"The problem with the Herald piece is not that it was pretty soft, but that it was sold as an 'unauthorised biography' when it was clearly a team effort between the Herald and the National leaders comms staff.

If you're going to publish a puff piece at least have the balls to admit it - don't try and pretend you're being a journalist when you're simply making your newspaper a medium for a political parties propaganda."

Whether or not that is entirely true, it happens to be the reason that, after 20 years, I have cancelled my subscription to the Herald. My concern with "journalists" who endeavour to create a story and then "report it" is growing - I am afraid it might be parabolic. Of course, the Herald is not unique. Actually I thought I would save us a few dollars, but I cannot convince my wife to read RSS feeds. She has subscribed to another paper! But at least it is a bit cheaper than the Herald.