Carrick Graham in happier (‘got away with it’) times, with another member of his ugly professional-smear-jobs-by-social-media team, Cathy Odgers. As darling-of-the-right dirty blogger and Twitter personality ‘Cactus Kate’, Odgers went to work nastily and personally demeaning various targets of Graham’s client Mark Hotchin. Following the exposure of her work for Graham by the 2015 Chisholm Inquiry [into Judith Collins’ association with dirty blogger Cameron Slater w.r.t. the head of the Serious Fraud Office, investigating Hotchin], Odgers attempted to disappear and erase her … um, work.    (click photo for a link to my article ‘What the Chisholm inquiry revealed about managing the media narrative’ and more)

Today the shabby little train of denial ran out of smoke.

Payment, apology in Dirty Politics case — Newsroom

Crushing defeat for Dirty Politics PR man with apology to defamed academics — The Spinoff

Here’s the apology wording, below. It’s ruined only by the clearly bullshit implication that there was a time when Carrick somehow didn’t know he was a devious little hatchet man oops, I mean professional dirty PR operative being paid to shred people’s reputations with lies.

Carrick Graham had the open run of his puppet/underling/bob-a-job guy Cameron Slater’s now-defunct WhaleOil hate blog. And he ran amuck. But he said today:

I am now aware that a number of statements I made about the plaintiffs were untrue, unfair, offensive, insulting and defamatory.

Right, Carrick. NOW aware. Why would anyone believe you?

What a liar.*

I’d love to ‘now be aware’ of the terms of the wriggle-out settlement Katherine Rich (of KR Hit fame)/the Food and Grocery Council paid to strand the ignoble PR tyro in court today.  Tim Murphy at Newsroom:

[Plaintiffs’ lawyer Davey] Salmon said Graham’s PR firm, Facilitate Communications Ltd, had received $365,619 from the Food and Grocery Council between November 2009 and July 2016.  In turn, the Whaleoil site had received $124,000 from Facilitate between October 2012 and 2016.

With the council having reached a settlement with the academics (which Katherine Rich was keen to keep confidential, Salmon told Justice Walker), and Slater’s Whaleoil business in liquidation and therefore likely to be an “empty damages award”, it was Graham who had faced paying out if found to have defamed the trio.

Oh well. (But what an arse, Carrick, waiting till the first day of the trial.)

Bravo to the fortitude of the smear campaign targets

They showed tremendous tenacity in the face of toddler tactics from Slater and coldly-calculated — can I call it perjury? Probably not. Just ‘inadequate disclosure’ — from Mr ‘Oh, my poor lost laptops, and their backups!’ Carrick Graham.

Credit, obviously to Nicky Hager for the exposure he gave in his book, Dirty Politics, to this shabby side of corporate ‘lobbying’ — and of course, to the still-unnamed ‘Rawshark’, the source of much of the communications (including invoices and ‘draft’ posts like KR Hit #1) on which the book and further reporting was based.

If this is all news to you, here’s some earlier reading about Carrick Graham.

– P

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

— — — —

Apology from Carrick Graham to Doug Sellman, Boyd Swinburn and Shane Bradbrook

I wish to apologise publicly for the untrue statements I have made about the plaintiffs, Professor Doug Sellman, Professor Boyd Swinburn and Mr Shane Bradbrook.
I made various defamatory comments about the plaintiffs, using various pseudonyms, on blogs published on Mr Slater’s Whale Oil website. I also encouraged, inspired or contributed to the text of certain defamatory blog posts about the plaintiffs that were published on Whale Oil, including by making payments to Cameron Slater. I did so as part of my business and in order to advance the interests of industry.
I apologise for all hurt and harm caused to the plaintiffs by those blog posts and comments.
I am now aware that a number of statements I made about the plaintiffs were untrue, unfair, offensive, insulting and defamatory.
I acknowledge that the plaintiffs’ work on the harms of tobacco, alcohol, and processed foods and beverages, was undertaken responsibly and in the public interest.
I deeply regret making the comments, and my involvement in the blog posts and comments.
I sincerely and unreservedly apologise to Professor Sellman, Professor Swinburn and Mr Bradbrook and have agreed to make a payment to them. The plaintiffs have accepted my apology and so have agreed to end their legal proceedings against me.
3 March 2021
Carrick Graham

— — — —

see also: What the Chisholm inquiry revealed about managing the media narrative