Setting a narrative: ‘aggressive’ ‘hostile’ ‘antagonistic’ ‘tabloid’ media

Fairly carefully thought-out impromptu comments? …


Lost that loving feeling? John Key interviewed by Leighton Smith on his perceptions of change in attitude by ‘the media’.

Immediately reported as:

POOR ME — that's a pretty tough headline!

POOR ME — that's a pretty tough headline!

and this:   Continue reading →

Oops. ‘Secret’ document published, then declassified.

From Secrecy News… Great title for a secret report: Maybe You Had to Be There: The SIGINT on Thirteen Soviet Shootdowns of U.S. Reconnaissance Aircraft.
Who knew cryptologists had such a sense of humor?

NSA Declassifies Secret Document After Publishing It

May 14th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood
The National Security Agency last week invoked a rarely-used authority in order to declassify a classified document that was mistakenly posted on the NSA website with all of its classified passages intact.

The article is a historical study entitled Maybe You Had to Be There: The SIGINT on Thirteen Soviet Shootdowns of U.S. Reconnaissance Aircraft. It was written by Michael L. Peterson and was originally published in the classified journal Cryptologic Quarterly in 1993.

Late in the afternoon of May 11 (not May 9 as stated on the NSA website), the NSA published a formally declassified version of the article with the annotation “Declassified and approved for release by NSA… pursuant to E.O. 13526 section 3.1(d)….”

Read on at Secrecy News (another playful title!) including this nugget of real politik/how bureaucrats work:

But [giving the NSA a four day extension to answer questions about the document] proved to be a futile gesture on our part, since the NSA Public Affairs Office in the end refused to answer any of the questions we posed. In retrospect, it appears that NSA never intended to answer any of our questions but simply wanted to preempt the reposting of the classified document by hastily declassifying it.

– P

Thanks to @trevortimm

“Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”

Mandy Ride-Davies quipped about transparent denial

Similarities

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and Rice-Davies, the latter made a famous riposte. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, former model and showgirl Mandy Rice-Davies (right) replied, “Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”Wikipedia

“Mr Slater has denied that the emails are the product of a burglary, and says he has committed no crime in obtaining or publishing the contents.” — NZ Herald

Well, he would, wouldn’t he?


Yesterday in Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf? I mentioned Cameron Slater’s evident frustration at being ‘barely acknowledged‘ and ‘ignored‘ by the very media he emotes to so despise.

Today he’s offering to pass on his tranche of dishonestly/innocently obtained emails (you decide) “… to any reputable journalist who calls. First in first served.” (This, of course, while the police are presumably investigating a complaint that the emails are stolen property. How’s that for an attractive proposition?)

Cameron’s overt pleas for validation by mainstream journalists perhaps indicate he is beginning to catch a whiff of his own stench, and realize just how his disreputable smear campaign tactics are perceived.

It’s a start I guess.

– P

PS: Mandy got ‘in the papers’ … Continue reading →

BYOB and self-direction

I don’t always agree with VC Fred Wilson, although I find him worth reading. He’s got this right:

20120514-082000.jpg

It’s one thing to build your business on the infrastructure of someone else. Publishers do that all the time (hopefully adding value). It’s quite another to be their poodle. Dependent. This is not just an ‘attitude’ thing. It’s a question of control — and, below that, to do with brute economic power.

Visit Fred Wilson’s site and read some of the comments…

– P

The snort of recognition: Happy Mother’s Day

We’ve been chuckling at this all day…

A polite request from Plunderbund: ‘Please unblock our ads’

As we’ve discussed, a lot of web browsers (people not software) — including me — have installed ad-blocking software. In my case, I was driven to it by feverishly animated Air NZ ads on the NZ Herald website and whirling dervish property spruiker ads on PropertyTalk.

So, look what I spotted following a search result  to the PlunderBund website …

Clever. Their site detects I'm blocking ads and asks me not to. ('Please consider helping Plunderbund and unblocking ads for our site. Instructions.')

The ‘instructions‘ when you read them, are a very reasonably-worded request, with background…

Ad revenue is what enables us to do what we do. It’s how we fund our reporting, overhead (site expenses, supplies), etc. If you are running AdBlock, or similar advertisement blocking software, please consider helping us out and whitelisting Plunderbund in your software. Since most of our advertising revenue is sold per-impression, the more eyeballs that see the ad, the more revenue we get – and that means more resources we can bring to bear when it comes to generating content.

In AdBlock, whitelisting Plunderbund looks like this:
@@||www.plunderbund.com
Instructions for Norton can be found at Symantec’s website.
We sincerely appreciate your support.

Bravo to them for making the request. I keep one browser (Chrome) unfiiltered, so popped over to see how the page looks. Not great: Continue reading →

Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf?

Cameron Slater seems aggrieved that some in ‘the media’ don’t actually trust him. Surprise!

We’ve discussed before Dan Gilmor’s concept of ‘Negative Credibility‘ — the idea that sometimes information can have an appearance of LESS VERACITY because of its source.

Gilmor pointed to Andrew Breitbart’s exposé of the Weiner/underpants/twitter ‘scandal’ (triggered by Rep. Weiner accidentally tweeting a photo as a public reply when he meant to send a DM, we suspect) … saying because the story was coming from Breitbart (a notorious partisan political propagandist and internet storm trooper) he was inclined to believe it less. Even though it was true, as it turns out.

Reality bites Cameron Slater?

Following hard on the heels of Chris Trotter’s recent assessment that as a result of publicising personnel files unethically leaked by the Ports of Auckland company, NZ blogger (and Breitbart wannabe?) Cameron Slater “… faces the “complete loss” of any “journalistic credibility [he was] beginning to establish in the mainstream media”, I observed this:

  • Cameron Slater publicly complaining about his latest tranche of dubiously-acquired documents (and accompanying vitriolic ‘commentary’) being largely ignored by the ‘main stream media’.
  • Despite his best efforts, Cameron himself being specifically rebuffed by the producers and journalists at TVNZ’s Sunday programme, in these terms … (waaah!):

I have spoken to Sundays’ John Hudson and his producer, I offered to share the relevant & pertinent information which would allow a TRUE story to be told. Thus far Sunday & John Hudson have barely acknowledged me and chosen to ignore the information I have.

Well, I’m sure they have their reasons. At a guess, I’d say it has something to do with Chris Trotter’s analysis: Cameron’s loss of credibility.

Cameron acting as a volunteer (cough) spin doctor for the Port company, and — as he did for Simon Lusk‘s murky anti-MMP campaign (sniff) — making his partisan blog a conduit for what the NZ Herald called ‘ethical and legal breaches‘ has consequences. One of those, I suspect is a natural inclination to ask the question: Whose bitch er, ‘public relations strategist’ is Cameron Slater being now, in his latest hate war?

David Farrar — Facts may be smaller than they appear

On the other hand, in blogger David Farrar’s case, there’s no question about whose bi… um, who he’s working for: The National Party.

Continue reading →

Chris Trotter on the Urewera Four. Wow!

I’ve held off making any comment about the Crown decision, announced this week, not to retrry the ‘Urewera Four’ on charges of ‘belonging to an organised criminal group’ after their original trial jury failed to reach a verdict on those charges. This, despite my own (default?) views of police powers, disclosed here before.

But wow! I’ve just read Chris Trotter’s article about the case: In a Weakened State at his Bowalley Rd blog. If you care about such matters, as I do, it’s a MUST READ. Seriously good, and, unlike some more pedestrian analysis, it offered some surprising angles, including:

Bluntly, the accused’s’ defence team and their tireless army of propagandists ran rings around the Crown. They not only won a significant political victory in terms of the “Urewera Four” case, but their undeniable success in making the Crown look both weak and stupid will very likely deter its servants from attempting anything similar for many years to come. It will require a very brave Police Commissioner indeed to repeat Howard Broad’s gutsy call of 2007. (emphasis added)

Go and read it, and enjoy the dissonance of someone like Chris Trotter lamenting, almost, our security agencies’ lack of a team of decent spies(!) …

The other fatal flaw in Operation Eight was its (no doubt US inspired) fascination and reliance on technologically acquired intelligence. Neither the Police Security Intelligence Unit (PSIU) nor the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), appear to have anything remotely resembling an effective spy network.

I agree with him about the police and SIS fixation with toys. But this nails it as far as I’m concerned:

Assistant Police Commissioner, Jon White’s, operationally brutal and strategically idiotic raid on the sleepy Tuhoe village of Ruatoki destroyed any chance the Crown might have had of mounting a successful prosecution of the fledgling Urewera guerrilla force. The NZ Police utterly underestimated the vigour and sophistication of the Left’s propaganda capabilities and, from the very beginning, were forced to play “catch-up” in the struggle for hearts and minds.

The imagery of the police shutting down Ruatoki was so jarring, they lost public sympathy then and there. I’ll have more to say about propaganda and ‘political optics’ another time. For now, go and read Chris’s illuminating article.

– P

Hilary Barry wins again! (Confirming all my prejudices)

Congratulations to Hilary Barry on her win as best newsreader at last night’s New Zealand Radio awards. Cool.
I’m already on the record with my opinion of the TV3/RadoiLIVE newsreader: I think she’s a sublime professional. And fun.

I watched her crack up during last night’s news bulletin at Mike McRoberts’ quip to Hamish McKay following a clip about babies being ritualistically thrown off a building into a blanket as a blessing, and enjoyed the spontaneity. It made me chuckle.

But Hilary is more than a coiffured talking head. Her live work (‘anchoring’, whatever you call it) from the MV Rena shipwreck clean-up at Mt Maunganui last October was top stuff. Good, clear communication.

Good on her. Well-deserved.

– P

Line in the sand, flip-flop, litmus test, lightning rod? Same sex marriage.

I don’t know if President Obama’s announcement today that he personally supports the right of same sex couples to marry will help or hurt him electorally, but from my point of view, it is absolutely the right call. And I’m not gay.
Glenn Greenwald, who is, credits Obama’s actions, regardless of their motivation. I agree.

The phony, dodgy political convenience that politicians hide behind, playing coy with the electorate about their beliefs on an issue for ‘tactical’ reasons — or worse, the awful ‘tell me what you want me to say I believe’ inauthenticity — weakens the ‘House of Representatives’ system in my view. It weakens us all.

I remember then-Wellington Central MP Fran Wilde, my next door neighbour at the time, courageously spearheading the Homosexual Law Reform campaign where her opponents — ‘god-fearing social conservatives’ and supposedly ‘upright citizens’ — threw all sorts of despicable smears. It was awful. Displaying hateful intolerance, they acted hysterically, obnoxiously, outrageously … shoving in as many references to sodomy as they could muster in their desperate attempts to stop keep someone’s sexual orientation being, in effect, a crime.

Laws that had oppressed others and covered up hateful, truly criminal behaviour like ‘poofter-bashing’ in New Zealand for generations, were viewed as some sort of last bulwark of decency. Political dog-whislte slogans like ‘A Decent Society’ were deployed, ignoring the fact that senior people and rising stars in that very Party were, let’s say, not completely unacquainted with homosexuality themselves.

How far we’ve come from those dark days.

Not all social taboos are sensible, it seems to me. And, let’s face it, sometimes the law is an ass. e.g. The US’s ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ which I understand reserves such spousal ‘benefits’ as couples’ tax treatment for committed relationships between man-and-woman ONLY is doomed to be about as successful as Custer’s Last Stand. Wake up and smell the human rights, people.

Also, the very real potential for injustice where a spouse-in-all-but-civil-status can be not just discriminated against, but practically alienated, for instance, denied medical information/hospital visitation rights (for REAL) and the truth about their long term committed relationship obfuscated by narrow-minded bigots can’t remain unaddressed.

I don’t care what pushed Obama to make his statement. Good on him.

Coincidentally, Obama’s move today also spikes the guns of Roger Ailes’ protege Governor Chris Christie who, as recently as February was able to justify his ‘position’ on gay marriage as ‘Gov. Christie: I’m with Obama on gay marriage‘.

For all sorts of reasons, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, politics seems to work better with clearer choices (short of the astro-turf hyper-partisanship of the Tea Party-ilk). See our discussion of Politics as the art of polarization.

From the ABC ‘exclusive’ today:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

Continue reading →

An entertaining discussion of privacy and name suppression

I like Tory MP Louise Mensch. I think she’s bright, articulate and beautiful (as we have discussed.) I’m quoting her in another context elsewhere, but came across this appearance, where she featured on the BBC’s Have I Got News For You, 22 April 2011 adding her bit to the campaign to discredit the UK ‘super-injunctions’ (remember those?) … see what you think.

Simon Lusk in the headlines again!

Oh dear. National senior whip Michael Woodhouse reports campaign strategist Simon Lusk has a ‘very negative agenda’ for the National Party.  Shades of ‘The Hollow Men’? (click to watch video at 3News)

For someone who likes to keep a low profile and work behind the scenes, we’re hearing quite a lot about Simon Lusk, aren’t we?

Well, well. Just a few weeks after my mild curiosity-fueled questions about Simon Lusk (see ‘So, who is Simon Lusk?‘) he’s in the news. Again.
TV3 News reports in ‘Secret minutes reveal split in National’s ranks‘:

Leaked minutes of a National Party board meeting in March show major concerns over a party member who is so close to some of the party’s MPs that he presents a serious risk to the party and its image.
But when 3 News asked Prime Minister John Key to explain, he said he did not know of any concerns.
Under questioning though, he did start to recall.
The man in question is Simon Lusk, who loves the outdoors but who also sees himself as a big fish in the National Party.
3 News is told he gets paid to give strategic advice to about a dozen of the party’s MPs and aspiring MPs.
But secret National Party board minutes from March released to 3 News show the party is so worried about Mr Lusk’s influence that his “agenda represents a serious risk to the party”….

How interesting.

I haven’t thought much more about Simon Lusk than I did when I last wrote about him, but, since then, we’ve seen the further public unravelling of the fringe-dwelling ACT party.

According to some insiders, the ACT Party leadership coup by National Party geriatrics Don Brash and John ‘Amnesia’ Banks was carried out with the help of the Machiavellian Simon Lusk and his lovely assistant Jordan Williams. (Look how well that’s worked out for ACT!)

Perhaps the National Party’s senior whip, Dunedin List MP Michael Woodhouse (right) is right to be worried. For him to report (details here) that Simon Lusk poses a ‘serious risk to the Party’ and has a ‘very negative agenda for the Party’ … well, gee. That can’t be good.

Play it again, Simon

In this context, it’s worth listening again to the Trevor Mallard interview on Radio NZ’s Morning Report 29 March 2012 about Michelle Boag’s email to ACC Minister Judith Collins getting leaked. (Apparently this is the interview which prompted Judith Collins to threaten defamation lawsuits …still available for your listening pleasure.)

Simon Lusk and his ‘below the radar’ activities feature. See what you make of it.
Listen via radionz.co.nz here:

Here’s the MP3 file (1.5MB)

– P

‘That politician got amnesia again’

I finally got around to listening to this, following the NZ Herald carrying it yesterday.

It’s catchy!

Click to visit YouTube

Listen here

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(or 3.5MB mp3 file for non-flash browsers).

– P

Why not put it out there?

I know the cynics may try to tear this down. I don’t care. Why not aim high?

20120507-174939.jpg

– P

Via Nick Bilton thanks to Tim Murphy.

Teapot tape saga sputters out with withdrawal of ‘costs’ action against cameraman

Scrambling at the Teapot meeting (pic: Dean Purcell NZ Herald)

For the record:

Teapot costs bid dropped

By Cherie Howie Herald on Sunday May 6, 2012

The Attorney-General has ditched plans to demand nearly $14,000 in court costs from freelance photographer Bradley Ambrose over the long-running “teapot tape” saga.

Ambrose was embroiled in controversy and faced criminal investigation after he taped a conversation between Prime Minister John Key and Act Epsom candidate John Banks at an Auckland cafe just before the November election last year.

He said it was accidental but Key said the recording was illegal and laid a complaint with police.

Ambrose went to the High Court to ask for the conversation to be declared public. This was rejected and was followed by a memorandum filed in the Auckland High Court seeking $13,669 in costs.

But on Wednesday, Crown Law Office spokeswoman Jan Fulstow confirmed the order had been withdrawn by the Attorney-General. …

Like, I’m sure, many other journalists and non-journalists, I saw the Attorney-General claiming $14,000 in costs to prepare for and attend a court hearing on whether a conversation carried out in front of 40 journalists with cameras and recorders was ‘public’ as dubious. Politics lecturer Bryce Edwards labelled it ‘political vindictiveness‘.

A NZ Herald editorial at the time Crown should pay its own tea tape bill pointed out that the Attorney-General didn’t even argue the question at issue of a ‘public’ or ‘private’ conversation:

At the hearing, counsel for the Attorney-General chose not to address that issue, arguing instead that Mr Ambrose’s request for a declaratory judgment should be refused on procedural grounds. Since police were investigating a complaint from Mr Key, the Crown suggested a court ruling at that stage would interfere with the process of criminal justice.

Judge Helen Winkelmann agreed, deciding it would not be appropriate to conduct “a mini-trial as to whether certain conduct constituted a criminal offence … in advance of a police investigation or trial”.

So, yes, I agree with this week’s decision. I think the Crown seeking costs (including a $700 limousine bill) for their ‘motion’ asking the judge to kick the issue to touch while a police investigation was carried out (and, coincidentally, a General Election, ahem) was ‘off base’ at all sorts of levels.

That the police investigation led to no charges but merely a policeman’s untested statement that Ambrose had acted ‘unlawfully’ but it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute him is echoed in this:

[Crown Law Office spokeswoman Jan] Fulstow said the move [to withdraw the application for $13,669 costs against Ambrose] was also prompted by “the public interest in bringing the matter to a close”.

Good old ‘public interest’ vs ‘the issues that matter’.

– P