Hard News: Claims
431 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Did anyone see the TV One late news teaser tonight? Completely ridiculous, leading with something like: 'Beastiality, rape, orgies and lies - the Police are embroiled in another horrifying scandal!'
Please, guys, give us a break. You're better than that. TV3 was similarly unimpressive in their 6pm slot, although for a lead story the piece was relatively brief.
What I don't understand - surely those working for the two major news orgs are a reasonably educated, rational lot... similar to those on these forums. If their knowledge of Wishart is anything like ours, how could they conscionably take the information he provides and turn it into a major issue? Is it a) a fear of missing out if the story miraculously turns out to be true, b) a fear their competitor will take the kudos for breaking the story, no matter how crazy or c) in the case of TVNZ, a fear of being labelled as biased for not exploring stories that could damage Labour?
Or a combination of the above?
-
I have so stopped reading the open sewer that DPF's blog has become. Its rather sad as David is a nice enough chap, but the comments... yikes!
-
and just to prove I was not joking :-),
http://www.powells.com/biblio/0786718145?&PID=30070
refer to the synopsis.
-
Why should they "give us a break", frankly what passes for news programs on TV1, 2 or 3 is a load of ratings driven bollox and not worth wasting your time on.
-
__If their knowledge of Wishart is anything like ours, how could they conscionably take the information he provides and turn it into a major issue?__
You've answered your own question Jimmy. Hey, it's out there and the allegedly "respectable" MSM can peddle the poo with one hand (once a third party has given them a 'public interest' defence, however flimsy), while fastidiously pinching their noses and complaining about the smell with the other.
And much as I hate to say it, I don't think any media outlet in this country has ever gone broke underestimating the prurient hypocrisy of their audience - or failing to match it.
__Is it a) a fear of missing out if the story miraculously turns out to be true, b) a fear their competitor will take the kudos for breaking the story, no matter how crazy__
I'm sure that's part of it - hacks are humans too, and who likes to be scooped on any story? Or have the competition do it better - a fresh angle, an interview you couldn't get, a heads up on a new development.
There's such a thing as healthy competition, but the risk is that if you're obsessed with getting the story 'right now' rather than just getting it 'right' you can go with a weak piece that ultimately comes back to bite you. And I think every media outlet - print, TV, radio, online whatever - can point to examples if they're honest.
__or c) in the case of TVNZ, a fear of being labelled as biased for not exploring stories that could damage Labour?__
You want to clear a couple of days, I can tell you everything I think is wrong with TVNZ and RNZ's news and current affairs. Don't think that's the issue though.
And after watching the late news on Three, it's sad to see Clark and Cullen feed the beast - however understandable their reaction is. In the end, I don't think they've done themselves or the Police any favours - and this is one occasion I'm quite happy to put partisanship aside.
-
I'm wondering if the reason numerous twits are equating this chicken-flick with kiddie porn is because ...
I presume I'm the "twit" you're referring to Ben, since I'm the one who posed the question. I think if you reread my comments you'll see I never suggested the cops were watching kiddie porn. What I'm interested in is where do we draw the line? Today we seem to be 'accepting' of beastility -- in 20 years time will we say the same of kiddieporn?
"Oh, it was the early days of the internet ... who __didn't download a kiddie porn clip out of curiosity? Yucky stuff, but I only watched it on a friends computer - and I told him it was awful"__
-
Different day, same old saw.
A lot of the corruption issue revolves around the behaviour of police closely involved in the Bain case and it might be a good idea to mention that the complete & full investigation of these police (that exonerated them) was carried out in 1997. Labour was not governing at the time. Just recently we have had this case thrown out by the privy council, proving it to be highly defective.
If corruption is existant, then this investigation of the bungled murder case is at least as culpable as the earlier investigation (1985 under Labour mentioned in Investigate) into police mishandling of a pedophilia and child sex case. The subsequent alleged events Investigate portrays as the main drive of its article detail recent corruption for which it lays blame for the fudging of the earlier investigation under Labour and does not comment on the failure of the 1997 investigation.
-
to respond to a coupla comments from various ppl:
I see bestiality as something in need of " a psychiatric report". The person filmed copulating with the chicken is the real victim.
and
I challenge anyone (who "grew up" in the 80s to say they have not viewed a minute's worth of beastiality video ("Animal Farm"?) not for gratification but for curiosity's sake... That does not equate to enjoyment.
and
Bestiality's gross (much more so when it's used to degrade women, which doesn't seem to have been the case here) and I'm feeling icky reading about it so much, but the fact that it's covered under the same censorship law as child porn. doesn't meant the social sanction is the same. It's clearly not. ~ RB
I think RB has hit the nail on the head. Judging by some comments here its clear some ppl don't rate beastiality as bad as kiddie porn. I think the problem is perhaps that many here are basing their opinions on what they think a beastilaity video is. I have seen one, and this is why this issue has raised such turmoil for me.
I saw a video in the late 80s, that started with the sad f#ck and his chicken, followed by the sad f#ck and his cow. So far, so gross, and like everyone else you have to pity the guy who gets his rocks off f#cking a cow or a chicken. Or the guy who gets his rocks off watching this sort of stuff. But then you see a woman mounted by a dog, and another mounted by a horse, and another fellating a donkey, and you feel wretched inside because somewhere out there is an industry that panders to the people who wanna watch this stuff, and that they seemingly have no trouble locating women that are so f#cked up they are willing to degrade themselves in this manner.
I'm VERY glad that it seems the cops 'only' watched the chicken film; but interestingly the video I was shown was allegedly sourced from a Policeman acquaintence of the woman who showed it to us. And yes, although we were all grossed out watching it, it was the late 80's so we did nothing about it. No-one considered dobbing anyone in, we just went on with our slacker lives. I thought nothing much more of it other than 'Beastiality is Bad', until this weekend. Hence my turmoil: I have 'walked a mile in Broads shoes' (to quote Jerry Springer), and like him I thought little of it until now ...
-
the issue isn't what the officers watched. i think we're fixated on the film they watched because broad has admitted that it happened.
the real issue is, "how the hell can wishart consistently make shit up about people of note, and consistently get us talking about it?"
-
Okay ... just now on Morning Report, Annette King has just named the officer who brought the bestiality video to the party in 1980.
Who is also the person who has been shopping this story to the media (the HoS bit, the ODT didn't).
The person is ...
WAYNE IDOUR
Holy crap.
Geoff Robinson admitted that RNZ news knew that - and apparently most news organisations do. WTF?
-
wayne PI!! what a laugh!
what kind of idiot makes outrageous allegations... that... he's the kinky bastard playing bestiality films! films that other officers refused to watch!
keeping real smart company, that wishart.
-
Hmm... hope Ian W. has a long spoon.... since he is clearly supping with the Devil :)
-
As a sidebar, did anyone see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565.shtml|this segment]] on 60 Minutes last night? (Video[ http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2715238n|heret]]
The message appears in hip-hop videos, on T-shirts, Web sites, album covers and street murals. Well-known rappers talk about it endlessly on DVDs. It is a simple message heard in African-American communities across the country: don't talk to the police.
"When I was growing up, kids used to talk about snitching…. It never extended as a cultural norm outside of the gangsters," says Geoffrey Canada, a nationally recognized educator and anti-violence advocate. "It was not for regular citizens. It is now a cultural norm that is being preached in poor communities."
Canada has been working with children in Harlem for more than 20 years. He grew up poor in a tough New York neighborhood, but says the message kids are getting today is very different and dangerous.
"People are walking around with shirts. People are going out making, making music. People are saying things that if you're a snitch it's like being an Uncle Tom was when I was growing up," Canada says. "It's like you can't be a black person if you have a set of values that say, 'I will not watch crime happen in my community without getting involved to stop it.'"
Well, I do hope Commissioner Broad takes the opportunity to think very, very hard about that - his part in perpetuating that kind of culture in the Police to protect his career, and what he's really going to do to change it.
-
-
Danyl:
Ta for the invite, but I think I'll wait until coffee #2 and cigarette #5 (balanced breakfast kiddies) work their way through the system.
And, Russell, yes got to admit I'm still trying to peel my eyebrow off the ceiling after hearing that. Not quite sure I think King's too smart about that -- it's like saying (even though the analogy isn't precise) the whole Watergate story is invalid because 'Deep Throat' turned out to be William Mark Felt, Hoover's deputy at the FBI - and fully implicated in the ugliness of his reign - who had a very person grudge against the Nixon Administration. (He was passed over for the Directorship after Hoover's death, and boy was he ever pissed.) If you want to run that line, there's plenty of stories that have some pretty skeezy sources.
Hey, I have a healthy sense of schadenfreude too - and it's rather amusing watching Wishart get a taste of his own tactics. But let's hope we're not going to see King weave an oddball conspiracy theory of her own.
-
Sorry, I should correct myself here: W, Mark Felt was not Hoover's deputy at the FBI. To quote his Wiki entry:
On July 1, 1971, Felt was promoted by Hoover to Deputy Associate Director, assisting Associate Director Clyde A. Tolson.[16] Hoover's right-hand man for decades, Tolson was in failing health and no longer able to attend to his duties.
Still, I think it's fair comment to say Felt's history in the FBI - before, during and after Watergate - was less than savoury, his motives in becoming 'Deep Throat' weren't principled or disinterested by any stretch of the imagination, but that does not invalidate the accuracy or value of Woodward and Bernstein's justly famous investigative journalism.
-
I am so angry I could smack a rapist copper in the head. What having to watch on TV those corrupt bastard pigs like Broad and Pope laughing away with maggot King gathered around a table discussing appropriate police behaviour guidelines is more than I can take. And today to pick up a newspaper to find headlines “Klark denies police misconduct hidden and sick police culture revealed “ is beyond f##king belief. Liarbour are gutter dwellers devoid of integrity and scruple’s. Good on Ian Wishart and Joe Karam stuff the rapist dogs as prima facie rape offences has been determined and these filthy pigs should be charged. For anybody to defend the scum who lived an extraordinarily sick culture of sexual depravity is a sad reflection of the society rapidly plummeting down the sewer. What about the women victims these animal bastards raped? The cover up from the twisted lying liarbour politicians just highlights callous disrespect and systematic degradation of moral standards by idiots not worthy of holding public office. Where else can a constituent go to address a grievance by the dirty rotten pigs!! Liarbour’s attempt to create a fools paradise of self delusory goodness will inevitably bring about explosive consequences as everybody know the words, police and politicians leaves a disgusting taste in ones mouth.
Maybe the liarbour-smacking police could raise funds for the porno fund and start selling baton biscuits as the ultimate in bad taste after dinner mint. -
And your reaction to Ian using the man who played the film as a source for his story, dad4justice?
-
anyone else suspect that'll be the last we hear from d4j?
-
To quote dad4justice on iWacko-blog:
"I really hope Mr Brown and the coterie of wackos , weaklings and witches like this ? I just posted it on public address for a stirr ."
Troll....
-
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Wishart has also made a post on Kiwiblog in which he twice threatens to sue me for commenting on a previous Investigate story whose deficiencies he still seems unable to properly acknowledge.
He's not a very nice man, is he?
-
merc,
Sometimes it's best to de-latch from these people, they are oxygen thieves, starve them of it, and of course without any response, where would they be?
-
Russell:
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?
I should dig it out for you, but Warwick Roger wrote an acid Metro editorial on the subject :- he suggested that all defamation settlements be parked up in an interest-bearing bank account for a year. At the end of that time, if the injured party has been shunned by family, friends and associates and is now living under a bridge eating cat food in abject misery then they get the whole pot to salve their pain. If, as usually happens, the plaintiff's life continues much as before they get bupkis. The damages are returned to the defendant, and the interest goes to a charity. Roger tartly suggested that charities would do rather well and it might discourage trivial and vexatious suits from the well-heeled and thin-skinned who've had nothing damaged but their ego. :)
-
i wouldn't be scared by the legal threats so much as the extreme paranoia.
wishart is proving himself to be an even bigger nut than previoius thought possible.
IAN! oi! might be time to start wearing the tin hat, you fruitcake.
-
Sometimes it's best to de-latch from these people, they are oxygen thieves, starve them of it, and of course without any response, where would they be?
That's my feeling. And I think my tolerance for having d4j post here is now exhausted. For further information, click here and do a find for "armed offenders".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.