I read this wonderful line in Michele Manelis’ preview of Skyfall, the latest Bond movie:
Javier Barden stars as Raoul Silva, and brings the sinister-yet-comedic element to the story. This over-the-top baddie is as playful as he is psychotic, but of course, underneath it all, he feels that he’s simply “misunderstood”.
Which reminded me of blogger Cameron Slater (how could it not?) …
Cameron has been trying to ‘walk back’ his apparent confession …
Cameron Slater on Media3 Nov 2012 (MP3 file here)
— broadcast on Russell Brown’s Media 3 yesterday — that he’d been paid to present ‘lines’ for PR companies, undeclared, on his blog. (boo, hiss)
#Media3: “Have you ever demanded money from PR companies to run certain lines?” Cameron Slater: “Absolutely.” ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Media-3-Season…
— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) November 16, 2012
Naturally, an admission of hidden influence in the media (even from a journalist-denier like Cameron Slater) prompted some a-twittering. You can hear the surprise in Russell Brown’s voice, above. Naturally, some, um, conjecture popped up, about WHO Cameron might be propagandising for … The NZ Herald‘s Fran O’Sullivan suggested Ports of Auckland …
@CitizenBomber Possibly the PR sleaze balls that were running POAL campaign – seeking others run their lines. Not honest.
— Fran O’Sullivan (@FranOSullivan) November 16, 2012
But I recalled Cameron had specifically denied receiving ‘one cent’ from the Ports company for his campaign smearing and denigrating the disputing port workers. He did that as a hobby, apparently. Or from conviction. (cough) See my post Of bloggers, dogs and fleas. The Ports of Auckland’s ‘ethical and legal breaches’ and reiterated here in ‘Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf?‘
Nevertheless, there are other possibilities. Knowing who exactly Cameron’s PR company sugar daddies might be would satisfy some curiosity … but it’s not an essential point. Cameron recently indicated the scale of ‘honest’ (to use Fran’s term) advertising income his blog generates:
$251 per month is somewhat disheartening, huh? And that’s NZ’s “most-visted blog”.
No wonder Cameron was so pleased to get the anti-MMP banner advertising gig from his mates Simon Lusk and Jordan Williams prior to the referendum last year. I’m sure it was a coincidence that, unlike Cactus Kate and others who carried the VFC ads, Cameron seemed to eagerly regurgitate many of their ‘lines’, their Facebook media releases and ‘Play the ball not the man’ personal attack ad videos on his blog. (As a hobby. I’m sure.)
Now, echoing Raoul Silva, Cameron says those of us (Russell Brown, Fran O’Sullivan, Martyn Bradbury, others) who drew that ‘confession’ interpretation from his answer to Russell’s question on Media 3 … we have misunderstood him. Riiiiight.
No, he hasn’t been paid, he now says.
No sirree.
He just “absolutely” demanded money from PR companies in return for running certain lines on his blog.
But because they didn’t actually pay him, he says (at least that’s what I think he says) he’s in the clear?
Um. What do you think?
@onthepaepae @publicaddress finally a correct quote…people seem to be equating demanding with receiving…very silly
— Whaleoil (@Whaleoil) November 17, 2012
‘equating demanding with receiving …very silly’ – Indeed.
By Cameron’s fevered reasoning, he clearly feels there’s nothing wrong with him pumping undeclared paid ‘advertorial’ and PR propaganda through his partisan sphincter to his blog’s witless, er, half-wit, no, unwitting audience.
So long as Cameron agrees with the propaganda message, that’s Cameron’s integrity in action.
Just to be clear, I asked him:
. @whaleoil So you demanded money for blogging PR lines but now say _you didn’t get paid_? That’s your ‘DEFENCE’? j.mp/T30AYz#sad
— Peter Aranyi (@onThePaepae) November 17, 2012
Which he didn’t like. (He called me ‘whiny’. Is that an improvement on ‘Feedback from Cameron Slater: ‘gay’ ‘? Dunno.)
For someone who uses the phrase ‘In the interests of transparency’ (apparently without irony) it seems to me Cameron Slater has demonstrated once again he sometimes acts in a shabby manner.
– P
PS I did not use the word ‘batshit’ in this post.
Oh dear and you were doing so well too. You had managed to not do a post about Whaleoil for ages. You even managed to sit on your hands when the whole internet was ablaze with the news of him becoming the Editor of Truth.You and Bomber should have coffee sometime to discuss you mutual indignation at his success.You have so much in common with each other. To your credit however you allow my comments ( rare as they are ) to be posted while he only posts comments that make him look good. I suspect he has lower self esteem than you and can’t handle the Truth ( cough )
Hello Juana.
You (and your husband) seem to be keeping count. I’m not. I don’t have a quota of ‘lines’ about Cameron, nor anything else, that I have to fulfil or avoid for my shadowy PR paymasters. 🙂
I’m sure I’ve told you before, I bear no personal ill-will toward Cameron nor toward his professional success, and I’ve never acted to disadvantage him. (Unlike his actions against me. Ask him what I mean.)
And for fixation, look no further than Whaleoil:
Lynn Prentice 313 entries,
Chris Trotter 1630 entries
Chris Carter 2310 entries
(I daren’t search for the Trevor Mallard tag.)
I can see why you might suppose otherwise, but Martyn Bradbury and I aren’t pals. We’ve met once (briefly) when I was covering a MANA Party policy launch for radio news during last year’s election campaign. We’ve never met for a drink.
I think the excitable Martyn still
hates my gutshas issues with me because I stood up against him (on Twitter and online) for Cactus Kate’s right to participate in the democratic process, and I blogged that Cameron was the best thing about his now-cancelled(?) Access TV show.I don’t think THIS post helped, either: Bradbury: Martyr or moderated troll?
Sorry, were you and Cameron hoping for a reaction from me to his new job? (I didn’t realise.) Here you go:
“Well, let’s see how that works out.”
-P
1) The V4C banner campaign you speak of had no editorial component to it. Anything that was written by any blogger was not part of our campaign brief.
2) In regards to Russell’s question “Have you ever demanded money from PR companies to run certain lines?” my answer would also be Absolutely. The facts are that PR companies, as Cam pointed out, try to leverage audiences for free. I cannot recall one instance where we have demanded payment for running PR spin where a PR company has been happy to part with cash. It’s just not how it works. They get paid to get publicity. They just don’t pay for it.
Hi Regan, thanks for your comments.
I asked Cameron at the time what the financial arrangements were because his zealous advocacy of the anti-MMP campaign seemed over the top, as noted above.
I was in contact with a number of observers, one of whom pointed out a striking correspondence of VFC ‘talking points’ … which seemed to appear on Cameron’s blog in concert with David Farrar’s. From memory: “List MPs vote against the wishes of their party”, “Can’t get rid of Mallard because he’s #9”, “Blame MMP for ACT’s criminal justice machinations”, vacuous hate speech directed at Andrew Williams etc.
A simpler explanation, one which I tend to favour now, is that unoriginal Cameron just copies stuff from wherever he can, and the VFC propaganda fluffed up his blog.
It’s easy to get all nanoo-nanoo and VRWC-theory about things. But there was I thought pretty well informed gossip — but gossip none the less — that Cameron was paid for more than just the ads by VFC. That’s why I asked him.
You can read that conversation in the comment stream on Cameron’s blog here: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/09/booting-bad-politicians/
The interchange is worth a read, if I may be so immodest. [More clicks for Open Parachute to record… ;-)]
Cameron’s denial was bald:
Like I said above: A hobby.
(Unless instead of money someone gave him, say, a gun? Or was that for assistance with the ACT leadership coup?)
– P
Sorry Peter calling someone out for being unoriginal but all you do here is copy stuff. You use words like “I read this article and I agree” Most of which is opinion begin pieces to begin with.
Completely fair cop. Shameful of me as a fellow parasite to even mention it.
– P
Craig, just to show I possess a scintilla of self-awareness, see my confession Nov 2009: http://www.thepaepae.com/microsoft-helping-de-list-news-sites-from-google/1412/
I was wondering about that comment. Is Cameron saying that he has demanded money, but never actually received any? If so, that’s actually kind of pathetic.
Or is his point that in using the term ‘receive’ rather than ‘demand’ people are technically getting the quote wrong? If so, that’s just sophistry. Maybe I’m missing something.
Hi Steve, I think your first suggested interpretation is correct, but in my observation Cameron Slater has a propensity to try to use weasel words and pedantic, evasive language to cover his dishonesty. He’s not alone in that, obviously.
”Naive and evasive” is how a Judge described Cameron’s replies to questions about his actions (see: http://www.thepaepae.com/thin-skinned-media-critic-cameron-slater-spits-dummy/20312/) That’s certainly been the impression Cameron has made on me at times too. I’ve challenged him about it, privately and publicly, at times —which he does not like.
Personally (and this is just a theory) I don’t think Cameron could deny the ‘demanding money’ question, having previously written about it. Perhaps he didn’t think through the implications of admitting to running undeclared PR company ‘lines’ on his blog … it’s a shocking admission to a journalist, no matter how Cameron tries to spin it (audio clip, above).
Cameron’s justification that such undeclared propagandising is somehow acceptable/honourable because he agrees with the ‘opinions’ is plainly ludicrous and idiotic.
Lastly, don’t underestimate Cameron’s envy and hot resentment of those who he sees as having made a good living out of propagandising, Matthew Hooton and Martyn Bradbury among them. He sees himself as far more worthy of financial reward than they are, smarter and a harder worker, and is genuinely galled by the relative paucity of his own income. Those feelings are a driver for him. (These views are, of course, my personal opinion.)
– P
Yeah I thought the first option was the right one, but I was honestly surprised enough to wonder. I’m also surprised more people didn’t pick up on it on Twitter. I mean, obviously his admission that he has “demanded” payment is noteworthy. But if it also transpires that these demands by the unashamed capitalist Whale oil, notorious blogger and fearless bane of the woolly liberals, have been ignored, then surely that’s noteworthy too. And, as i said, kind of pathetic.
If Cameron is anything, he is audacious. It’s one of the qualities I like in him.
He’s misguided with respect to this issue.
– P
And by the way, have you ever seen intelligent people interrogated in court.
The first thing they do is apply Nativity and are evasive just like your mate. Sir Douglas Graham. And using a statement by a judge does not seal the deal, which you constantly do here.
I am sure the likes Sir Douglas Graham and Allan Hubbard for example are decent people. But you consistently use the Logical Fallacy of Cause and affect in times that suit you! Quite frankly its disgusting and embarrassing.
Don’t feel bad Craig. It’s OK.
I completely disagree with your interpretation of what you think I do.
Also, in my view, that court mention was completely relevant and justified given Cameron’s reversion to his MO in this instance — reaching for the greasy ‘I’ve been misquoted!’, ‘I never said that!’ and mealy-mouthed evasiveness.
Take a step back and listen to the audio clip which was all about justifying why he, as a blogger running PR company ‘lines’ (without disclosure) *should* be PAID … then in post-coital regret, out came his spin that the ‘conversation’ with Russel Brown was about ‘demanding payment’?
BS.
Its not what I think you do.
Its what YOU DO – at least here on your blog unless you have a secret logon section that I don’t access.
You cannot think one thing write another and be misinterpreted ALL THE TIME.
I will listen to audio clip in the next day or so.
I don’t regularly read this blog, but based on this blog post and the one Peter linked to re the judge’s comments, I really can’t see what you’re on about, Craig. What was “disgusting and embarrassing”?
The point about evasiveness and related reference back to the judge’s comments was clearly relevant to Slater’s own comments around the ‘demands’ for PR money.
I realise its christmas … but please dont drag the Nativity into this discussion! Poor old Jesus … just by being born he gets dragged into discussions no matter what.
I suspect the word you search for … is naievete or somesuch – Although i wouldnt put it past Key and National to invoke the Nativity and claim they were a first cousin of the second shepherd in the stable …
And by the by its probably high time the logic of cause and effect was acknowledged …
“the whole internet was ablaze with the news of him becoming the Editor of Truth.”
The “whole internet”? “ablaze”??
Hmm….a few blogs in NZ mention it, and that becomes ‘the whole internet erupts in a raging inferno’..
You should scribble something for Mills and Boon, there’s obviously a niche just waiting to be filled.
Most of us are supremely uninterested in what philanderers and legends in their own lunchboxes do with their lives.
Hi KG.
Yes, I grinned at Juana’s ‘the whole internet was ablaze’ comment too. (Perhaps hyperbolic exaggeration runs in the family?)
I’m sure it must have been welcome news to Juana and Cameron’s family & friends, and fair enough.
Scott Yorke has a quietly satirical take on the unseemly ‘pay bloggers to run PR company lines’ idea:
My rate card
Read his post for the fine print on how it works.
http://www.imperatorfish.com/2012/11/my-rate-card.html
[…] We last discussed this idea of ‘paying bloggers to take certain lines’ in this post: ‘As playful as he is psychotic’ which included some interesting discussion, if I may be so immodest, in the comments […]
[…] for. The PaePae provides a good explanation of the background to the exposure of this in “As playful as he is psychotic“, including the links to Cameron admitting this in November 2012 on Russell Brown’s […]
[…] * You know, “…the whole internet was ablaze with the news of him becoming the Editor of Truth.”… […]
[…] about Cameron Slater has branched into a considering whether, being accused by others of ’running certain lines for PR companies — although he denies ‘receiving’ payments he ‘demanded’ (?) — if […]
[…] http://www.thepaepae.com/as-playful-as-he-is-psychotic/ […]
[…] whole lot of pretence and deception going on out there in the wild west of the web.That whole ’running certain lines for PR companies‘ thing is something real, denials […]
[…] blog the basis that the attack lines fit in with his personal political beliefs. (Listen to the audio here. Maybe Steven Prices’s ‘deranged’ label is fairer than I first thought?) Slater […]
[…] own admission that he has demanded money to run certain PR lines (see also Peter’s post “As playful as he is psychotic”). To me, that’s an ethical quandary that goes to journalistic integrity, not the question of […]
[…] The PaePae – “As playful as he is psychotic” […]