Right wing vixen Louise Mensch front-footing it

We’ve discussed before my preferred policy of tackling criticism head-on, and also, as a policy, publishing all threats I receive.

Former novelist and British MP Louise Mensch (pic: Channel 4)

Yesterday British MP Louise Mensch, a protagonist in the ‘hackgate’ scandal admitted she exaggerated Piers Morgan’s ‘admissions/boasting’ of phone hacking in his Daily Mirror days, and publicly apologised. (Although in typical politician fashion, still tries to slip a few mealy-mouthed jabs in to salve the ego.)

In my questions to Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, I wrongly stated that Piers Morgan, formerly editor of the Daily Mirror, had been open about personally hacking phones in a book he wrote. This was based on my misreading of an article in the Daily Telegraph published on the 13th July, which covered Mr. Morgan’s description in his book of how to hack a phone and how he won the Scoop of the Year on the story of Sven-Goran Eriksson and Ulrika Johnson. The Telegraph report covers the claim of a blogger that this story was acquired by phone hacking, and I misread that as Mr. Morgan himself claiming this to be true.
Therefore, I must apologise to Mr. Morgan and the Committee for this error about his book. I would have done much better to stick to quoting the figures for the Daily Mirror …

That teeth-grinding apology was necessary (she could have faced censure for misleading the committee) and was ‘accepted graciously’ by Morgan via Twitter.

Points to both parties, although Mensch’s error is, let’s face it, regrettable and credibility-degrading. It was, frankly, piss-poor behaviour for an MP to fire off shots like that, from the safety of Parliamentary privilege,  without concrete evidence, then to resist his calls for retraction and correction for so long. Bad form.

However, my respect for her grew somewhat when I read her response to what looks like a ham-fisted attempt to intimidate her.

Mensch issued a press release containing what appears to be smear threats in correspondence from ‘David Jones Investigative Journalists’ in full and anwering with the flair I would expect from a novelist, nicely framing it in terms of plucky and persecuted truth-seeker.

Most importantly, I have not the slightest intention of being deterred from asking how far the culture of hacking and blagging extended in Fleet Street.

By her actions, she also deprived ‘David Jones Investigative Journalists’ (a pseudonym) of any scoop and spiked a dripfeed campaign against her.

On 19 July, as part of the CMS Select Committee, I questioned Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks on phone hacking at the News of the World.
I also focussed questions on whether hacking and blagging was, in fact, widespread throughout Fleet Street.

On 22 July I received the following email, which I reprint here in full and respond to below:

Dear Mrs Mensch

We are informing you that we have come into possession of the following information, about yourself, and would like to ask you for any comments, before we publish this information.

… Read her reply at politicshome.com.

Nice work. In the context of allegations/revelations about not-just-Murdoch media intimidating politicians into compliance, it’s interesting to see these tactics exposed in this way.

Phony ‘David Jones’ is maintaining his/her anonymity at this stage and issued a mealy-mouthed non-answer.

There’s more to come, I’m sure.

NZ's own good-looking right wing vixen Cathy Odgers Cactus Kate (pic: NBR)

Beauty and the Beast Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Violinist Nigel Kennedy’s line about Louise Mensch (quoted in The Telegraph) reminded me of the US’s accomplished right wing battle maiden Ann Coulter and  our own wannabe ACT MP, Cathy Odgers/Cactus Kate:

“I am a socialist myself but do remember having some great times with my beautiful and very clever Right-wing friend when she was at EMI. Louise is pretty scary and I would warn anyone that it’s not a good idea to mess with her.”

Hmpf. Not a bad reputation to have, though, eh?

– P

What a twit!

Remember the name: Jon Snow Channel 4 news anchor (ahem). Snow swallowed a lie from a ‘parody’ account at Twitter about Piers Morgan supposedly suspended by CNN and passed it on to his network credulously… as if it were true, without checking its veracity and without attributing it to source.

Ross Neumann spills the beans …
http://storify.com/rossneumann/how-twitter-squashed-pierce-morgan-suspension-rumo

Best line is near the top:

@jonsnowc4, an anchor for Channel 4 News in London, confuses his t’s with a “d”, misses @danwooden’s very fake bio, and spreads the rumor. You can see a screen grab of his original tweet below. Note that he doesn’t cite his source, so no one who sees his tweet knows that not only is he going off of a second hand source, but also a totally fake source.

Take a look:

Doh! Jeez, Jon, wake up! Not even an attribution to save your over eager reputation … credibility crunched!

See: Linking to sources — why it’s vital for credibility (Case study: property spruiker Sean Wood)

– P

More inconvenient juxtaposition

image: nicnicnicole.blogspot.com (click)

While I am committed to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ I must admit to a groan of dismay and recognition when I read this NZ Herald headline:

Missing uni cash: priest quits job

A priest working as a senior executive at the Auckland University of Technology has resigned after “accounting discrepancies” involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. …

Oh dear.
It reminded me of overt claims of exceptional trustworthiness based on espoused religious affiliation … as we discussed in ‘Of trumpets’.

-P

Like Piers Morgan, your past associations linger

Former editors of the News of the World.

From The Telegraph "CNN's Piers Morgan 'told interviewer stories were published based on phone tapping' " (click)

Personally I see Morgan’s June 2009 comments on the BBC’s Desert Island Discs as well short of a smoking gun, as does Jeff Bercovici: ‘That Piers Morgan Smoking Gun? Not So Smoky’.

Read Morgan’s ‘admissions’ yourself and see what you think.

Kirty Young BBC: What about this nice middle-class boy, who would have to be dealing with, I mean essentially people who rake through bins for a living, people who tap people’s phones, people who take secret photographs, who do all that nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff. How did you feel about that?

Piers Morgan: To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work. I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do. I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and the low end of the supposed newspaper market.

The way I see it, we each develop the inescapable reputation and associations our actions attract or develop. Morgan can’t change the facts that he was at different times editor of two low-end, gutter-press, ‘tabloid beast’ rags … and he was, most likely, in the heat of competition adhering to the contingent moral code [cough] and culture.

But that clip doesn’t prove anything. Tempest in a tankard.
(It might shake something else out, though.)
-P

A trolling we will go … anonymously

(image based on http://justbkuz.wordpress.com)

Touching on one of our perennial themes here, criticism, anonymity and unpleasantness on the interwebs …in ‘How the internet created an age of rage’ The Observer‘s Tim Adams delivers a worthwhile treatise on how commenters are able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, making the blog and chatroom have into forums for hatred and bile …

His conclusion: No anonymous criticism.

One simple antidote to this seems to rest in the very old-fashioned idea of standing by your good name. Adopt a pseudonym and you are not putting much of yourself on the line. Put your name to something and your words are freighted with responsibility. Arthur Schoepenhauer wrote well on the subject 160 years ago: “Anonymity is the refuge for all literary and journalistic rascality,” he suggested. “It is a practice which must be completely stopped. Every article, even in a newspaper, should be accompanied by the name of its author; and the editor should be made strictly responsible for the accuracy of the signature.

The freedom of the press should be thus far restricted; so that when a man publicly proclaims through the far-sounding trumpet of the newspaper, he should be answerable for it, at any rate with his honour, if he has any; and if he has none, let his name neutralise the effect of his words. And since even the most insignificant person is known in his own circle, the result of such a measure would be to put an end to two-thirds of the newspaper lies, and to restrain the audacity of many a poisonous tongue.”

Read his full article at The Guardian website.

A troll is a troll is a troll of course, but as we have discussed before: I say an anonymous whistle-blower is a different thing. So is a critic who lays out an evidenced basis for her criticism, whether anonymously or not.

There’s no question that ugly, insulting behaviour on the web is largely engaged in (performed?) by anonymous people. As I have shown before, in the case of certain spruikers, in addition, they sometimes also appear to be acting in a quite misleading way — not just posting anonymously but posing as someone they’re not. Such sockpuppet use strikes me, personally, as dishonest. It’s impersonation. You may see it differently.

Anonymous criticism = free speech?

But today here’s news of a judgment in a Canadian defamation case where the anonymous status of blog and discussion forum comment/criticism has been protected as ‘free speech’

In a decision with broader implications for online privacy, a judge has ruled not to force the identification of anonymous bloggers who wrote critical web posts about former Aurora mayor Phyllis Morris.

The Ontario Superior Court ruling, which Ms. Morris intends to appeal, is a major blow to her $6-million defamation action, which targets three individuals who authored anonymous posts on the Aurora Citizen website, along with the site’s moderators.

In her decision, Judge Carole Brown weighed Ms. Morris’s allegations against the fundamental right to freedom of speech and found the former mayor’s case wanting.

“The public interest favouring disclosure [of the bloggers’ names] clearly does not outweigh the legitimate interests in freedom of expression and the right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified,” Judge Brown wrote, noting the three anonymous defendants, who chose to make comments on the site using pseudonyms, had “a reasonable expectation of anonymity.”

full article: ‘Aurora critics can remain anonymous, judge rules’ — Canada.com

Well! That would take the wind out of certain excitable chartered accountant/neophyte property developer types and their tireless promoters threatening all kinds of litigative fury against a certain discussion forum, its posters and moderators …
Continue reading →

Lucky to get out …

A while ago I was on a mid-winter tour with one of my authors and to end the trip we held a final session in Queenstown — arguably New Zealand’s ski capital.  My events manager and I were booked to fly back to Auckland while our author and his spouse planned to take the ‘scenic route’.

Well, being winter, with snow falling during our workshop, we kept an eye on the airport. An approaching snow storm threatened to close it at any moment. We ended up catching the last flight out before they closed the airport for a few days. My author ended up on a coach plowing through the snow with cars lost in drifts left and right of him. High adventure over mountain roads…

Digging 'our' plane out of the snow ... Queenstown Airport 25 July 2011 (Pic by Peter Aranyi)

Fast forward to yesterday and a brilliant week-long family ski trip (it’s school holidays) during which we had fabulous weather conditions ended with a chains-on-4WD trip over the Crown Range (Wanaka to Queenstown) and our arrival at the airport for our flight to Auckland to see a Jetstar plane on the snow-blanketed tarmac. (Well, that’s a good sign, we said, not knowing it was a Christchurch flight  stranded from the night before.)

A departures board lit up with ‘Cancelled’ except for our flight with the encouraging ‘Delayed’ motif … after all, there was a plane there, and they could bus people to Christchurch (also in snow) but not to subtropical Auckland.

Long story short: A measly five hour delay, no drama, and we were on our way.  I think we were the only flight in or out of Queenstown yesterday.

Lucky! Again.

Genius

Chris Riddell on the phone-hacking scandal The Guardian (click)

The measure of character

Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston on his howler:

COLUMN-How I misread News Corp’s taxes: David Cay Johnston

Readers, I apologize. The premise of my debut column for Reuters, on News Corp’s taxes, was wrong, 100 percent dead wrong.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback. That is what journalists call a retraction of the premise of a piece, as in peeling back your skin and feeling the pain. I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause.

No excuses. But I will explain how I made such a bonehead error. …

and later

The measure of character, I say in my posts and lectures, is whether when an error is found you forthrightly and promptly correct.

Good work unpicking it.

– P

The attribution argy-bargy. Recidivist HuffPo ruffles feathers.

A teacher of mine used to say: ‘The only person who knows how far is ‘too far’ is the person who goes too far.’

One of 28 million images that pop up in Google search for 'pirate' ... (pic: Joahim Van der Graff ...via Tech Crunch)

With respect, NO, sometimes it’s blindingly obvious for others to see. Such as The Huffington Post’s relentless ‘aggregation’ — ‘Driving traffic, Darling’, says Arianna Huffington justifying the activities of the largely parasitic enterprise bearing her [ex-Husband’s] name.

In my view, expressed here before, HuffPo cynically exploits other news organizations and writers by scraping their content and relentless (laughable once you twig to it) SEO-pimping. The decline in quality has been noticeable, and fighting that by pinching MORE stuff from others and token linking is weak sauce. See also:Plagiarism as a business model.

Here’s a post by online columnist Simon Dumenco writing at AdAge who objected to heavy-handed appropriation of his content and received an ‘apology’ with news that Huffington Post had ‘suspended indefinitely’ the underling writer who did it … ignoring the oh-so-obvious fact that she was merely doing as she had been shown to do in the culture of Huffington Post.

What It’s Like to Get Used and Abused by The Huffington Post

The Blog Queen Defends Her Aggregation Practices by Saying She Drives Traffic. Oh, Really?
By: Simon Dumenco

One of the great and pressing questions of the post-blog age is: What constitutes unfair — unethical — aggregation? In the absence of a clear legal framework (the “fair use” doctrine in the U.S. is notoriously mushy), a lot of media people tend to use the “I know it when I see it” standard, echoing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s wry 1964 declaration about what constitutes hard-core porn.

Bill Keller, the outgoing editor of The New York Times, knows sketchy aggregation when he sees it. In his column in the Times Magazine in March, he famously attacked certain aggregators for “taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material. In Somalia this would be called piracy.” He then added, “The queen of aggregation is, of course, Arianna Huffington.” …

Worth a read. And so is his follow-up.

Thanks for the Apology, Huffington Post. Now Please Apologize to the Writer You Suspended

An Open Letter From Our Media Guy to Peter S. Goodman
By: Simon Dumenco

Read ’em and weep.

John Gruber’s comment On attribution and credit seems a good way forward to me.

Huffington Post’s smash-and-grab performance was bad enough before the AOL purchase.

– P

Watching paint dry with Steve Lambert

I have a collection of quirky 404 pages in an album ThePaepae’s Facebook page.

Here’s a new one thanks to Marco Arment (Instapaper) retweeting Daniel Jalkut (MarsEdit) … it’s funny, dude.

Steve Lambert effortlessly slides through awkward into hilarious. Gnarly!

Do it: http://visitsteve.com/404.html

Is Bernard Hickey channeling the Cybermen?

One of the Cybermen from Dr Who

As someone who has occasionally (ahem) run foul of ‘Moderation policies’ at a discussion forum (don’t get me started) I was bemused when I noticed this interaction (below) on interest.co.nz

I don’t know or care what the anonymous/pseudonymous poster wrote. It must have been blinkin’ bad to raise the ire of the normally fairly laissez-faire Bernard Hickey, barkeep and piano player at the frontier town saloon that is interest.co.nz.

See Bernard’s serious-sounding last warning: ‘You will be deleted.’

I recall there was a legendary Dr Who villain who used that phrase …

Anonymous commenting can lead to all sorts of toxic flannel, vitriol and smears. Good on them at interest.co.nz for trying to keep it seemly and mucking out the stables.

‘Deletion’, seems pretty tough though.
See how it’s done, below the fold
Continue reading →

A little bit of understanding of Asperger

Congratulations to journalist Janet McIntyre, giving us an insight into life for someone with Asperger syndrome via her ‘A tale of two light bulbs‘ documentary.

I hope some more understanding of these people will result from such public/media exposure. (Is that too much to hope?) We discuss Asperger here on ThePaepae.com from time to time — my ‘umble effort to challenge the ignorant stereotype-based ‘bashing’.

Media commentator Russell Brown has spoken/written about this situation before, and his blog post today Angry and thrilled about Arie is worth a read.

And yet, as angry as I am about what has happened to Arie, I was also thrilled by last night’s programme. Thrilled to see a young Asperger man speak at such length on prime-time television, to be given such an opportunity to be understood and recognised for the person he is. For that, Janet McIntyre and the rest of the Sunday team, I am deeply grateful. Thank you.

To hear that the NZ Police informed the Sunday programme they are “under criminal investigation” seemed ludicrous and intimidatory last night. Such actions convey a distinct odour of cover-up to me. Here’s the NZ Herald story … Police investigate TVNZ looter story

At the end of the Sunday segment, presenter Miriama Kamo said the programme received an email from Christchurch Central Police Area Commander Inspector Derek Erasmus advising they were “under criminal investigation” in relation to the story.
Inspector Erasmus watched the Sunday story last night and confirmed the programme was being investigated.
“Police confirm that they are investigating the actions of the Sunday programme in relation to their dealings with parties in the case.

Seems crazy. Respect for the police is only diminished by refusal to consider their own actions — and over reactions(?) Time for them to put things in perspective and acknowledge ‘differences’ exist.

– P

In praise of Cameron Slater (yeah, I’m surprised too)

If you’d suggested to me a year ago that I would be writing an article in praise of ‘WhaleOil’ blogger Cameron Slater I would have laughed at you. Hard. Yet, here I am doing just that. Let me explain.

We’ve discussed these issues before: responding to criticism or negative feedback about one’s actions or statements, engaging with those with whom you disagree. I personally believe there’s a lot to be gained from both these practices, and I try to partake in them.

Hardly a clash of titans. Token right-winger Cameron Slater makes his case on Martyn Bradbury's 'Citizen A' TV show. Entertaining ... but clichéd?

Like a lot of people interested in NZ politics, I occasionally hear of Cameron Slater and read his sometimes elaborately denigrating blog posts. I mentioned him here on ThePaepae.com when he was emoting ‘outrage’ at Rodney Hide’s face plastered on a web graphic of a swastika flag (and that image being reposted on North Shore mayor Andrew Williams’ facebook page).  As many thought local government minister Rodney was actually acting in an unbecoming ‘We must be obeyed’ manner to do with the Auckland super city amalgamation, the swastika was fair comment in my opinion.

‘Disgusting, foul beyond belief! ‘ Cam thundered, gleefully (it looked to me) clutching another club with which to strike Williams, whom he clearly despised. I (gently) accused Cam of mock outrage at the time, and I know others who read Cam’s ‘wounded feelings’ on behalf of Rodney  and saw them as shallow and contrived — especially when considered alongside the sort of unrestrained invective and polemic Cam dishes out to those unlucky enough to incur his disfavour.

Anyway, I’m not a regular reader of Cam’s blog but a couple of years ago I did notice that it frequently refers (in supportive tones) to another free-speaking blog by the acerbic Cactus Kate — asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/ — a thin pseudonym for Hong Kong-based Kiwi lawyer Cathy Odgers (Tagline: Saving the world from sanctimonious bearded men. One whisker removed at a time.)  She’s fun reading at times too, with her claims to be part of the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) and at times giving the appearance of positively delighting in being politically incorrect. She’s a laff.

Some of her material appears to be aimed at baiting left-wingers (the people Cam with his true blue National Party heritage calls ‘pinkos‘ — his dad is ex National Party president John Slater and involved with the National-Party-in-drag Citizens & Ratepayers Assn.) That’s low-hanging fruit in NZ, as a small c conservative country, and there’ll always be a market for it.

Incidentally Cathy/Catctus Kate’s blog is pretty-well respected in the blogosphere for being contrarian e.g. going to bat for Mark Hotchin (as a purely altrustic measure, it seems), pointing out repeatedly that he was being demonised (a ‘hate campaign’ I called it here) and that popular whipping boy Hanover Finance hadn’t cost the taxpayer a dollar in bailouts … unlike the South Canterbury Finance fiasco.  She also clearly puts the effort in to analyse financial statements and isn’t afraid to put out  a minority viewpoint. Indeed, judging by correspondence, I think she relishes it.  She also constructs a pretty good argument and never wastes time calling a spade a gardening implement.

All good fun, whether you or I agree with her on everything or not. A little while ago Cathy kinda sorta ‘came out‘ as a one-eyed ultra-loyal ACT supporter (‘unequivocally’, ‘staunchest female’ ‘even voted for Donna Awatere-Huata’) — it fitted. I may have missed an earlier declaration, but wasn’t exactly surprised. Never mind.
Continue reading →

The escape of exnzpat, Part 7

The Apothecary

“Come Exnzpat, come.”  But it wasn’t Lilith’s voice I heard.  Nor was it Becky’s.  Something or someone else was calling me…

“Did you say something?”  Becky asked.

“No, it wasn’t me.  But I did hear someone calling my name… did you hear something too?”

“Yes.  But… but I also heard someone crying…”

I looked at her, surprised.  “Crying… that’s weird.”

“Weirder than any of all of this!” she exclaimed.  Becky stopped and swept her arm back in the direction we had come.

The view… Whoa! Continue reading →

Capital Gains Tax: ‘Politics is the art of polarization’

The NZ Labour Party has (deliberately) let the cat out of the bag with its ‘soft launch’ confirmation that a Capital Gains Tax in some form will be part of its election policy for November 2011.

My pal Andrew King (NZ Property Investors Federation president) told TVNZ7 news he doesn't think a proposed Capital Gains Tax — just on investment property — is fair ... nor actually likely to be introduced.

Cue the scary music!  And the completely predictable howls of outrage (some justified) with cries of ‘unfair’, ‘inconsistent’, ‘distortionary’, ‘complicated’ and ‘this-will-only-make-the-tax-practitioners-rich’. Yada, yada, blah, blah…

Also cue the lip-smacking of Labour’s opponents on the right, whose political philosophy has kept NZ the largely unregulated (read: ‘ripe for pillage’) wild-west ‘free market’ (cough) low-decile country that we are, compared to Australia while aspiring to some sort of free market ‘puritanism’, even at our own expense.

Cue also the equally reflexive ‘thump the rich’ cock-a-doodle-dooo! from those who think (falsely, in my view) that it’s about time the country’s property investors ‘paid their share’ and that property speculators (said in the same tones as ‘scum sucking bottom feeders’) are taxed on their profits (if they make any, from that risky venture).

Keep the presses rolling!

Just what we need: MORE tax changes? Erk!

As the editor and publisher of Mark Withers’ Property Tax – A New Zealand Investor’s Guide (4th edition being prepared now) and Tony Steindle’s Property Law  – A New Zealand Investor’s Guide you might think I’d have welcomed the last few years of uncertainty and upheaval in our tax system — landmark changes to the taxation treatment of real estate investment, and wider changes affecting every taxpayer. Um, no, not really.

I actually have some sympathy for the point of view that the uncertainty now sparked by Labour’s CGT policy-in-embryo is good news for the accountants and ‘legal structure specialists’ … but for most investors it’ll just mean more time, money and energy spent on visits to those accountants and lawyers — just as some are getting their head around the demise of their Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies. It’s been a big few years and some of us are feeling a bit punch drunk.

Labour’s political opponents, and some in the media (same thing?) are already feeling galvanised by (at last!) having a simpleton’s ‘point of difference’ to hammer emphasise between the pretty much tweedledum and tweedledee two main parties. National under Key has cuddled so close to Labour for sound reasons  of electoral popularity — ‘Labour Lite’ was a nickname for the Nats making the rounds awhile — that Labour really had nowhere to go but left. Quite correct. Continue reading →