Paul Campbell ... an independent press? And the NZH is the major offender?

WTF do you think putting a Nicky Hagar article on your front page is?

And yes, I'd say exactly the same thing if they'd gone with a sleazy expose from Ian Wishart instead.

At least the SST still has the good sense to put columns from Matthew Hooten, Chris Trotter etc as "op-ed" rather than journalism.

I'm bemused that:
(i) people seem so surprised that National would retain a set of political strategists ... and
(ii) that the SST would give Nicky Hagar such prominence as a "journalist".

As others have commented before, do you really think Labour only take political advice and guidance from a committee made up of Florence Nightingale and Lassie? I'd be sure Labour's advisors are just as venal and evil and unscrupulous as Crosby/Textor, it's just that we don't know their names. So if yesterday's "news" makes the leftie acolytes feel warm in their pants it's all quite naive and deluded really.

And as for Nicky Hagar. I take a "news" article from him as seriously as one written by Ian Wishart. Both are equally odious partisan trolls who are quick to breathlessly gush about the evils of the other side. I cannot believe that Hagar's motivation for writing that article in the SST was simply to inform and enlighten the readers - his past form suggests the main purpose was to score political points on behalf of his fellow socialists at the Greens.

I think it reflects very poorly on the editorial stance of the SST to have such a prominent partisan bylined as a "journalist" on page 1. But then the SST seems in decline, so perhaps desperate times call for desperate measures.