Hard News: The judge is not helping
116 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.
Just this.
-
I thought the process for the Law Commission was that they produced a report, which was then adjusted to fit the party in power's ideology, turned into legislation, voted on by Parliament and then, if passed, became law.
How can their recommendations be used in deciding a court case without this process - surely that short-circuits parliament?
-
It seems wrong that Slater can't get the same protection that journalists get when he's acting as a journalist.
It seems especially unfair that any "journalist" republishing wire pieces and industry PR in a newspaper will have those same protections, purely because of their publisher.
-
I don't think Slater is acting as a journalist. I mean, I think it is very clear that Slater has no sense of professional ethics, or any real adherence to standards of behaviour other than his own idiosyncratic (and often repugnant) principles.
-
But I was threatened with such action this year. I was aware at the time that a discovery order was a possibility if it went ahead – and also confident that discovery would not reveal anything harmful to my defence.
Was it concerning the doco "For the Public Good"?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Was it concerning the doco “For the Public Good”?
Yes. Sir Roger Douglas was extremely unhappy.
-
alobar, in reply to
And he doesn't even like journalists , why would he want to be one?
I wonder were the personal emails he released relevant ? -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And he doesn’t even like journalists , why would he want to be one?
Maybe he's more a public relations type?
-
Steven Price on Firstline this morning:
Appearing on Firstline this morning, media lawyer Steven Price said the judge's reasoning was not clear.
"He does cite an old Law Commission issues paper that says bloggers are highly partisan and offensive and abusive, and that they're really not accountable to anyone. What he doesn't cite though is another part of the Law Commission's report later on where they say that bloggers can provide a rich alternative source of information and commentary," says Mr Price.
"I'm not quite sure how hard the judge has thought this through."
-
alobar, in reply to
Maybe he’s more a public relations type?
:) but more biased
-
That is twice in one year I find myself cheering Mr Oil.
He's kinda the Fox news of the NZ blogosphere, distasteful but needed.
-
This is exactly the problem we have, as you state “the reality of self-publishing is that the same individual or blog might be news media one day and just an arsehole the next.” I guess we need need definition for blogs and bloggers?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
And he doesn't even like journalists , why would he want to be one?
I think he thinks that journalists are fine. The concern is with churnalists, and repeaters, people who give journalists a bad name :-)
-
“the reality of self-publishing is that the same individual or blog might be news media one day and just an arsehole the next.”
Maybe make the test of journalism apply to the article in question, not to the writer or publication's body of work?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Maybe make the test of journalism apply to the article in question, not to the writer or publication's body of work?
Yes, I think that would be a more productive path to take.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Maybe he’s more a public relations type?
That's an example of where it might be extremely relevant to discover Whale's sources. He's admitted to taking PR money to run certain lines on his blog, which would seem to undermine his claims to media protections.
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
But suppose you're a source. You talk to (say) WhaleOil thinking he's a journalist and tell him some things. Turns out (hypothetically) he's actually a paid PR operative on this one, running knowingly defamatory lines for cash. He uses your information to stitch together an attack. How do you tell during the process whether WhaleOil's going to meet the standard for journalism this time round, given it might not be until the end of the process that he himself decides?
-
Whatever you think of Cameron Slater
Nevertheless, we can allow ourselves just a pinch of of schadenfraude...?
There is an interesting discussion about this going on over at the Kiwi Journalist blog..
-
And as I said to Radio New Zealand’s reporter, the reality of self-publishing is that the same individual or blog might be news media one day and just an arsehole the next.
I get the point your making, and haven't read the LC report or the judgment, however I can't help but wonder if a pattern of consistency ought to be part of the test for what is 'media'? By this I mean consistently being a partisan hack with the odd news story mightn't meet the test and therefore not afford the protections?
Either way, it does seem likely that an appeal will elicit a sharper judgment since 'all blogs are not media' is clearly false and stuck in the early '90s.
-
Another Judith Collins fail?
-
The Evidence act basically says an informant is entitled to protection (although not absolute). It then defines informant as a person who provides information to a journalist for inclusion within a news medium.
I'd think, therefore, that the informant's opinion and belief also should be considered. Presumably the person who provided the information was under the impression that Slater could provide the protection expected from a journalist.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
By this I mean consistently being a partisan hack with the odd news story mightn't meet the test and therefore not afford the protections?
Toss in being convicted for contempt after breaching a suppression order, too, which is something that "real" media treats as a third-rail issue. Slater has form for behaving in ways that actual, proper journalists don't. It's ironic that he's now begging for protection from the same courts for which he shows such disregard.
It's really hard to see this is a decision which affects PAS or Keith, to be honest. Keith isn't just a blogger, for one, and PAS isn't anywhere near as vile and partisan as WO. Slater goes out of his way to engage in personal attacks and behave in a way that is far removed from cognisant of anything that might be called professional ethics. If you want to be called a "news medium" and a "journalist", fucking behave like one.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
There is an interesting discussion about this going on over at the Kiwi Journalist blog..
Can you link it?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yes, there seems to be a basic reasonableness test going on here. It would be good if there were clearer law about it, but in the absence of that, I guess a judge has to decide if Slater walks and quacks like a journalist. If he does, it's an extremely low bar, rendering the s68 of the Evidence Act almost pointless. It might as well read "You're allowed to defame people on the internet, period".
-
ScottY, in reply to
If he does, it's an extremely low bar, rendering the s68 of the Evidence Act almost pointless. It might as well read "You're allowed to defame people on the internet, period".
Although journalists and their publications are not infrequently sued for defamation. Even if the court on appeal decides that Slater is a journalist, he may still end up losing the defamation action.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.