Wow. The talented and likeable Morgan James

I’m really pleased to have stumbled across this performer, Morgan James. See if you enjoy watching her introduce herself in this feature below, as I did, so much …

The last few lines (and the last line in particular) declare such self-awareness, it gave me goosebumps. Here she proves it’s true …

HunterGood on her. I’ve just bought her album Hunter on iTunes.

Here’s a link to her youtube channel. See what you think of her cover of Dolly Parton’s Jolene.
– P

PS You can’t argue with someone who loves Sade.

With sympathy for my friends at the NZ Herald


Subterfuge – a nice multi-syllable word for ‘lie’.

I said at the time (The twisted trail of the NZ Herald’s ‘statement from the editor’ re Ms Glucina) that Rachel Glucina’s shabby little smear job seemed intended to portray as “political” the café worker who exposed NZ Prime Minister John Key’s repeated harassment. That was Ms Glucina’s goal, it seemed to me — to take some of the heat off Mr Key. Smear the messenger.

Another of Mr Key’s loyal media friends, Mike Hosking, sprang to the PM’s defence, singing from Ms Glucina’s slippery-with-the-facts song sheet. His ‘Mike’s View’ segment on Seven Sharp (see Hey RaboDirect, if Mike Hosking’s selling you, I’m not buying) delivered a twisted, in parts factually inaccurate diatribe against the café worker.
Continue reading →

A shiver of recognition. World War III propaganda poster designs

Wow, there’s something about these poster designs by Bill McMullen – visualising what might be themes of ‘messaging’ from the gummint in the event of the simmering cold war turning hot. Take a look at these and more and read the article by P.W. Singer and August Cole at the Motherboard website.

Click to enlarge

Continue reading →

‘Harmful’ online speech. Outlawing castigation? Cactus Kate tries to vanish.

On three occasions during my ‘career’ as an online critic and avenging angel I have deliberately pulled back from castigating a ‘target’.

In all three cases, I became concerned at what appeared to me to be the real possibility that the person whose actions and modus operandi I was criticising might do themselves physical harm as a result of the stress they were experiencing in response to my criticism.

In one case, a report reached me of an ugly and violent outburst of anger (including punching a hole in an office wall) at reading one of my columns. In another, it became clear to me from online responses that a property spruiker was not coping with having his dishonest marketing methods picked apart by me and his long trail of broken promises laid out for the world to see in all their shabby disingenuousness.

I had long ago reached the conclusion that I never want my words to be the final straw, the thing that impelled someone ‘over the edge’.

This may be a fine point, but it’s also been my deliberate practice to try to focus my criticisms on people’s hyperbolic marketing claims, on their demonstrable deceit and examples of gross hypocrisy and, most of all, on their actions — not so much on their character. But there’s no getting away from the fact that a pattern of behaviour does actually speak of someone’s character, in the end.

Even legend in his own lunchbox Cameron Slater appreciates a bit of castigation now and then

See? Even Cameron Slater appreciates a bit of castigation now and then. I had, of course, believed lies.

Dirty Politics-annoyed-ThePaepae_2015-Jun-24I mentioned before, in my response to Dirty Politics (here) that by one of those strange coincidences that make life such a rich tapestry, I had the … erm, interesting experience of reading some pages of Cameron Slater’s [allegedly hacked] Facebook messages to and from someone whom Nicky Hager described as Slater’s “trusted friend” (see right) – conversations wherein Slater expressed his displeasure and annoyance at being subject to criticism by me on this blog.

Now, sure, some of the language regarding moi was colourful, and some of it expressed a desire, if not a determination, to do me violence – but it doesn’t read to me as if Slater was in any real way driven to despair by my ‘castigation’ – not in the same way that the people I’ve just discussed above were.

It’s been evident to some of us for quite a while that Cameron Slater lives in a fantasy world. He often expresses himself as if he were some kind of hard-boiled tough guy with much more influence, potential, and day to day efficacy than he actually possesses. So to consider myself ‘at risk’ of physical violence from him seems a joke really. Indeed, whenever we run into each other, the conversation between us is invariably civil – and I expect it always will be, despite what he might say in the privacy (cough) of his Facebook conversations with “trusted friends”. Don’t be alarmed by this next statement: I think we have some things in common. (And that’s why I’ve accepted Cameron and Regan’s kind offer of the position of editor of Freed … nah, just joking!)

Slater 'bigger than Nicky Hager CTrevettNZH_2014-Aug-22

Oh, Cameron. * wince* (source: Whaledump via Claire Trevett)

But is such online castigation ‘harmful’?

I’ve had a reason in the last few weeks to consider these and other aspects of “harmful digital communications” in relation to online criticism and truth-telling. I’ve also been considering again the mechanics of the nasty underground smear campaigns and “hit jobs” on public health scientists and campaigners apparently organised as part of the ongoing mercenary dirty PR operation Carrick Graham conducted through ghostwritten articles on Cameron Slater’s attack blog. (Still conducts? Probably. Sounds like it)

On Twitter the other night someone suggested that any online comment that caused “distress” to someone – whether true or not – could be caught under the definition of “harmful” communication in legislation due to pass through Parliament next week. It remains to be seen what the final form of the New Zealand legislation will be, particularly the ‘criminal offences’ parts, but people whose judgement I trust seem worried about restrictions on free speech and criticism.  Continue reading →

The escape of exnzpat, Part 30

Big trouble under the shadow of the Tower


The tower loomed ahead in the dark like an ancient, druid obelisk.  It was a lonely thing, and in the fading light it took on the color of desolate gray; it was as hoary and as ugly as a pile of wetted ash.  There was power here:  horrible, evil, perverted; of truth and light, under its dark oblivion, I saw neither.  Here, only menace lived.  That we should arrive after dusk, when all the goodness of the golden sun had run from the world, frightened me terribly.  And Lilith, my limping, broken friend reeking of despair for her lost dog, only made the coming peril all the more terrible.  Blood leaked from between my teeth and I did not know from whence it came nor, I think, did I care, for the tower ahead consumed all of my senses.  Its enigmatic darkness commanded something like awe in me.  I’d never thought of death as a tangible thing and yet, here it was right in front of me. Continue reading →

‘Dirty Politics’ revisited: More evidence of deceit and covering tracks

It’s funny how the brain works. Earlier this week, I passed a copy of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics on to a new workmate after he’d expressed a harshly negative opinion of Hager — but when I asked him if he’d read any of Hager’s books he admitted he had not. Rather than lend him mine, I bought a copy of Dirty Politics for him to read. In handing it over, I flicked through it again. Although I hadn’t read the book in a blinding hurry when I first got it (read my original comments here) I realised there was material in the book that I had forgotten.

There was also some important information in Hager’s book which has been given extra context by the Rawshark/Whaledump ‘dumps’ of material on which parts of the book were based, and by the Chisholm inquiry into the level of former cabinet minister Judith Collins’ contact/involvement with Cameron Slater and their joint machinations. (The Chisholm inquiry report is available here PDF 720k)

Carrick Graham: deceitful smear campaigns "without apologies."

Carrick Graham: deceitful (ghostwritten) attacks and smear campaigns “without apologies.”

Working within tightly prescribed terms of reference, Justice Chisholm inquired into the sleazy, dishonest ‘destabilisation’ scheme which saw dirty PR operator Carrick Graham apparently engage Slater and fellow attack blogger Cathy Odgers/Cactus Kate to publish smears against financial regulators and investigators on behalf of Hanover Finance director Mark Hotchin. They were ‘working for’ Graham, Chisholm finds. Apparently some journalists were (witting or unwitting) pawns in that dirty campaign. Shame.

So I decided to read Dirty Politics again. And even though as I write this my own launch day copy is on the bookshelf behind me, as the result of a passing comment about his own long form reading habits Giovanni Tiso made when we met for coffee in Wellington recently, I decided to get the Kindle versionWell, that was a good idea. (Thanks, Giovanni!) I’m thoroughly enjoying reading it this way, and the extra features like the ‘X-Ray’ view.

Arise, Sir Whaledump

Like probably thousands of others, I downloaded and read the Whaledump dumps. They were released, it seems to me, in response to the puerile defence run by some embarrassed by the revelations in Dirty Politics — from the Prime Minister down to his loyal poodles like Mike Hosking: “Nicky Hager is just making it up!” Of course he wasn’t.

In my own case, I loaded the dumps directly into my beloved DevonThink Pro (last mentioned here) so they are imminently searchable and cross references were created by the program’s AI. So now, re-reading the book, where Hager quotes a conversation between Cameron Slater and one of his co-conspirators, in some cases I’ve been able to easily pull up that fragment and read it in context.

I’ve also been struck again by how responsible Hager has been in his use of this material.

Obviously, Slater, Graham, Odgers, Jordan Williams, Simon Lusk, Judith ‘tip line’ Collins, etc. would like to see the whole correspondence suppressed to obscure their devious schemes — and their character? — but I can definitely see the ‘public interest’ justification for its publication.

So, anyway, in the middle of this — and the coincidental burst of publicity that Slater’s ghostwriter and paymaster Carrick Graham received (see my previous post) I’ve naturally been thinking about Rawshark/Whaledump, and, indeed, re-reading some of the material this [alleged] hacker and whistleblower revealed.

Then, last night, after winning an award for journalism, former Fairfax NZ, now NZ Herald journalist Matt Nippert tweeted his acknowledgement of the role Rawshark/Whaledump played in his and fellow winner David Fisher’s work this last year:  Continue reading →

Carrick Graham, vendettas and miasma

Pic from North & South, digital effects Peter Aranyi.

Pic: Adrian Malloch, North & South, digital effects Peter Aranyi.

I don’t talk much about PR attack blogger Cameron Slater’s sometime paymaster and ghostwriter Carrick Graham, although I haven’t completely ignored him — (see?).

Carrick’s claim to fame was revealed by Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, and in somewhat redacted material leaked to the news media and further afield by the [alleged] hacker Rawshark through his Whaledump twitter account and various ‘dumps’.

Ghostwriter Graham, along with extreme right wing* (former) blogger lawyer Cactus Kate — Cathy Odgers, who was another of Cameron Slater’s ghostwriters — was apparently hired to run public ‘reputation attacks’ on public health advocates and scientists, as well as the financial crime investigation units looking into the activities of failed financier Mark Hotchin.

The Chisholm inquiry revealed Carrick’s destabilisation campaign against financial regulators. Graham somehow managed to convince Judge Lester Chisholm that his role was only a tertiary role — behind Slater and Cathy Odgers, even though he employed them!
These activities were, in my view, a low point in recent history — for journalism and for the public relations industry.

Now Carrick Graham might see all that as ‘just business’. OK. But, as someone prominent says, ‘There’s a range of views on that.’

By an astonishing coincidence, apparently Carrick Graham isn’t a member of the PR Institute of NZ, so therefore, not subject to their code of conduct and ethics. How convenient.

So I read Sciblogger Peter Griffin’s post about Carrick Graham’s ongoing mercenary PR attack activities with a curled lip. It’s worth reading: “Carrick Graham still gunning for public health researchers

Click to visit sciblogs

Click to visit sciblogs

Money quote:

The piece reveals that when Newport visited Graham’s Parnell office, he was greeted with “an array of passport-sized photographs, stuck to the wall like a TV cop show operations room, linked by colour thread. These are his current targets, complete with their affiliated organisations and their available budgets”.
The current targets, he adds, are “people linked to the HRC, the Health Research Council. This is the major funder on behalf of central government of biomedical, public health, Maori health and Pacific health research … these are the people Graham is currently being paid to attack”.

“…these are the people Graham is currently being paid to attack.” Pretty grubby, eh?

– P

Cathy Odgers commemorative stamp

Cathy Odgers commemorative stamp

* my definition: further right than <1% ACT Party, which Cathy Odgers left in despair, partly at its choosing nutty old men as leaders.

The Hollow Man: PM’s “fabricated” smear on Snowden documents


Oxford Dictionary

Evoking FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) is a tactic commonly used by tobacco lobbyists and climate change denialists – attempting to impugn the veracity of evidence. In this case the Prime Minister’s empty smear has been exposed …


The New Zealand Prime Minister’s much-repeated smear of Edward Snowden’s leaked NSA documents detailing NZ intelligence  (GCSB) operations against our trading partners and friends. (Click to enlarge)


Click to read at

Click to read at

The NZ Herald‘s David Fisher reports

The Prime Minister’s office has said it has no factual basis for suggesting Edward Snowden documents which exposed GCSB secrets were “fabricated”.
… The “fabrication” claim has been part of the Prime Minister’s standard response to revelations of activities carried out by New Zealand’s electronic eavesdropping agency.

… The Herald sought any information held by the Prime Minister which informed him or his office over the alleged “fabrication”.
The Prime Minister’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson said “no information has been identified”. He said the PM’s office had to refuse the [Official Information Act] request because the “information requested does not exist or cannot be found”.

Pretty shabby work from the Prime Minister’s Office. Just what we’ve come to expect. Good on David Fisher for calling them on this BS.

Mr Key’s penchant for personally smearing the integrity of journalists and others with embarrassing or inconvenient evidence is well-established. (viz. Nicky Hager, Jon Stephenson, Bradley Ambrose.)

It has always been, in my view, one of Mr Key’s least attractive traits*, and this time his office has been caught out doing it again, with no real basis.

– P

* See Are you dating a tyrant? Take our simple quiz to find out!

Following through on a complaint to TVNZ re Mike Hosking’s lack of fairness

‘Talk is cheap,’ as the saying goes. I sent this formal complaint in to TVNZ (my first!) last week about Mike Hosking’s unfair victim-bashing. A friend encouraged me to post it here – possibly to inspire others to follow suit. I was reluctant, wary of giving the impression of grandstanding. But he asked me to do it again today — so, here you go…

Click on the images below to enlarge the pages, or here it is as a 3 page PDF (450Kb).

Over to you. – P

Continue reading →

Russell Brand’s (quieter) Ed ‘Milibrand’ interview

I heard excerpts of this interview on BBC PM early this morning — and wanted to watch it. I’m glad I did.

Good to see the ‘despondency message’ (“Why vote? It doesn’t matter”) Brand has promoted being challenged.

Miliband’s points – making change through politicians can be hard work, slower than you want, and subject to well-funded and powerful opposition (including from the media) were, no doubt tailored to this audience, but I wouldn’t call them inauthentic – would you? It’s not easy – for the citizens or the politicians. And change takes time.

See what you think. (Is Miliband right about media moguls like Rupert Murdoch being “much less powerful than he used to be”? Hmm. Maybe.)

You may also be interested in this earlier post which featured the infamous(?), wonderful, lively, Jeremy Paxman interview with Russell Brand — which was the context for the interview above:
Orchestrating smear campaigns against your rivals is seen as dodgy in business, so what about politics?

– P

PS I know some of my friends won’t be impressed. That’s OK.

The road to Mike Hosking, vilifier of young women

Mike Hosking. Not what you would call a well-ropunded person. (Click to enlarge.)

Mike Hosking. Sadly, not what you would call a well-rounded person. (Click to enlarge.)

Some of us have always seen radio announcer Mike Hosking as a puffed-up little prat.

I was there at Broadcasting House when this shortish young guy with a big voice and a very strange manner arrived in the Network Newsroom. He’d come across from Radio NZ’s commercial network. We were one big happy family then – this was before the commercial network was spun off as The Radio Network. I still have the launch shirt with the TRN lollipop logo on the front somewhere. Mike was “23 going on 60,” as one newsroom wag described him.

Mike looked like a school leaver wearing his uncle’s suit. And shoes. He was prematurely conservative, a yokel with a clichéd radio jock’s voice, in the big smoke and in a big hurry. I worked with a reporter who would become Mike’s first wife. They seemed pretty suited. Marie was a bit of an oddball too (maybe we all were?) She was a little harsh with people around her at times, but then radio news can be a pressure job. Radio’s rolling news deadlines can be wearying. But she seemed a competent reporter, probably better than me. More steel-edged.

People at Radio NZ were generally happy for them and the couple seemed to keep to themselves. Mike dressed more and more like a bank manager with flash, old men’s suits and silk ties. Years later the couple would become ‘famous’ for trying to keep paparazzi from photographing their twins in public. Mike, it seemed, was a protective father and I admired at least that about him. Which makes his acid victim-bashing this week all the more galling for me.

Continue reading →

Hey RaboDirect, if Mike Hosking’s selling you, I’m not buying.

NOTE THE BRANDING: Mike Hosking's nasty, protracted vilification of a victim brought to you by TVNZ One News, Seven Sharp and RaboDirect. Remember those names.

NOTE THE BRANDING: Mike Hosking’s nasty, protracted vilification of a young woman victim – brought to you by TVNZ One News, Seven Sharp and RaboDirect. Remember those names. (Click to enlarge)

A nasty side of radio announcer Mike Hosking spilled out into view last week as he ‘bashed’ the victim of John Key’s serial bullying.

Hosking, supported by TVNZ’s OneNews, sponsored by RaboDirect, vilified the waitress whom the Prime Minister admits he repeatedly harassed, pulling her hair at her workplace over several months, despite her objections.

In a bizarre and deeply unpleasant tirade, Hosking castigated the victim as ‘selfish’ for speaking up publicly about her treatment by Mr Key. He accused her of being ‘puffed-up’, ‘self-involved’ and politically motivated. These are all epithets that could far more properly be applied to Mike Hosking, in my opinion.
I only watched the video clip yesterday afternoon. It was far worse than I had expected. It’s viewable at the Facebook page cited below, or (if you can stand it) here is the audio:
Continue reading →

The twisted trail of the NZ Herald’s ‘statement from the editor’ re Ms Glucina

Updated with NZ Herald editor Shayne Currie’s memo to staff – see bottom.

A lot of journalists, myself included, are compulsive information hoarders. We archive and keep things ‘just in case’ we may some time, in the distant future, want to refer to it. I keep this scan of Tim Hunter’s story about Carrick Graham deviously spinning for Mark Hotchin in that category. Who knows when I might want to refer to it?

I remember wincing with recognition when I read a report that around the time she was charged in connection with the News Of The World phone hacking scandal, Rebecca Brooks had instructed her PA to go into a storage room and remove a box of Brooks’ journalistic notebooks from her time at the paper … and they were never seen again.

Technology’s on our side. Just as the NSA declared its mission statement in in the slogan ‘Sniff it all, collect it all, store it all…’ (or something like that) …
collect it all posture NSA-mica
… so it’s a few mouse clicks to retain a copy of something published on the ‘web’. I do it all the time, and store a lot of that ‘data’ in a brilliant (Mac) programme called DevonThink Pro, which applies devilishly clever AI to categorise and make links between data in my database-archive(s). (DTPro is a brilliant tool and I heartily recommend it.)

Pretty yellow journalism at the best of times.

Pretty yellow journalism at the best of times.

Anyway, yesterday, it became clear that NZ Herald ‘reigning gossip queen’ Rachel Glucina had seemingly acted in an ethically questionable way (see below) to get a statement/interview from the woman at the centre of a scandal about the NZ Prime Minister repeatedly harassing a waitress by pulling her hair. See The Daily Blog for the original story and a follow-up with the waitress’s account of Ms Glucina’s actions.

I said after reading Ms Glucina’s piece that it seemed to me she’d gone into damage-control mode for the Prime Minister (she’s a fan) and had attempted to characterise the waitress’s speaking out as a political act:  ‘That “strong political views” phrase seems like the whole point of Ms Glucina’s and @nzherald’s PR/’reportage’. ‘ — but that was without knowing how Ms Glucina had [apparently] posed as a PR expert working for the waitress’s employers.

The NZ Herald editor Shayne Currie, no doubt stung by criticism of his paper and its ethical standards in using such tactics, rushed to defend the paper’s reputation – and incidentally, Ms Glucina’s integrity.

He ‘issued a statement’ on the matter. Here it is in reporter Dylan Moran’s email in box timed 10.08am … Continue reading →

Govt’s mischievous pet monkey flings own dung at zookeeper. (Matthew Hooton disgraces himself. Again.)

Intense. When spin doctor Matthew Hooton stays calm, all is well. But when he gets wound up ... meh, not so much. (pic: Radio NZ)

Intense. When spin doctor Matthew Hooton stays calm, all is well. But when he gets wound up … meh, not so much. (pic: Radio NZ)

Pro-government spin doctor Matthew Hooton disgraced himself on the radio again yesterday.

I didn’t get to hear it until late last night as I’ve been busy. But when I did, once again I genuinely worried for his state of mind. And I wondered what the producers of Kathryn Ryan’s show can be thinking about this recidivist, and his increasingly rambunctious ‘performances’.

I’ve observed before, here and elsewhere, that such is Matthew’s apparent deep-seated bitterness towards investigative journalist and author Nicky Hager, that he (Matthew) seems prone to completely lose his shit … equilibrium.

Yesterday, on the public radio ‘political commentary’ slot to which the severely-compromised (in my view) right wing propagandist continues to be invited to appear, Matthew once again made evident his contorted world view and pursued his spittle-flecked personal vendetta against Hager. He cheerfully smeared NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, criticised the news judgement of any news media reporting Snowden’s revelations about illegal spying and surveillance, ran defence for this country’s own craven and compromising spying activities at the behest of the US, and even stooped to reds-under-the-bed garbage.

You can listen to the whole Nine to Noon ‘Politics’ segment here at the Radio NZ website, but here’s a 3 minute clip of Matthew Hooton losing his rag, shouting over everyone else – and overall being quite the unpleasant dick. Listen to host Kathryn Ryan groan and sigh as (once again) she’s subjected to Hooton’s belligerence and disrespect. If I was her producer, he’d be shown the door for this bullshit. Simple.

Matthew Hooton makes a dick of himself and exposes his irrational venom for Nicky Hager
MP3 file

What’s wrong with reporting the news?, Kathryn Ryan asks.
“Well it needs to be positioned correctly!” Hooton cries. What a professional.

– P

The P word PLAGIARISM in today’s news aggregation game

Note: Just this morning, 13 April 2015, while searching for a graphic in the media library of this blog to insert in a comment, I came across this post (below) in ‘drafts’ from July 2014. I have no idea why I neglected to publish it at the time.

Reading it again this morning, I found some of my comments about Cameron Slater’s role as a deceitful PR attack propagandist quite … intriguing, in hindsight – particularly the references to Carrick Graham, Jason Ede and Simon Lusk ghost-writing material published in Slater’s name. I’ve noted elsewhere that reading Nicky Hager’s book ‘Dirty Politics’ made me feel like one of the blind men describing an elephant from the parts he could feel. Look how close I was … – P

This week [see note above] the phenomenally successful news aggregator site Buzzfeed apologised to its readers and ‘let go’ writer Benny Johnson after it was shown Johnson had repeatedly “lifted phrases and sentences from other websites”.

Click to read at Buzzfeed

Click to read at Buzzfeed

At first I thought it was a joke, given Buzzfeed’s … um, … demonstrated history (business model, even?) of — let’s be diplomatic here — re-purposing copy from other sources, then slapping on a ‘You’ll never believe what this boy scout found in Kim Kardashian’s trash!’-style headline in an effort to gather internet clicks. (A successful effort, to pay credit where it’s due.)

Here’s Johnson’s own apology on Twitter today:

Click to read at Twitter

Click to read at Twitter

‘Buzzfeed’ and ‘click-bait’ are, it seems to me, two word compounds made for each other. It’s unusual for an enterprise (web-based or not) to make as large a cultural mark. Even if it is temporary.

Nevertheless, it is true, and Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith makes the point in his apology, that Buzzfeed has come a long way, journalistically, from its roots as …

“…a laboratory for content” employing “writers [who] didn’t have journalistic backgrounds and weren’t held to traditional journalistic standards, because we weren’t doing journalism.”

That last line, “ …[we] weren’t held to traditional journalistic standards, because we weren’t doing journalism” is, of course, a pure bullshit argument in much the same way that local PR attack blogger Cameron Slater claimed for years to be ‘not a journalist‘ (thus exempt from expectations of ‘traditional journalistic standards’) … but has grasped for a different interpretation of what he does now that he’s trying to avoid the identity of his clients — oops, I mean ‘journalistic sources’ — being exposed through the court discovery process in a defamation trial.

Oops, wrong Cameron.  pic: (click)

Oops, wrong Cameron. Never mind. (sigh)
pic: (click)

I’ve made the point elsewhere that *if* Cameron Slater can be shown to be a deceitful PR gun for hire … carrying out denigration campaigns for money or other exchange, and *if* he’s judged to have defamed the Auckland businessman currently suing him, such a finding may significantly affect any damages awarded. But that’s just speculation. (Read some background to the defamation case here: Part of the news media? or a “PR blog” dedicated to “destroying” reputations? and Target of Cameron Slater’s ‘campaign’ speaks up.)


Like any number of less-offensive parasite bloggers, Cameron Slater has, it seems to me, a track record as someone who takes liberally from other media sources, re-publishing their words and images — sometimes with scant, if any, acknowledgement — merely adding a sentence or two of ‘spin’ or spitting an insult at one of his many targets. He’s certainly he’s been accused of plagiarism or ‘stealing’ from working journalists. He doesn’t like that when it happens.

I quickly formed the view (back when I read his hate blog for research) that Slater was an operator who appears to distort ‘news events’ and ‘facts’ … routinely fudging or omitting proper acknowledgement of the sources of his regurgitations — while wailing about the same treatment at the hands of the mainstream media. Dull.

But perhaps all that’s changed with his search for ‘news medium’ legitimacy. (retch) For instance, I noticed a recent change in author tags used at his site. Continue reading →