Fran under fire
It's been quite a weekend of Fran O'Sullivan bashing online, not to say she didn't bring it on herself with her latest Herald column on Ian Wishart and Investigate and explaining why she didn't follow up on allegations on the Sir Humphrey's blog over the Doone issue.
Wishart has responded juicily on his blog here:
As for Sir Humphrey's, well no one can say they are not excitable, especially when they get a mention in the MSM. First there was this post on O'Sullivan using the Dan Rather defence (it pays to read the comments on these). Then there was this follow-up, then this, and finally a whole website, well directory, on "Doonegate".
Now one minor thing does confuse me somewhat, AL appears to object to O'Sullivan styling the site "the vast right-wing conspiracy that is the Sir Humphrey's blogsite". Yet the site styles itself that way with a "VRWC" link on the top right hand corner. So where's the problem?
Update: Sagenz has a further response from Fran O'Sullivan that's worth a read here.
Wishart has responded juicily on his blog here:
...I suggest that Fran and the Herald start consulting their lawyers, and start researching those genuine "big weaknesses" in those stories, because you are going to need to prove the truth of those claims in court if I don't get aI've always thought the spectacle of one journalist suing another is a bit naff. Entertaining, but still naff.
retraction...
As for Sir Humphrey's, well no one can say they are not excitable, especially when they get a mention in the MSM. First there was this post on O'Sullivan using the Dan Rather defence (it pays to read the comments on these). Then there was this follow-up, then this, and finally a whole website, well directory, on "Doonegate".
Now one minor thing does confuse me somewhat, AL appears to object to O'Sullivan styling the site "the vast right-wing conspiracy that is the Sir Humphrey's blogsite". Yet the site styles itself that way with a "VRWC" link on the top right hand corner. So where's the problem?
Update: Sagenz has a further response from Fran O'Sullivan that's worth a read here.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 10:48 AM
10 Comments:
Yes, Fran O'Sullivan did set herself up for attack on this one.
However, Fran is not the only journalist who ignored this major story.
AL had been posting the various Doonegate papers on the Sir Humphrey blog in early September.
References to these postings were made on Kiwiblog and certainly on Jordan Carter's Just Left prior to the elction. Jordan was criticised for barring a link to the Sir Humphrey site.
As a journo, I thought there was a story here. Here was documentary evidence showing that Helen Clark lied to get rid of a police commissioner.
All this happened at a time when Don Brash's honesty was under question over Bretherengate.
Now, many journalists are known for perusing Kiwiblog, SH and other sites. So the Doonegate stuff was in the public domain and they would be aware of it. It was simply being ignored.
I tried to arouse interest from fellow Fairfax journalists. One at the Star-Times said the issue was "too close to home", another was more interested in standard business stories.
So whether the MSM in NZ is engaged in a conspiracy to prop up their Liar-bour government, or they are simply too lazy or incompetent, I do not know.
I recall Ian Wishart's November piece said 20-odd journos had been told about the Doonegate papers prior to the election.
Now, I am sure Ian will be able to prove that these emails were sent to these journos, just as AL has email proof of when he was in contact with Fran O'Sullivan.
Consequently, there is either much incompetence in the NZ MSM, or conspiracy, of laziness. Now, which is it?
While the role of the MSM is still an issue to debate over, there is still the underlying issue for which AL and Investigate are so interested in.
Did the PM lie to get rid of Peter Doone?
The documentary evidence suggests/ states she did.
Now, isn't it time someone from one of the big papers, the tv even, did a proper investigation.
Ian Wishart has drawn his own conclusions and had a cracking cover story last November complete with media cover-up.
But the story still needs a wider audience. If only just to get to the bottom of it all.
They just cannot get over the fact that their side lost the election, we were robbed! they scream.
Rather small thing to hang your hat on, the police commisioner involved was caught bang to rights trying to stop someone being breath tested, crying about the exact details does not change that one iota.
The media not being interested does not a cover-up make.
Hmmm ... I've offered an opinion on this on SH more than once, so I think I'll take the opportunity to comment on it on a less excitable blog. I think the main contention is that Clark had information in hand which didn't support the idea that Doone actually said "That won't be necessary" to Constable Brett Main. Eyewitnesses said that Doone didn't *prevent* Main carrying out a test.
So Clark was completely out of line saying "you're not wrong" to Oskar Alley when he sought verification of the "that won't be necessary" quote.
But I think we've all assumed that for a while, and I *really* don't think a story repeating parts of a five year-old official report would have had quite the same impact as revelations relevant to a hot story on the election campaign in progress.
This also rests on the fallacy that the SST story was what got Doone sacked. It wasn't. He had a string of debacles behind him the Wellington incident was the final straw.
Fact is, Main had a sniffer in his hand when he approached the car (for driving without lights), but, after being spoken to by Doone, did not carry out the test. Doone knew the proper procedure, and he damn well should have insisted it was carried out. Which is what the report (the same one AL quotes) said. The writing was on the wall for Doone for reasons *other* than the SST story, which was subject to a speedy retraction anyway.
As I've noted elsewhere, the new Labour government was criticised not for dealing to Doone, but for being *too soft* on him. The myth that's developed around him being some sort of martyr is just silly.
So there was a story, just not one that would have turned the election, and I actually wish it *had* been aired then, because that at least would have shut people up.
Cheers,
RB
A curious admission there Russell.
Clark is "out of line" - you mean wrong, you mean she lied?
This is indeed one of the major points- and it is why it was relevent during the election camapign.
There was Brash under fire over honesty, when here was something that certainly called into question the honesty of the prime minister.
Now, yes, Doonegate is an old tale. But the postings online of the various reports were the first time that such official documents made the public domain, which is somewhat newsworthy, to let people decide. The documents entered the public domain during the election campaign thanks to AL's postings on Sir Humphreys.
Russell, you are right in Doone having several debacles behind him. I recall at the time that he was widely blaimed for the INCIS computer system failure, though I recently heard one commentator (can't remember who) saying the new police commissioner might have some responsibility there.
You are right in there being some pressure for the newly-elected Clark to get rid of Doone. This is also part of the issue. Clark was under pressure to get rid of Doone and her being less than totally truthful to the media was one way she could ensure his demise.
And this from a Prime Minister who as leader of the opposition made such a great issue of integrity and honesty.
Yet, the first thing she does as PM is use underhanded tactics to stick the knife in.
Well, I looked at the story at the time. Although it wasn't my normal area I figured it might need a look.
It didn't stack up as anything new.
Had a look at the earlier coverage, and spoke to a couple of people in the Opposition who had worked on the issue earlier. They'd seen the Sir H documents. They already had them. They'd used them.
If there had been anything new in those papers, both National and Act would have been hurling them at Labour in the middle of the campaign. The fact they didn't tells you all you need to know about why no-one followed the Sir H revelations. Sir H thought they had a scoop. They didn't.
If someone really wants to cane the media over this, I think there's some more questions about how the SST handled it, although all the key players have since moved on.
Their story is they heard about the incident from an unnamed source, and went to the PM for confirmation. The PM then became their second unnamed source, who became named when the SST discovered she had misled them.
1. Why? Why the PM? If I had that sort of story about a police commissioner it would not occur to me to go to the PM. the Police or State Services ministers possibly, but not the PM.
2. The SST outed the PM for misleading them - as they should have. An "off the record" agreement can only stand if people are honest. The PM wasn't. She was deliberately misleading.
However - the SST reckoned they went to her for confirmation. So why didn't they out their original source, who presumably was just as misleading as the PM was?
3. Was there another source at all? Or (as I suspect) did the whole thing come from the PM?
Other comments: Doone was already in the gun when Labour came in, mostly over INCIS. He’d deputy or assistant commissioner and had done an MBA or something similar to do with IT. He got the top job on the promise of making INCIS work and making the police operations more efficient. (insert polite cough or hollow laughter here as taste requires)
Labour had targeted IT wastage and INCIS in particular: Doone was already in trouble. The breathalyser incident was a gift to Labour. He put his head in a noose at the right moment.
I can’t remember any criticism of Labour for being easy on him though Russell – there may well have been some, but I’m blowed if I recall it.
One of the best posts I've seen on this issue, Rob.
I must say Fran's stated reasons for not following the story up deserved the treatment they got online, especially over the issue of the documents' authenticity. That supposed concern rings hollow to me.
I agree, good post Rob H
Certainly in the blogosphere, the issue is being well aired.
And to me, the role of the Prime minister is central to this.
As noted, Peter Doone was already in the firing line. How he behaved that night was perhaps lacking in wisdom as it called his activities into question.
Thus Helen Clark already had the motive in dumping on Doone and then she got the opportunity!
Just exactly what did she say? And why did she say it? And how ethical was she? Even Russell is now admitting she was "out of line."
Then, yes, we have the role of the media to consider too. Its closeness with the PM, the Star-Times using her as a source.
And how the MSM was keen to question Brash and his honesty over Bretherengate, follow Mallard's smears over National as Gospel, etc. The seemed too in bed with labour and were not being fair.
Fran O'Sullivan deserves some credit for taking more interest in the matter than other journalists, but alas it is worrying that none of the 20-plus reportedly contacted, did nothing that made it to print prior to the election.
And it was left to ian Wishart to follow-up the doonegate reports, complete with media cover-up angle.
Sorry Darren but although I'd support the view that there is a leftish bias in the mainstream media I don't think there was a cover up of the sort alleged by Investigate and Sir H.
Don't forget: its not just 20 or 30 odd journalists who decided there wasn't a story in it. So did both National and Act.
And National and Act had more reason than anyone else to believe the documents on Sir H showed something new. But there wasn't anything new there.
As I said above, Sir H thought they had a scoop. They didn't.
Interesting points. I presume you read Fran O'Sullivans mea culpa response on my blog.
There was no vast media conspiracy. But we all agree that Clark was at the very least "out of line" to use Russells words.
And there was no democratic accountability in the media when all the relevant documentary proof was presented together.
For individual journalists the well known clark ruthlessness would have meant an unspoken reluctance to be the first to put the head above the parapet.
But the information was in the hands of ACT & National. Dr Brash could have called a press conference 3 days out from the election and accused clark of lying to undermine the duly appointed chief of police and re-presented the documents. A genuine scandal.
I concluded that the lack of such a ruthless streak in Brash cost National the election. It makes him a better person but it also makes him only Leader of the opposition. Such is life
Cheers Sagenz, I've added a link to it in post.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home