Intentional or Unintentional?

From a comment at Kiwiblog, you be the judge:

From the Herald article:

The freelance cameraman who made the recording, whom the paper has agreed not to name, said the recording had been made accidentally after he was stopped by Key’s security staff from recovering the recording device. It transmitted the recording to the camera operator’s equipment but he did not discover until later.

The “freelance cameraman” appears to be blatantly lying here (and perhaps this is one reason why the Herald decided not to publish the contents, as it was questionably acquired and they know it).

1. So the “freelance cameraman” claims “Key’s security staff” stopped him from recovering the recording device. The recording device would likely have had to have been a wireless microphone transmitter (a common but essential piece of equipment used with videocameras), so did he say to “Key’s security staff” that he wanted to retrieve his “microphone”? If he said that I’m sure security staff would have allowed that (for obvious reasons). Instead was this “freelance cameraman” disingenuous and said to security that he wanted to remove “some equipment”?

2. Whilst it isn’t unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” (prior to use), it is actually unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” and inside a bag, because that indicates it isn’t about to be used and is using up battery power. Not unless the freelancer was intending to use it ….

3. Even if the wireless microphone transmitter was unintentionally “on” and left inside a bag (and thus unintentionally transmitting) and this was all “innocent” …. then the “freelance cameraman’s” story doesn’t stack up at all after this point because his videocamera’s wireless microphone receiver device would have to have been on and the videocamera (or recording equipment) turned “on” and “recording”. To make this clearer, this last aspect here indicates the recording could not have been made (even with the wireless microphone switched on and transmitting) because for the recording to be made as said here, a receiving device then needs to be deliberately turned on and the “camera operator’s equipment” also had to be on and recording.

4. So why would this other equipment be on and recording? Clearly the freelance cameraman was intending to record the conversation!

5. Since the equipment was on and recording, how could this freelance cameraman then claim he “discovered” the recording “later”?

I use this sort of equipment myself in my line of work so know what I’m talking about. Whatever the device in the bag was, it was capable of transmitting hence why I say it normally would be a wireless radio microphone (eg a lapel microphone or discrete microphone). If it was another type device then have the Herald tell us what it was but a wireless radio microphone is commonplace.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

Tagged:
40%