It’s how they sway us

Never underestimate the Mainstream media’s ability to sway public opinion. The way many New Zealanders view Whaleoil editor Cameron Slater is almost wholly due to how the Mainstream Media describe him in articles. They were also swayed by how the MSM reported on the?book Dirty Politics which was full of guesswork based on stolen private communications between a journalist, his friends and his sources.

If any other journalist had his private communications hacked and turned into a book, the Mainstream media would be squealing like little piggies. Source protection, they would squeak. Invasion of privacy, they would squeal. This is not in the public interest, they would whine. Instead, they promoted Nicky Hager’s?hit job on Whaleoil knowing that if they didn’t, Hager would reveal just how many of them were regularly working with Cameron, sharing information and story ideas.

Hager protected those same journalists just as he kept the names of all the politicians from other political parties, who also were in contact with Cameron, out of the book . Cameron having a wide range of sources from all over the political spectrum did not suit Hager’s narrative or his goal to remove Whaleoil from the political conversation.

The latest political scandal is very interesting because it has finally opened some people’s eyes to the fact that Mainstream media can seek to sway public opinion by only telling one side of the story. The comment section on David Fisher’s article (which was very much another hit piece against Whaleoil )?was missing vital context and facts and even people who have bought into the negative narrative about Cameron and Whaleoil can see that they are being manipulated.

It is no wonder that many people think that Cameron Slater is like Voldermort?when you analyse the adjectives used to describe him over the years by the media. Media who are supposed to be objective, but who use opinion in so-called news stories all the time. Cameron has been described as far-right, toxic, controversial, a “Dirty Politics blogger and National party pariah,” to name only a few.

The NZ Herald is guilty of this kind of characterisation more than most. Let’s look at Fisher’s latest article and see how he attempts to sway public?opinion negatively towards Cameron Slater and Jami-Lee Ross but positively towards the mystery female MP.

Jami-Lee Ross:

  • Then came Ross’ drive to Wellington and return to Parliament in a fury of righteousness.
  • Now rogue,
  • issues later revealed to be associated with his adverse behaviour around women.

Cameron Slater:

  • The?Herald?cannot confirm the text messages are genuine.
  • one of National’s fiercest enemies
  • Slater has long-held grievances against National, particularly after he was blacklisted following publication of the 2014 book?Dirty Politics.
  • Slater, who has previously presented convoluted theories to support other claims.
  • Those with knowledge of the events which unfolded have described Slater’s Rawshark theory as ridiculous.
  • Chuang later complained of her treatment by the blogger, saying she had expected her identity to remain secret and those associated with him had harassed her.

Mystery female MP:

  • The new text messages appeared to show the former lover acting with urgency at signs of distress.

Note how the article does not say alleged adverse behaviour but states it as a fact. Jami-Lee Ross has been declared guilty without?trial by David Fisher. In contrast, the article implies that journalist Cameron Slater and the Whaleoil website are dishonest and not to be trusted as the texts could be fake. Fisher does this despite the fact that Cameron just got a judgement in a defamation case where the judge described him as an honest and responsible journalist.

The mystery female MP is portrayed as being caring and acting to save Jami-Lee Ross while the incriminating?text from her that Jami-Lee Ross was responding to is withheld from the public and not even briefly summarised.

Fisher also reveals his apparent inside knowledge of the Rawshark hack of Whaleoil,?stating that his unnamed sources say that our theory about who was behind the attempt to silence Whaleoil forever is incorrect. Perhaps Fisher should consider sharing his knowledge of who was behind the criminal hack of a fellow?journalist with the police?

The article also tells lies about the mistress of Len Brown who was attacked and?named by the mainstream media after the Whaleoil expose. The media was fed information about her by Len Brown’s people in order to scare off any other women from coming forward. Whaleoil did NOT use her name in our breaking news story and we even paid for a motel for her to hide in when the story broke in an attempt to protect her. Cameron had warned her to stay out of sight and NOT to talk to the mainstream media, but she ignored his advice. Even before that, he had warned her that, if we went ahead with the story, it was inevitable that her name would come out but she wanted to go ahead with it anyway.

When we refer to media on Whaleoil as left-wing or far-left we are doing it in a satirical sense as we are mocking how they commonly use negative adjectives in order to smear Whaleoil and other conservative commentators. I am sure that the?lamestream, dead tree media NZ Herald journalist, the far-left, controversial, toxic, Whaleoil pariah David Fisher appreciates the joke.