Hard News: Claims
431 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
The truth is coming out and I can assure you all - that there is far worse corruption that will shortly surface . As a responsible kiwi I feel it is in the best interests of my children and grand children that society must make a clean sweep with a brush of integrity, fairness, justice , honesty and kindness . If the truth hurts , bad luck !! However , do brace yourself for an appalling cover up incident that occured here in Cantabland, not that long ago. My word , where will they be able to hide ? We need police we can trust .
-
So you going to ban me Russell , what have I done wrong ?
-
Serious question - how many times have people threatened to sue you, and how many writs from Messers Run, Grabbit and Sue eventurally landed in the letterbox?
No, I don't think he will, but his willingness to publicly muse about it (and not for the first time towards me) when criticised is distasteful and unjournalistic.
-
merc,
You couldn't script that, the West Coast claims another Stanley Graham, man alone.
-
merc,
RB, you may note a pattern in the need for both to continually seek your approval and when you attempt to withdraw, they inflame, it is a negative attachment that will not diminish for them, all you may do is withdraw the hook for their projections. Obviously it is your choice, I have seen enough instances of this to know that they will accelerate their demands as they sense you are about to withdraw.
-
Why am I not in the least surprised, but still saddened, by this?
Helen Clark described Investigate as an "odious" publication that specialised in cutting down "tall poppies" such as Mr Broad.
She said Mr Idour was someone "who talks big but seldom delivers".
"We have to ask the question of who funds these sorts of investigations, who funds Investigate magazine, who prints it, who pays for Mr Idour to run around?"
What is it about Wishart that makes people smart enough to know better (and I definitely include Clark in that) play his game, by his rules? Last night, I actually thought Clark was playing it smart and really keeping the moral high ground. Then we see Clark and King getting down in the gutter to combat a sewer rat.
Oh, and in the interests of fairness, it's in order to quote the last three pars. of the linked Herald story:
Mr Idour's lawyer, Frazer Barton, said his client was at the party at Mr Broad's house but "categorically denied" bringing the bestiality film along.
Mr Idour saw "bits of it" but didn't do anything about it.
"He was appalled by it but didn't act on it, didn't do anything else other than express some views to people."
Asked why people would think Mr Idour had brought the film along, Mr Barton said: "There are groups that do not get on and he suggested that might be a possible explanation".
Hum... Perhaps, until some more solid evidence comes along - or Annette King decides to disclose her source for the allegations - we owe Idour the same benefit of the doubt extended to Howard Broad?
-
I didn't see much "benefit of the doubt" extended to Howard Broad by Wishart, or by most of the infestors of rightwing blogs, Craig. Perhaps we snould say, as they do "If Idour doesn't sue. it must be true"?
-
And the tragic thing is my mother died a heartbroken grand mother all because of false allegations of sexual abuse and dv .
I got a stiff upper lip - so your Stanley G comment was to be expected . What else would I expect, as many in kiwiland use Blacks Law for psychosis. The love for my daughters will win in the end and the truth will fix all the ill-will ?
I hope the police and politicians can sort their shit out for the future good of this country ?
-
No, I don't think he will, but his willingness to publicly muse about it (and not for the first time towards me) when criticised is distasteful and unjournalistic.
Even the threat of a defamation suit can also be an effective form of bullying. The late (and widely unlamented) press barron Robert Maxwell was infamously litigious, even by the standards of British press barons who never seem to think the public's right to know extends to themselves. If he wasn't quite so successful at legal harassment and intimidation of the media, his plundering of the Maxwell Group's pension funds would have been exposed years before, and thousands of hisbefore thousands of former employees wouldn't have been left with nothing when the companies went belly up soon after his death.
-
Hum... Perhaps, until some more solid evidence comes along - or Annette King decides to disclose her source for the allegations - we owe Idour the same benefit of the doubt extended to Howard Broad?
She did. It was one of the (named) cops who came forward yesterday to support Broad's version of events.
Wishart hasn't named his source, but if it was Idour, I think there's a credibility problem.
-
Craig,
We have to ask the question of who funds these sorts of investigations, who funds Investigate magazine, who prints it, who pays for Mr Idour to run around?
Why is this line of questioning "getting down into the gutter"?
Seems to me a very valid question, especially when you consider there are more coincidences to the timing and content of Wishart's various revelations over the last couple of years than in a Spiderman 3 movie.
Can you explain your distress in more detail?
-
Nobody Important, lol, dude, never assume you're a twit. I was actually meaning people on kiwiblog.
-
Craig, just going back to your point on the previous page... I don't think it's necessarily gutter politics to be asking questions about how Investigate is funded, I'd certainly be fascinated to know. I've worked on a magazine that, at the time I was working there, sold more copies each month than Investigate. So I have some kind of idea of what the economics of a magazine that size are. We're not necessarily talking huge dollar figures. Sales to customers will cover the printing costs, but if you want to talk about making decent profit then you're essentially talking about advertising - how many big, regular advertisers you can get, and at what rate each month.
For some reason I can't imagine Investigate has serious support from many of NZ's larger magazine advertisers, particularly the kind that normally advertise in current events titles. I could be surprised here, but somehow I doubt it. So where's the dosh coming from? Does anybody have a copy of the magazine? How much advertising actually runs in the thing each month? And who?
I'm going to have a look at the latest issue in town later today, but I would suspect that it's unlikely that there's much in advertising dollars to be found in brands who'll willingly align themselves with Wishart's view of reality.
So "Where's the money coming from" is a pretty valid question, all up. Unless there's some seriously screwy advertisers out there then I wouldn't be surprised to discover somebody was sinking some cash into the publication each month to make it economically viable.
-
merc,
To me this where does the money come from thing is the crucial part...always follow the money.
-
I didn't see much "benefit of the doubt" extended to Howard Broad by Wishart, or by most of the infestors of rightwing blogs, Craig. Craig. Perhaps we snould say, as they do "If Idour doesn't sue. it must be true"?
Certainly not, and you can if you like. I'd just ask this question: Who really wins if you sink to the same level as people you so obviously hold in contempt? I don't want to play Wishart's game according to his playbook - even though it's damn tempting, and all too easy.
I'm not saying for a moment Clark and King shouldn't defend the reputation of their government and colleagues against extraordinarily serious allegations in an outlet that I wouldn't even rip up and use as bum-wipe in a long drop. (Glossy paper - not good for the environment or my delicate townie backside.)
But Clark and King are better than Wishart - though that might sound like damnation with faint praise, it's sincere, You don't need to get down in his gutter to expose his tawdry little hit jobs for what they are. Nobody does.
Perhaps that just makes me a naive fool. but I'd rather be that than any of the alternatives on offer.
-
I've been reading recently about the role of Matt Drudge in the US news media. In many ways his role is to parcel up bullshit into something that looks like a story, and then the "respectable" media can report on his report -- and so a story can be built up out of very little.
-
The most recent audited circulation for Investigate is 8212 and its readership (ie: anyone who sees a copy in a month) is 68,000 - so it has quite a high pass-on rate. My guess is that its notoriety helps greatly with the readership number (ie: high name-recognition), less so with actual sales.
-
Wishart would probably sue just for the publicity, let alone the bullying value. Not that the sue would get anywhere. What a sad nutcase. I feel genuinely sorry for him.
-
Don, Finn & Merc:
If (for the sake of argument) this blog published a lengthy post alleging that I'd colluded in covering up a cess pool of corruption and perversity in the Police that would make the Marquis De Sade cross his legs... well, I'd be a little more focused on rebutting the allegations than musing on conspiracy theories about Russell's finances and whether he's secretly bankrolled by a vast left-wing/atheist conspiracy. You know, the kind of crap Wishart does so well.
I'm well on the record as thoroughly disgusted by the treatment the private lives of Helen Clark and her husband have received at the hands of the media in general, and Investigate in particular. (I'd also extend the same regret to Don and Je Lin Brash, BTW.) Nor do I think it's acceptable in any way, shape or form for politicians of any stripe to be (in effect) stalked by PI's, have their property tresspassed on, or their rubbish bins tossed.
But in this specific case, I'd like to see the focus stay on the real issue: Are these allegations true or not? That's a damn sight more relevant to me than trying to wade through another swamp of competing conspiracy theories - 'cause you know something, you don't make sense of them. Either you believe them or you don't, depending on what you already bring to the table.
Now, if you'd excuse me... I have to put my PA Radio piece to bed. And I swear no fowls will be outraged with a rolled-up copy of Investigate in the process of turning out three minutes of sweetly trivial ear candy.
-
ben, i dunno man. no-one is holding a gun to wishart's head and forcing him to publish lurid, scurrilous fantasty.
well... except maybe... you know, "god".
-
merc,
Damn Che you're right, he may be guided by voices.
Craig, in all honesty, I never really get what you're trying to say, rebut, refute, explain, there is always a "but" and it seems to negate what you say before it.
How someone gets paid to do what they do is really important to me, and I dunno, I know how RB makes his daily bread.
You are what you do. -
Anyway: where I stand now is that the greater part of Wishart's story has been seriously damaged by what has been revealed in the past day: his sources are deeply problematic and the allegation of a government "cover up" that justified using Michael Cullen's picture all over the cover of the magazine is patently absurd.
That said, I wouldn't rule out something embarrassing or even damaging to the Dunedin police emerging from the PCA investigation announced today. We'll see.
For now, it would be nice to hear someone in the MSM ask Wishart whether Idour was a source and, if so, how that squares with his statement in September last year emphatically denying he had ever used Idour as a source.
-
Che, no-one is forcing anyone to read it either, except God. Or talk about it over 9 pages of blog commentary! That we are drawn into it shows the power of stalking, something Wishart is self confessedly intimate with. Perhaps his only ever credible story, and everything since is a cry for help.
-
Personally, my favourite part of the whole issue is Wishart calling Russell Brown the Paris Hilton of NZ blogging.
Hahahahahahahahaha....... 'Free Russell!'
-
For now, it would be nice to hear someone in the MSM ask Wishart whether Idour was a source and, if so, how that squares with his statement in September last year emphatically denying he had ever used Idour as a source.
Simple:
One - protect your sources.
Two - have only used him since September.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.