Hard News: Claims
431 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
I'd guess the bestiality flick came from the confiscated goods storeroom.
And may even have been a 'joke' - which doesn't make it any less gross, but may make Broad less culpable, if he is indeed culpable.
-
Heh. In a roundabout way, I was wondering if you could dance! (Stock gag sorry, I'll tire of it soon, I promise).
Ah, now I get it. If one ever reach the dizzying heights of mediocrity required to snag a berth on Dancing With The Washed Up Publicity Ho's, please hit one with a stick. Hard. (BTW, I have been known to manage a box step that won't sent my partner to A&E. Who says Catholic boarding school is just a continual round of flogging, bad food and cold water?)
-
You mean they didn't have to flog you to get your to do ballroom dancing?
-
DPF,
Danyl - I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Wishart will publish similiar stories against National MPs at some stage. That doesn't affect the way I treat his stories which is on their merits.
I have been critical of some of Investigate's stories in the past (esp the Clark/Davis ones) and have thought others raised legitimate points.
I certainly don't think that there has been an active conspiracy with Labour MPs to cover up paedophile rings. I have in fact been careful not to focus at all on the MPs aspect of it. My suspicion is they had similiar allegations to those in Investigate made to them, and just chose not to follow them up as they thought they were not provable or false. That is not a conspiracy.
But I do think there are legitimate questions to be considered about Dunedin Police conduct. Allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, animal cruelty etc are not something one should ignore. Now if they have been investigated and found false all the better. Russell's blog post provides some useful info on that.
Don - if someone stated in a magazine with tens of thousands readership I sexually assaulted the daughter of a former police commissioner and I was a current senior police officer, I would be suing for defamation. Wouldn't you?
People allow their hatred of Wishart to black their ability to apply critical thinking to the situation. Imagine this:
Ian Wishart breaks a story alleging that a group of cops gang raped a series of teenage and slightly older girls over a period of 15 years with near impunity, and that one of the cops was now an Asst Police Commissioner who was fast tracked by the Police Commissioner to be the first Maori Commissioner, and details of these allegations are well known to senior Police and even the PM.
How many here would have laughed the allegations off? Said they could not possibly be true?
I note for the record that the gang rape allegations have not led to guilty verdicts, in case anyone suggests I am defaming Rickards. I am using his case as an example.
Joe Karam seemed quite sure a Dunedin police woman had been raped by a colleague also. It would be nice to have someone able to assure us that this did not happen.
-
If Ian wants to be believed, David, he needs to start providing evidence, rather than publishing allegations, and assuming they're true. It's really quite surprising how few of your commenters understand the difference between allegation and fact.
-
does investigate actually have a distribution of 10s of thousands?
seriously? i would find that very surprising.
-
merc,
Adjudged by the "pass-on" rate, a nefarious practice, I recall Ian W stating that Investigate has a 7 pass on rate. For every 1 copy of Investigate sold, 7 other people read that copy, Doctors rooms incur pass-on, so publishers freely distribute to Doctor's rooms in order to up their pass-on rate and so ad fees.
It's wholly stupid, like saying 800 000 people watched Holmes.
What we are dealing with here is a fundamentalist christian crusader who doesn't seem to mind the usury and a populace who have voyeuristic tendencies like any other with politicians who arn't averse to the odd bit of muck racking.
Everyone loses as Mr Wishart's wife can testify. -
So *that's* how a copy got into my doctor's waiting room! There was me thinking my doc was a subscriber. Pity Playboy don't do the same thing - the articles really are a lot better than Investigate's.
-
[I]if someone stated in a magazine with tens of thousands readership I sexually assaulted the daughter of a former police commissioner and I was a current senior police officer, I would be suing for defamation. Wouldn't you?
Don can speak for himself, DPF, but I probably wouldn't for these reasons:
1) Any reputation that can be diminished by a hit job in Investigate Magazine is of dubious worth in the first place. The people in my life whose regard I do value (and I'd count you among them) are made of finer stuff.
2) I'm in no kind of financial position to run the risk of being stuck with a six figure legal bill, no matter what the outcome. It's all very nice if you have the tax-payer or a media outlet with deep pockets picking up the tab.
3) And perhaps Danyl has a point: Remeber when Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for defamation in the UK, after it printed the claim he he tried to seduce a Swedish model days after his pregnant wife was butchered by the 'Manson Family'.
In the end Polanski won, but an interesting feature of the magazine's defence was that the plantiff couldn't be defamed because he was a perv ("not only a fugitive from justice but a fugitive from morality", as they put it) with no reputation to be injured. I bet that was bitter enough to swallow, even without considering the source - a magagzine whose stock in trade is b.j. profiles of celebrities and dishing up sin-sational scoop about the lives, deaths and crimes of the jet set.
-
Playboy don't do the same thing - the articles really are a lot better than Investigate's.
and probably a lot less lurid.
-
merc,
Funny you should say that, porn doesn't have pass-on rates as far as I know, I'm not a Media Buyer. Also, sometimes you may notice at the Doc's rooms some mags have their masthead torn off, that's intentional and has something to do with something, you'd have to get a Media Buyer to elaborate on that.
-
DPF,
John F - I agree. But he has just blogged copies of sworn statements and correspondence around one allegation. As it happens though I think it shows the MPs did not conspire or hide anything. I think they just did not believe the complainant was credible and hence did not act on it.
However one thing which struck me was her description of being forced to have sex with a Dunedin detective and how similar it sounded to the Rotorua cases. But having said that she did not sound that credible. I'm hoping that there is a record somewhere of who did investigate her allegations and why they were found to be unwarranted and that it was not a John Dewar type investigation.
I understand its readership Che is in five figures but not 100%. I recall being very surprised myself when I saw the figures.
-
five figures?! sweet jesus!
who ever though a bunch of puritanical nonsense would sell so highly....
and mentioning puritans, i think we could convince ian to wear this.
i especially like that it is made of "flame resistant fabric". nothing worse that catching alight when you're burning witches.
-
If Ian wants to be believed, David, he needs to start providing evidence, rather than publishing allegations, and assuming they're true.
He names his sources, if this is to be played out in the public arena these sources will be vilified. Who is going to participate in the tarring and feathering of the (potentially) next Louise Nicholas(s), because they happen to have been written up by Wishart?
-
On Investigate's circulation, for some reason it was not audited last year, ABC gives it a circulation of 8,212 a month.
http://magazine.abc.org.nz/audit.html
Lets not mock, that is twice as much as the prestigious "Nz Radiator magazine" although not quite in the same league as "NZ engineering monthly"
As for "pass on rate" thats about as meaningless a stat as anyone ever tried to fool a potential advertiser with.
-
merc,
Che, there's Readership, Circulation, then copies sold, copies printed, copies not sold (them with the masthead torn off) and all sorts of calculations made, all to do with advertising rates really. It is Ian Wisharts nemesis, because I think he gets a fair whack of funding from somewhere. I saw him interviewed on this once and it made him very uncomfortable.
Anyway for details on the system there's the MPA. -
Who is going to participate in the tarring and feathering of the (potentially) next Louise Nicholas(s), because they happen to have been written up by Wishart?
Well, Angus, Investigate doesn't have much credibility in my books for exactly the same reason I don't read any"'news" in the New York Times or the Sunday Star Times without cranking up the BS Detector to 11. Is it fair to judge a whole media outlet on the basis of an 'Operation Leaf' or a Jayson Blair? Perhaps not, but a simple reality for anyone in the media is that corporate credibility takes a long time to buld and can all too easily be torn down, and when you print fiction as news I think a reader should treat everything under that masthead with even more extreme scepticism than usual.
-
Naming sources is hardly providing facts, even if they have made sworn statements. Where are the documents providing corroboration? Where are the statements from other witnesses backing up the original source?
-
If there was corruption going on then Investigate has 25 years of dirt (less however many years National was in power) to trawl through. This has legs, should not be let to run. Stopping it by complying with Wisharts wish is as likely the most effective solution and makes it a Labour Party initiative.
I suspect the idea would have Labour Party political strategists reaching for the hard liquor.
Any commission of enquiry of this sort is going to throw up some dirt and put a big spotlight on it. Might be a small amount of dirt, might be a fair amount. Especially when it has labels like 'sex' and 'corruption' and 'beastiality' in it, and its talking about police, it's going to be a really big exciting spotlight.
Which is fine if you've just become the government and you want to look like you're cleaning out the other side's mess.
However if you've been the government for eight years, then it's just going to look like your mess, and every story that it brings up the opposition gets to wave in front of you with '8 years they've been in charge, look who they've promoted to Assistant manager of whatnots in the police when 20 years ago they did this bad thing brought up by the commission'. It'd be dragged out in the media and lead in really nice to basically committing hari kari in the next election.
But other than that, I'm sure Labour are keen on the idea!
some mags have their masthead torn off, that's intentional and has something to do with something, you'd have to get a Media Buyer to elaborate on that.
I believe these are magazines/newspapers that aren't sold. The seller gets money back if they return them to the publisher, but obviously it costs a lot of money to post back whole magazines, so they return a bit (when I've seen it, the bar tab) and keep the magazine. I presume the mag is supposed to be destroyed, and therefore shouldn't end up in doctors' waiting rooms, but who knows, maybe they can donate them elsewhere.
-
i think we could convince ian to wear this.
egad. Does that kid's expression suggest he'd rather be spiderman?
-
Hi David - I understand the points you make but...I once saw an Investigate magazine. It was full of stuff about NZ being run by a bunch of jack booted lesbians nazis who would stop at nothing to get us ruled by Communist China. In short, a conspiracy magazine whose hatred of Labour politicians is pure poison.
I cannot disprove all that the magazine claims but neither can I disprove that aliens have landed on Earth. And then there is all that stuff about "intelligent" design I read about in a DomPost book review.
Other stuff about Wishart and his stories I have read has been 2nd hand. But if a magazine has a record of publishing scurrilous material that never gets credence then I would certainly thing twice about giving it credibility by suing them - and why should I? It seems very unfair that I would be presumed guilty because I didn't bother to stoop to their level.
If a credible source printed a similar story and it was not true I would obviously consider corrective action. But then I would expect a credible source to investigate and publish this in a very different way, not to throw out as much shit as possible just to see if anything sticks.
-
But we shouldn't place much weight on the oft-voiced claim that if no one has sued Wishart, then everything he says must be true. Entering litigation is not a pleasant thing, and it may simply be the case that Wishart is not worth suing.
Or that he's wanting to play the same game the Republicans did against Bill Clinton in the 90's: start a lawsuit over something, anything, then use the resulting discovery rights to dig for dirt to dish up to the media.
I think MP's are right not to engage him, or even pretend to notice him.
-
Amusingly, many of the same blogland dwellers who accused Helen Clark of conducting a PC vendetta against individual police officers with the Bazley report are now screaming for heads to roll in this case.
Rrue RB, but as one 'serving police officer' said via email to Michale Laws this morning on RadioLive [I'm paraphrasing] "I was 'caught' in the internal investigation of Police computer files and given a reprimand and demotion for posessing an objectional image. I had never opened the attachment, which had been widely distributed via email to many officers; but that didn't matter. According to the law I was in possession of the objectional material and was punished accordingly. So Broad should suffer the same consequences". So I suspect this may be behind the leak.
I once saw an Investigate magazine. It was full of stuff about NZ being run by a bunch of jack booted lesbians nazis who would stop at nothing to get us ruled by Communist China. In short, a conspiracy magazine whose hatred of Labour politicians is pure poison.
I consider myself 'liberal' but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Forget the source of this accusation, because the truth has been admitted. Why are so many here at PA seemingly defending what happened? Is it because it was Wishhart who started it? Because it happened back in 81?
Okay, imagine it wasn't a beasitiality video but kiddie porn. Would we all be so quick to dismiss what happened in 81, lest it be used to beat up on our beloved Labour Party?
-
On Investigate's circulation, for some reason it was not audited last year, ABC gives it a circulation of 8,212 a month.
I believe you pay to be audited, so that you can tell potential advertisers what your circulation is.
Incidentally, mags/newspapers have their mastheads torn off so that stores can "prove" they didn't sell them, rather than sending all the unsold copies back to the publisher. So basically, if you get 100 papers delivered, sell 60, return 40 mastheads, the publisher bills you for the 60 you sold. Typically, staff will then take at least a few copies of the mags sans masthead for their own reading pleasure.
-
I suspect the idea would have Labour Party political strategists reaching for the hard liquor.
Yeah, you are right it was a silly suggestion. The only thing is that if it is big enough and wide ranging enough and historic enough, maybe it spreads muck onto National and pushes its reporting date out to past the next election. Wishful thinking.
What are they going to do?Hope it goes away quietly - might work. But it leaves opponents space to present the case unopposed. Gives Key the opportunity to be that new broom (in the quite possible event of National winning) and set up an inquiry specific to these Labour tainting scandals and ignore any National shennanigans - and be praised as the new broom.
Or
Attack the messenger - which is doomed to fail. Any attack on Investigate, becomes an attack on the sources who are (if they are to be believed) rape victims. And this attack will be played out in public where there is no name suppression option. Suspect that several people would relish the chance of slinging mud at the victims as asking for it - the good old "Can you rape a prostitute?" will be asked soon enough.
Is there an option I am not seeing that is good or is this just damage limitation from here on through?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.