Carrick Graham when he was employed as a flack for British American Tobacco. (click to view at Getty Images)
It’s hard to believe, I know, that such an innocent looking guy (above) could possibly be involved in a protracted, commercially motivated series of smear campaigns, taking advantage of a half-wit and his website to personally and repeatedly demean and attack public health advocates.
But look:
And here it is in the news, citing Carrick Graham’s (and his easily-led accomplice’s) apparent “campaign of deliberate and sustained defamation.”…
click to read at stuff.co.nz
Given what we already know from Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, it seems to me Professor Swinburn, Professor Sellman and Shane Bradbrook should be quickly able to dispense with any ‘honest opinion’ fig leaf/defence offered by the slippery PR flack and his ethically-challenged hireling.
You may recall, Hager’s book (and material publicly released by the [alleged] hacker Rawshark/Whaledump) demonstrated Carrick Graham repeatedly spoon-fed ghostwritten “KR [Katherine Rich] hits” to Slater Jnr to publish under his byline – as if they’d been written by Slater Jnr and were his (cough) opinion. Hahaha.
That approach seems deceitful and in bad faith to me. I can imagine a judge finding the repeated personal attacks published on Carrick Graham’s behalf (or for Carrick Graham’s clients, Mrs Rich?) were motivated by malice or commercial considerations. Certainly Slater Jnr appears to have been paid for publishing the smears, just as he was for the apparently Mark Hotchin-funded campaigns against Adam Feeley and Sean Hughes.
The crude and nasty sock puppetry in the PR attack blog’s comments stream also speaks of dishonesty and ill-motivations.
This won’t be a quick process (legal matters can be sloooow). Slater Jnr is already (typically) talking big (come in, Judith Collins). He’s barking out threats of more smears; hypocritically complaining Carrick Graham’s targets are trying to silence free speech (!); and using the occasion to get his enabler Pete Belt to issue begging letters (‘Wah! They’re suing us! Send money!’) to his cult-like website readers.
It’s good to see these health advocates and professionals pushing back against the dirty PR slime machine run by Carrick Graham and his glove puppet. I wish them well.
– P
PS: Some of us have seen the Slater PR attack blog and its tactics for what they are for ages. I first posted this mini-guide in 2011:
Update: Of course Carrick Graham dresses that up a bit. Here’s an extract from his (unsuccessful?) pitch for services to Nestlé. Look how he specifically mentions Otago University‘s food science programme, and (lol) offers to provide “communications” “countering efforts to demonise Nestlé” and “countering negative commentary”. So smooth.
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open, but may be moderated.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi
Here’s the media release issued by the three public health advocates:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1606/S00148/defamation-proceedings-against-graham-slater.htm
Press Release: Boyd Swinburn
Defamation proceedings against Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater
13th June 2016
Today, we have filed defamation proceedings in the High Court at Auckland against Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater.
The proceedings relate to a series of blog posts and comments published on the Whale Oil website. For some years, Whale Oil has published articles with a negative focus on various public health experts and advocates. It was not until the book Dirty Politics was published in August 2014 that it became clear Carrick Graham was involved in the publication of material on Whale Oil.
We had hoped things would change, but the various articles and comments remain live on Whale Oil, and Mr Slater has continued to publish further material. Accordingly, we have decided to bring these proceedings to address what we claim is a campaign of deliberate and sustained defamation.
While we will continue to speak and write on important public health issues, we will be making no further comment on the matters at issue in the defamation proceedings as they are properly dealt with by the Court.
Professor Doug Sellman
Professor Boyd Swinburn
Shane Bradbrook
ENDS
Here’s Carrick Graham’s somewhat oddly worded response to being served:
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2016/06/Carrick_Graham__statement_re_defamation_action.jpg
Posted to Twitter although he seems to have blocked a fair number of Twitter users interested in the issues he … um … engages in from time to time (including me).