’s status as Media and mine as a Journalist seems to have pretty much got to the point where the general position is “yes, Whaleoil is media”, and “Yes, at times Slater does things Journalists do”.

“But”.

And then come a lot of value judgments not present in law.  My “brand” of journalism is not good enough, I’m not accountable or answerable to anyone, I don’t belong to a professional body that may curtail some of my excesses, there is no formal procedure to complain or seek redress.

They like to quote that I’ve found myself in court many times now.  That’s of course spinning it a bit.  The first occasions were a deliberate act of Civil Disobedience to make a case for Name Suppression being reviewed, and I’m proud to say I was instrumental in having that law changed.

It cost me a lot of personal money, and I am not keen to repeat that process, but this is a clear case of staging a protest and taking the consequences, not some indicator that Whaleoil is out of control – or needs control.  Pus, when I did, I did have to answer to the courts.  

The only other time I’ve found myself in court is over the current defamation action.  And let’s just see where that finishes before we draw any conclusions.

So I am clearly not out of control, and I am answerable.

But the “proper” media, those who are uncomfortable with the brand of journalism I do here at Whaleoil, like to see me reigned in, constrained, brought into line.  Perhaps even muted, broken and dealt with.

This, they propose is the price I need to pay to be afforded the protection of the Evidence Act 2006, which allows me to protect my sources.

Essentially, I’m not nice enough, I’m too much out of control, and they don’t like my style to such a degree that the law should not apply to me.

Apart from the clear intellectual dishonesty of people that are holding this position, to also say that if I was a member of the Press Council, like them, then all would be just fine.  Because they have rules, and procedures, and complaints processes, and that’s all that is missing around Whaleoil as a ‘framework’ for me to be able to claim the privileges (I say: rights) under law.

So it is with some interest that the “real media”, who have higher standards, are constrained by the Press Council code of conduct, and are generally of much higher calibre than someone like me.   And their organs are not at all comparable with a mere “blog”.

Waikato Times Caught Lying About Fluoride Survey Results

The Waikato Times has been caught out reversing its online survey results about the Hamilton City Council’s decision on Thursday to defer its fluoridation decision.  The poll asked people if they supported the council’s decision to wait until the after the legal challenge currently before the High Court is decided.   68% of people said “yes” and only 32%.said “no” but the Waikato Times misrepresented this as 68% saying “no” and 32% saying “yes”.

Various members of the public had taken screen shots when the poll was running so were shocked to see the newspaper print the poll with the results reversed. Fluoride Free Hamilton spokesperson, Pat McNair, posted the screen shots on the Waikato Times Facebook and many people commented how they had seen those results when they had voted.

However, instead of responding and correcting the mistake, they removed all comments, covering up their deception. Direct communication has failed to elicit a retraction.

So how much faith can we put in the Times’ survey results during the recent fluoridation referendum campaign? How many of those did it falsify and did this affect how people voted?

Good to know, isn’t it, that the Waikato Times sources have protection because of that paper’s moral high ground –  their old media industry, their boys (and girls) club Press Council, and those grey haired wisened old hacks produce obviously so much better quality journalism.

If only the law had a test for “deserving” to be a journalist.

But it doesn’t.

So even the Waikato Times is allowed to be media.

  • Dick Brown

    Bart please note: screencaps.

  • OrphanIsland

    Well said Cameron, Power too you.

  • ratmuncher

    What MSM hates about whaleoil is its independent thinking.
    Left wingers are intolerant of any real debate about anything because as far as they are concerned they know best. This intolerance (even amongst themselves) has had unintended consequences regarding their own blogs. They continue to fracture into multiple smaller groups in the marxist tradition. So there are more and more leftwing blogs with an audience of one.
    While whaleoil (more tolerant of debate) as a powerhouse of right-thinking, continues to grow.
    Blog envy.

    • blokeintakapuna

      Blog envy, constrained by the Establishment with being told what and how to write with conclusions, outcomes and narratives/agenda’s already decided by their paymasters. Plus ego envy with simply not having the intellectual horse-power to compete in critical analysis – either with their own writings or that of their own commentators. Even worse for them, the MSM are having to alter their own business models to match that of bloggers as they try and play catch up – yet are still completely outclassed by Whale… And his extensive contacts *everywhere*

      Horribly, horribly inconvenient for them. But at least they can still deny membership and entry into their sandpit because they don’t like the fact that Cam has a big blue dumper truck… And they only have little red wheelbarrows.

  • http://www.ourdriveguide.co.nz/ WestCoastMal

    Here’s my take (all two cents)

    1) “brand” of journalism is not good enough”

    But if that argument centers around impartiality then no one can ever meet the standard, whether that be you Cam, or any other, our life experiences make us who we are. Indeed the MSM has consistently shown itself, in my opinion to be far less impartial and more likely to run the “personal bias” of the Editor or reporter.

    2) I’m not accountable or answerable to anyone,
    .
    Absolute rubbish, if you did not speak the facts / truth then surely court proceedings would be happening on a more regular basis. This is turn would could discredit you and the millions that monthly visit Whale Oil would soon drop to a trickle. Thus I maintain even without the recognition that you deserve as a Journo and Whale Oil as a Media Source. Both yourself personally and Whale Oil are accountable.

    3) I don’t belong to a professional body that may
    curtail some of my excesses

    Well hello, is that not because the ignorant will not allow you to be a member of their elitist little clubs. Damn hypocrisy at the best.

    4) there is no formal procedure to complain or seek redress.

    See comment 2 above.

    In my opinion the Judge was wrong, the MSM remains totally biased and the only independent source of news is Whale Oil.

    PS: sorry for the wall of text

    • Callum

      Have to disagree with point 2, taking defamation proceedings is a very long and expensive process that many people simply cannot afford. So not really comparable to a normal complaints process through the press council or a similar body.

      • http://www.ourdriveguide.co.nz/ WestCoastMal

        agreed .. but given the present non-recognition of Cam as a Jurno and Whale Oil as a media source this is the only course open.

        • http://www.ourdriveguide.co.nz/ WestCoastMal

          in fact while I do not know Cam or any of the team personally from what I have seen and read here “if” a mistake is made, all seem to attempt to correct that fairly damn quick.

          So in some ways we can also argue the Whale Oil and Cam are still ahead of the MSM as a credible News Source.

          • BJ

            Yes, unlike the Herald for example, we all get to see others comments/criticisms/ corrections immediately – in that way the process of reporting and discussion is transparent and meaningful.

          • Callum

            I would disagree a bit on the correction thing, Cam lately seems no better than the mainstream media which buries corrections out of sight on page 9. A couple of blatantly incorrect headlines are still in place despite being pointed out.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            I’d be interested in any examples you might want to draw my attention to.

          • Callum

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/another-registered-ratbag-teacher-roots-students-still-teaching/
            No student was rooted

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/11/70-girls-aged-14-17-tuck-rtds/
            Amended wording in story, never amended headline. 70% of 14-17 GIRLS WHO DRINK were using RTD’s, not 70% of all girls in that age group. And in fact overall numbers drinking has dropped.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            Those are fair complaints.

            The problem here is that I wasn’t aware of them.

            This is fascinating.

            I’ll have a chat with the others and see if we can place a more overt complaints procedure/communications.

            In the mean time, if something is of concern, feel free to email us.

            This isn’t a matter of being pigheaded, we are evolving too.

  • AH9976

    You’re not fair or unbiased, you bully and mistreat your sources, and you’re mentally ill. Good grief. What do you expect? People to take you seriously?

    • Dick Brown

      Churchill was mentally ill.

      • Night Stick

        His father was dragged from the House of Commons dribbling and ranting, his mind finally succumbing to the pox.

        • AH9976

          Are you stumbling toward a comparison with John Slater? I don’t understand your point, otherwise.

      • AH9976

        Not sure why you informed me of that information, but it’s entirely irrelevant because I have a low opinion of Churchill as well.

        • Dick Brown

          How about JFK then?

          • AH9976

            JFK was probably a bit less of a creep, although I am convinced by the revelations of his misogyny that he wasn’t exactly a nice person, either.

            Sorry, I thought this post was discussing journalistic integrity?

          • Dick Brown

            Sorry I thought we were discussing the pros and cons of taking mentally ill people seriously

          • AH9976

            Well, I can throw up some random names in order to cloud the key points too. For every “wonderful” Churchill or JFK, there’s a hundred Dahmer and Manson… is that your idea of a “discussion”?

          • Dick Brown

            No.

            That just goes to show that there are serious societal problems in the identification and treatment if mental illness.

            Also that people with mental illness are more abundant than we think if they can rise to the top of their various political and social worlds.

          • AH9976

            (Bearing in mind that JFK, as far as I know, was depressed after being at the top)…

            Dahmer and Manson’s existences show serious problems with society’s relationship with mental illness? That’s a very long bow to draw and it might be useful if you attempted an elaboration on that line of thinking.

            You’re relying on a particularly strained logical fallacy if you’re trying to suggest that the fact that some mentally ill people have risen “to the top” means that there is an abundance of mentally ill people.

            Interestingly, I note that you haven’t addressed the other claims I made.

          • Dick Brown

            Well first of all I don;t agree with your other points because they are patently wrong; if you click on my avatar and see my post history you will see my arguments for WOBH being recognised as a bone fide media outlet, so I won’t rehash old territory.

            On to your points then:

            1. “(Bearing in mind that JFK, as far as I know, was depressed after being at the top)…”
            Response: Wrong: JFK was ill from childhood Link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125593

            2. “Dahmer and Manson’s existences show serious problems with society’s relationship with mental illness? That’s a very long bow to draw and it might be useful if you attempted an elaboration on that line of thinking.”

            Response: I will elaborate by stating the obvious correlation between society’s acceptance of a known phenomenon and it’s response to it. People get ill; society has designed a system it calls ‘health’ to deal with it. Under this huge banner resides the response to mentally ill people; if mentally ill people commit horrendous crimes then rightly questions have to be asked of the system itself. Clearly in certain instances society’s response has been lax in certain areas and people get hurt. That’s why we have Coroner’s Court and a large abundance of medical scandals.

            How is this a long bow? his concept is the core basis of cause and effect; if we didn’t design these systems of redundancy air travel would be more unsafe than lying on a train track.

            3. “You’re relying on a particularly strained logical fallacy if you’re trying to suggest that the fact that some mentally ill people have risen “to the top” means that there is an abundance of mentally ill people.”

            Response: I don’t understand, you seem to be arguing against what logic actually is. Logic “describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity” – [link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic ].

            How is my contention invalid? If we take the fact that 20% of NZ’s population is mentally ill [link: http://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/page/128-mental-health-quick-statistics ] then my contention is ENTIRELY valid.

            Next time you argue with the 8 ball bring some links and a decent understanding of the English language my friend.

          • Roland

            I need another wine after that rant, well done :)

          • AH9976

            Phew. Using the old Winston Peters flourishes to attempt to end the discussion on your terms won’t work with me, I’m afraid.

            Additionally, I attempted to read some of your comments but found the navigation system too cumbersome to navigate in a timely fashion. If you wish me to read specific comments a link would be appreciated.

            Onto the Fisking:
            1. Wrong. The link you provided does NOT (explicitly) mention that JFK suffered from mental illness prior to being president. Specifically, the medical records were from 1955 until 1963, which automatically precludes any information from his childhood. Although his physical health problems are noted, there is no indication of mental illness. In fact, it appears as if the Bay of Pigs invasion and other scandals caused an increase in stress and anxiety which caused him to medicate more, the side effect of which was depression. I will say that although there is no evidence that he was not mentally ill BEFORE his presidency, there is also absolutely no evidence that he was ill as a child.
            2. You’re actually switching points in mid-argument here. First you are speaking about taking mentally ill people seriously because they are capable of great things. I countered by suggesting there are also mentally ill people who are capable of terrible things. Then all of a sudden, the light switch flicks and you’re talking about society’s issues with treating mental illness. What you are essentially doing is minimising my argument by blaming society for the bad that comes from mentally ill people, but blaming the individuals for the good that comes from mentally ill people. You simply cannot have it both ways. Cannot I counter by suggesting that society’s provision of support through medication (however ham-fisted it may have been) was beneficial in JFK’s case?
            3. Unfortunately, I don’t know the name for the logical fallacy I am referring to. I will do some research and provide a link if I find something. Here is my reasoning for your logic being erroneous:
            A. You suggest that some mentally ill people have achieved great things.
            B. You suggest that because of statement A, the amount of people in the general population who are mentally ill must therefore be large.
            To reframe your argument:
            A. I suggest that some mentally ill people have won Lotto.
            B. I suggest that because some mentally ill people have won Lotto, there must be a lot of mentally ill people out there.
            Essentially, you’re saying that improbable events occurring suggests that these events were not improbable after all.
            Perhaps an example of Circular Logic? As I said, I’ll do my research.

            Further, I cannot accept the 20% percentage until I have read the report in its entirety. After briefly skimming, I am not convinced that the 20% figure is reliable as a measure of the extent of mental illness in New Zealand. Regardless, I’m glad you’ve used a source this time. It supports your position much more substantially than simple rhetoric about JFK.

            Finally, adding an ad hominem attack to the end of your post is even more reminiscent of Peters’ tactics. Your ad hominem attack is made even more egregious by the fact that you have difficulty using simple punctuation correctly.

          • AH9976

            I forgot to mention that Cameron Slater has gone on record many times discussing his irrationality as a result of his mental illness. This irrationality is seen through the way he mercilessly lashes out at anyone unfortunate enough to cross him. Often such people are not intending to get on his bad side. Even a misplaced word or action tends to invoke his wrath, and his wrath is savage and relentless.

            I don’t see this happening with credible journalists.

            I allowed you to sidetrack me with a discussion of mental illness in general. Although I did use a blanket term, I intended to refer specifically to Cameron Slater’s specific brand of illness. I should have made that more clear, it seems.

          • Dick Brown

            Well excuse me for sidetracking you from your quest.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            I suspect that brand new visitor isn’t a random member of the public, but has as-yet undisclosed interests that either link to Blomfield or to Media.

            However, that’s speculation on my part. I have no facts to back it up.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            Everything you don’t like about Cam Slater and/or Whaleoil is a value judgement. He doesn’t “deserve” to be a journalist because he doesn’t act like one to your level of acceptable standard.

            That’s fine for you to hold that view. You will not find yourself alone.

            But the law doesn’t state the perceived quality of the output as a factor. He simply has to disseminate new information and opinion to a public.

          • AH9976

            So my posts here are journalistic?

            If not, how about I tell you some new information that has not yet been reported. In the past hour, four men in red shirts have walked past my window. In my opinion, this shows that red shirts are popular among men in my area.

            Am I a journalist now?

          • Dick Brown

            The commenters here are no more journalists than the people who comment on the stuff and herald websites.

            Bit of a petulant comment wouldn’t you agree?

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            I know you are capable of proper debate. That’s a cheap side-step and I’m not following.

            The issue here is if Whaleoil is part of the Media, and therefore he is a Journalist. The test that exists in the Evidence Act 2006 may not satisfy you, and it may need fixing, but for now, only the most emotionally involved people continue to hold the position that Whaleoil isn’t part of the media and Cam Slater isn’t a Journalist.

          • AH9976

            Speaking to this, close reading of the Evidence Act 2006 suggests the difficulty in classifying Cameron Slater as a journalist probably (legally) stems from the definition in 68.5:

            journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

            If Cameron Slater wants to be defined as a journalist, does that mean journalism is his work? If it is his work, then is any income taxable? Is he eligible for state-supported benefits if he is willing and able to work? I’m sure I’ve seen that he claims to spend long hours on this blog.

            In terms of the issue in terms of avoiding value judgements, at this stage, speaking purely to the legal framework, this blog may be considered a news medium.

            I would however question whether this blog is Cameron Slater’s “work”.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            You are correct. Whaleoil is his (self employed) job, and of course all the income is accounted for and reported to the IRD.

            So that’s out of the way.

            “Journalism is his work?”

            Yes.

            “Is he eligible for state-supported benefits if he is willing and able to work? I’m sure I’ve seen that he claims to spend long hours on this blog.”

            I consider that the previous answer make this question irrelevant.

            To be a journalist he doesn’t have to prove to the public how he earns an income, the scale of it, how he accounts for it and so on. It is simple enough to state that his business interests include Whaleoil, it does produce an income stream (note the ads, for example?), and of course this means he reports it to the IRD. And of course he remains eligible for an state support relevant for his circumstances.

            That being so, he’s on public record as saying that even though he had been eligible for Working for Families, he has opted out of receiving it.

            “In terms of the issue in terms of avoiding value judgements, at this stage, speaking purely to the legal framework, this blog may be considered a news medium.”

            Ok, we got that out of the way then.

            “I would however question whether this blog is Cameron Slater’s “work”.”

            Let me know what you think now.

            Keeping in mind that he has only to prove to the courts that this is his work, not to me, you, other journalists or media.

            Yes?

          • AH9976

            Your points are noted and are of great interest to me.

            Thank you for your reasoned responses.

            At the moment, I am in that awkward moment where the two halves of my brain are fighting over evidence provided.

            On the one hand, I am not convinced that Cameron Slater is a journalist. On the other hand, the definition in the Evidence Act suggests he may be.

            The key difficulty I am having right now is in determining whether this definition of journalist provided in the Evidence Act is consistent with definitions provided elsewhere in law, common use, and formal use.

          • Dick Brown

            Like everyone who posts comments here we are in the same boat AH9976 and are looking forward with great interest to this court case as valuable case law.

            I try and look at these things with a independent eye biased with my own moral standards of course but the argument for WOBH is far more safe than the prospect of the free press being knobbled in any way, shape or form by some arbitrary definition.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            This suggests to me your interests here extend beyond just public interest. Mind revealing them?

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            Incidentally, I have deliberately avoided defining the word “work”. You obviously expect there to be some pecuniary advantage to be gained, or to do it in the framework of being salaried or waged.

            But I’m not sure the definition of “work” is that narrow.

            It may indeed simply mean that someone performs the task that in itself receives, processes and publishes information from a source to an audience. I’m not sure for legal needs that this work needs to produce an income in and of itself.

            This would mean that anyone who did some journalism after retirement, say, and did not expect, ask or receive reward other than the satisfaction of helping someone, would not be protected under the Evidence Act if a source delivered information.

            Is doctor, a lawyer, clergy, a JP only that when being paid to do so? Is client, patient and clergy confidentiality dependent on those rules being performed while the person is being “paid” in some way.

            I’m not convinced. These protections don’t appear to be, in my mind, predicated on “the work” being done for remuneration.

            But since you asked the question,. Cam Slater does meet that test, even though it may not be needed in court.

          • Dick Brown

            1. “Wrong. The link you provided does NOT (explicitly) mention that JFK suffered from mental illness prior to being president.”

            Response: Yes it does, quote: “President John F. Kennedy’s medical records reveal that he had suffered health problems since childhood.” He didn’t miraculously develop anxiety and take drugs when he took office, the whole Kennedy clan had a well known predilection for contracting mental illness and JFK was a torchbearer for getting mental illness out of the 1950s darkness and into mainstream thinking.

            2. “You’re actually switching points in mid-argument here. First you are speaking about taking mentally ill people seriously because they are capable of great things. I countered by suggesting there are also mentally ill people who are capable of terrible things. Then all of a sudden, the light switch flicks and you’re talking about society’s issues with treating mental illness.”

            Response: Incorrect; I was responding to your point that it was a [your words] “long bow” to suggest that society’s response to mental illness is a factor in why mentally ill people commit horrendous crimes; and ‘that’ point was made to respond to your Charlie Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer claim, which in of itself was more a long bow than mine.

            3. “What you are essentially doing is minimising my argument by blaming society for the bad that comes from mentally ill people, but blaming the individuals for the good that comes from mentally ill people. You simply cannot have it both ways.”

            Response: Of course you can; are you seriously suggesting there is no difference in successful mentally ill people and the ones who commit crime? That we cannot have both?

            That’s ridiculous.

            4. “Cannot I counter by suggesting that society’s provision of support through medication (however ham-fisted it may have been) was beneficial in JFK’s case?”

            The most important and powerful man in the world gets top-notch medical treatment. Yes, I’ll agree with that but I don’t know what you mean by it?

            5. “Here is my reasoning for your logic being erroneous:
            A. You suggest that some mentally ill people have achieved great things.
            B. You suggest that because of statement A, the amount of people in the general population who are mentally ill must therefore be large.”

            Response: Yes? How is this proposition erroneous? I provided sources to back up my claim – 20% of anything is MASSIVE.

            6. “To reframe your argument:A. I suggest that some mentally ill people have won Lotto.
            B. I suggest that because some mentally ill people have won Lotto, there must be a lot of mentally ill people out there.
            Essentially, you’re saying that improbable events occurring suggests that these events were not improbable after all.
            Perhaps an example of Circular Logic? As I said, I’ll do my research.”

            Response: Your logic is FINE if we are talking about winning lotto but we are not; you are contending…. well, that’s the thing I’m not exactly what you are contending; all I am seeing is a remark about Cameron Slater being mentally ill and we shouldn’t take him seriously.

            I’m arguing for the negative, using valid correlations and logical arguments with sources.

            7. “Further, I cannot accept the 20% percentage until I have read the report in its entirety. After briefly skimming, I am not convinced that the 20% figure is reliable as a measure of the extent of mental illness in New Zealand. Regardless, I’m glad you’ve used a source this time. It supports your position much more substantially than simple rhetoric about JFK.”

            Response: Hm ok.

            8. “Finally, adding an ad hominem attack to the end of your post is even more reminiscent of Peters’ tactics. Your ad hominem attack is made even more egregious by the fact that you have difficulty using simple punctuation correctly.”

            Response: Fair call, that’s why I removed it about half an hour ago.

          • AH9976

            To summarise so we can both move on…

            I don’t believe Cameron Slater is a responsible or rational journalist. You haven’t provided me with links discussing counter arguments. My evidence for my belief is his personal sharing of his irrationality, his lack of respect for the privacy and dignity for his sources (eg Bevan Chuang), his clearly biased politics (eg God-worshipping, right-wing sympathising). and his often unreasoned, knee-jerk posts (eg read the front page.)

            Although he claims to be open to other ideas, he only does so tokenistically or cynically in my experiences.

            Cameron Slater does not have balance or checks. The buck stops with him and his line of thinking is always right (except when it’s wrong and he makes a big show and dance about how he’s wrong and then uses it as evidence that he is more ethical than journalists.)

            Cameron Slater often resorts to personal attacks on people rather than issues. An example? “A simple lesson for theugliest gay man in the world, Sonny P Thomas. Don’t take on a blogger.”

            Cameron Slater should not be considered a journalist because he does not report responsibly, fairly, or in a balanced way.

            One thing he does do well however, is post (or authorise) vapid, boring videos and pictures. In this way, he is akin to a journalist.

          • Dick Brown

            I addressed your points re: Cameron Slater by suggesting you click my link and see for yourself.

            That didn’t work so if I must quote myself I will:

            1. “”There is a still an argument to be made that to provide “news” requires some degree of adherence to traditional journalistic ethics. At heart, this requires some commitment to an ethic of verification. Perhaps it also requires some element of fairness and balance. A readiness to correct errors. A respect for privacy. A sense of responsibility. ”

            WOBH is all of these things. In my short time here I’ve seen examples of everything listed and this remains as a thread of consistency throughout.” [link: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/journalist-steven-price-examines/#comment-1146452038 ]

            2. “I made the mistake of posting here without sufficient lurking. I passed judgement on fellow oilers without due diligence and in a militant way that should have been put a lot more tactfully on my part.

            I came to understand and recognise this site’s balance and can identify with the honourable intentions of its primary author.

            I have also come to enjoy all the different points of view that the regular commentators put forward and have come to the realisation that most commentators here are very intelligent people who can write a coherent sentence and can engage in meaningful debate.

            TL;DR I got my shit together :)” [link: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/oh-look-im-news-hos-tells-half-story/#comment-1145954823 ]

            3. “Can I use this opportunity to point out why I admire this place? It’s the balanced nature of the reporting; one article could be on the latest shenanigans of Labour or the unions and the next one is like this, the eagle eye of righteousness over the incumbent right wing government.

            I think people who voice a hatred for you and this site lose sight of this fact and don’t realise how fair and balanced your reporting is.

            Sure you’ve got your bugbears and consistent themes but that’s the key word: consistency.

            Something that is surely lacking in the MSM in NZ.

            Long live WOBH.” [link: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/11/skullduggery-kaikoura/#comment-1141788608 ]

            *****************

            Your further points:

            A: “Cameron Slater often resorts to personal attacks on people rather than issues. An example? “A simple lesson for theugliest gay man in the world, Sonny P Thomas. Don’t take on a blogger.”

            Cameron Slater should not be considered a journalist because he does not report responsibly, fairly, or in a balanced way.”

            Response: This is entirely subjective to you and you only; it’s like that Timaru newspaper editor yesterday mouthing of in her ‘fair, responsible and balanced’ local rag that there should be a Media Thought Police created to censor information; classic Fascism. [link: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/another-day-another-editorial/ ] And my input in the comments:

            “”The really worrying part in my view is that these readers seem increasingly unwilling, or unable, to draw a line between news coverage and gratuitous verbiage. The sooner we put a proper framework around our new media landscape the better.”

            Wrong Maria, you have no right, mandate or permission to presume to know what is important to me.

            This is narcissistic, malicious and arrogant nonsense that is overtly controlling and scary.

            She does NOT speak for me.”

            B: “One thing he does do well however, is post (or authorise) vapid, boring videos and pictures. In this way, he is akin to a journalist.”

            Response: Again, this is subjective and not really relevant.

          • AH9976

            I said that I was struggling to find information of relevance on the cumbersome comment log. I suggested you post some relevant comments. You have done so. Thank you.

            However, after reading your comments, I have seen no evidence that suggests I am incorrect in my thoughts. They are your opinions, perhaps based on evidence. I have my own evidence to support my opinions and will need evidence to change my mind.

            Bear in mind that editors do have the scope for opinion, to some extent, like Cameron Slater has. However, a large proportion of his output is opinion/rhetoric based, rather than the sharing of facts.

            The last bit was a throwaway line. You were free to ignore it.

          • Dick Brown

            We seem to have reached an impasse then; we agree to disagree.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            Cigars and port in the drawing room it is then.

          • Dick Brown

            Rather!

          • Roland

            Cigars and port? I cleaned up a couple of bottles of wine following that lot, no wonder I’m cross eyed and still non the wiser now..

          • AH9976

            Agreed.

          • Cowgirl

            “his irrationality, his lack of respect for the privacy and dignity for his sources (eg Bevan Chuang)”.
            This is unfair – Cam Slater didn’t reveal Chuang’s identity, the Herald did. He also went out of his way to protect her, even putting her up in a motel at his own expense.
            She only got revealed by the Herald, and the loss of dignity is all her own doing – brought on by the level of detail provided, and her repeated blabbing to the Herald/TVNZ, and constant changing of her story (despite saying she would be making no further statements). Her own attention-whoring and erratic behaviour is to blame for her lack of dignity.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            Yeah, I let that go. It’s still a value judgement on behalf of someone who isn’t relevant to deciding the appeal in the High Court. They can wind themselves in knots, but I just keep coming back to the basics.

          • Cowgirl

            You’re better than me then – I couldn’t let that pass without a rebuttal! :)

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Pete

            I truly wonder how many people who hold the view that Cameron isn’t to be allowed protection under the Evidence Act 2006 are having personal reasons for wishing this to be true, and how many dispassionately look at the law.

            Here is a good test: Take the whole case, insert a blogger name you like wherever it says Whaleoil or Cameron Slater, and then test your assertions. Would you feel the same? If not, you’re being dishonest with yourself.

            EDIT: For what it is worth – full credit to Russell Brown. At least he’s being intellectually honest in this case.

          • Cowgirl

            Oh I totally believe it’s entirely personal – they don’t like (are afraid of?) Cameron Slater’s style and therefore they don’t want to include him. Even the ones who say he is part of the media and should be covered by the Evidence Act can’t resist getting jibes in along the way and go out of their way to state how much they don’t like him and/or his style. It’s intellectual snobbery, plain and simple.
            Anyone who is capable of putting aside their feelings can see plainly he is part of the media under the terms of the law, and many of them are having to begrudgingly admit that. The fact that so many are begrudgingly admitting that very thing just tells me that in this case the judge made the wrong call and there’s no denying it.

          • Bunswalla

            I missed all this yesterday, living my life I guess. I’m unsure why nobody picked up the (to me, anyway) incredibly obvious flaw in SpongeBob’s argument: “I don’t believe Cameron Slater is a responsible or rational journalist.”

            That may very well be the case, but he doesn’t have to be responsible or even rational; he just has to be a journalist, and he is.

            The struggle between the two halves of the brain is a little bit like the TMO in the All Blacks vs Ireland test the other week. Even though we could all see a try had been scored, the officials seemed desperate to find some contradictory evidence, probably because they thought Ireland should have won the game.

      • Gordon Gibson

        AND He had two small balls.

        • Dick Brown

          lol

          • Gordon Gibson

            Dick
            Take the rest of the night off. Really enjoyed your ‘interaction’ with AH9976.
            It’s incredible. Two brainy cunts going at it.
            God I’ve never felt so alive! ! !

          • Dick Brown

            Thanks to you sir.

          • Roland

            Re Gordon, note my reply to Pete above, phewww

    • OrphanIsland

      There are so many assumptions in your statement that I have to call you a emotional moron.
      1 million readers do indeed take him seriously, warts and all M8!
      I suspect your are transferring your own lack of credibility onto others.

      • AH9976

        One million readers seems to be something of an overestimation.

        I suggest you relax OrphanIsland, you are the one who appears emotional.

        • OrphanIsland

          Yeah I do that , morons have a habit of transferring their emotions onto me …

          • AH9976

            I actually have no idea what you’re talking about so I will disengage from this communication.

104%