I have a copy of Das Kapital by Marx that I’ve signed in my book case but I’m not sure owning a book makes me a monster. Sadly that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media jumping on Cameron Slater’s nazi smear and insinuating that Kim Dotcom goose-steps around his home.
I’m going to brand as ‘book-burners’ those who have made the leap from Dotcom’s ownership of a signed copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf to his being a Nazi sympathiser. I don’t of course mean that they are actual book-burners, but that they exhibit the mentality of book-burners. They are people who believe that a man’s character may be judged not merely by the contents of his library but, in this particular case, by his ownership of a single book. Their logic, as I argued in my previous post, is that if the contents of a book are evil then the ownership of such a book is itself evidence of evil:
What staggers me about the kind of opinions erupting out of the Press Gallery at the moment is that they sound less like informed thought and more like the desperate grunts of a group of Journalists trying to find relevancy in a social media market that has left them behind. Their irrelevance was exposed by their farcical confidence backing Grant Robertson for Labour leadership, their unshakable faith in their own flawed landline polls and their surprise at Matt McCarten’s appointment as Cunliffe’s Chief-of-Staff.
That the 24 hour news cycle seems to be news to Tracy Watkins is amusing, as too is her misunderstanding of where the Standard ranks against The Daily Blog in terms of influence Espiner’s latest missive sounds as out of touch as Watkin’s but with far more personality. The shrill regurgitation of Slater’s smears by many in the msm has been recently scrutinised by Chris Trotter and John Drinnan, but what really makes me queazy is the ethical bankruptcy of it all.
Having Cameron Slater sound off about who is bad and who isn’t is just extraordinary when you consider Cam’s own record. This is a man who promoted a doctored video maliciously edited to have Jim Anderton falsely claim an earthquake would be needed for him to lose the Christchurch Mayoralty. This is a man who was calling for ‘looters’ like Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp to be shot in the gut before his Asperger’s was made public. This is a man who illegally published the employment history of a wharf worker exposing his grief while nursing his wife to death from cancer. This is a man whose own involvement in the Len Brown scandal was never made clear with his father running the campaign for Len’s biggest challenger. This is a man who called a teenager who drank himself to death, “a toffee-nosed school boy, a dead thief and a liar who couldn’t handle his piss. I always said King’s boys were poofs.” This is a man who called a passenger who had no role in his own death in a car crash ‘feral’ for speeding EVEN THOUGH Cameron himself took a selfie speeding over 200km on an Australian holiday.
But none of that matters to Colin Espiner does it? None of that matters to John Armstrong or Bill Ralston, Patrick Gower, Duncan Garner, Leighton Smith, Mike Hosking, Paul Henry or any other mainstream media mouthpiece parroting Cam’s smears. The fact that Cameron has stepped over the line many, many, many times doesn’t pause for one moment their need to legitimise Cam’s hate speech by regurgitating his attack lines. How can someone with such a record of hate speech be allowed to prance around like he has the moral authority to judge any one else? How can the mainstream media be allowed to source a hate speech merchant and not be accused of a profound lack of ethics when doing so?
The need to legitimise blogging hate speech is being explored by the Press Council. Bloggers like Slater and David Farrar crave the ‘credibility’ of being a member of the corporate media club, but why a hate speech merchant like Slater and a polling propagandist like Farrar should be considered part of the legitimate facade of journalism hasn’t been answered. If a progressive person is doubtful of the back slapping old boys club that is the Press Council now, wait until Farrar and Slater are members.
Slater is currently in front of the Courts desperately screaming he is a journalist and as such has journalistic protections to hide correspondence that is being sourced in a defamation case against him by Matthew Blomfield. Blomfield wasn’t a public person, he wasn’t a politician, he was just some poor bloke that Slater decided to eviscerate when Slater gained information from him stolen computer…
It was therefore a considerable shock to me to be directed to his blog site and to see the contents of my hard dive published therein. If Mr Slater had stuck to saying what he has in the last few days (with some exceptions), namely that I was a (now former) bankrupt and banned company director (I am now allowed to act as a director of the company I work for BTW) who took $3.5 m of other people’s (all institutions, no individuals) money with him when I went down, I could hardly complain.
Instead, he wrote a series of articles and published attendant comments which accused me of a series of crimes and then made disgusting and denigrating claims against my wife. As recently as Thursday this week she received anonymous text messages stating “Headhunters are waiting”. While the stories were running it was commonplace for her to receive updates of what atrocities were in store for her (all the detail is before the court and Slater knows it). His supporters then amused themselves with online hate speech. He mocked my attempts to reason with him.
This is the standard of ‘journalistic value’ that Russell Brown is rushing to defend Cameron Slater’s right to journalistic protections over?
Slater wants journalistic protections to be able to maim private citizens who have no public interest value whatsoever and the Press Council want to give him legitimacy for this?
That the Prime Minister is in regular phone contact with someone as violently abusive and vicious as Slater to push the agenda of the Government should be a national shame. The fact most of the mainstream media are desperate to copy Slater explains why it is not.
*Just to be clear. Kim Dotcom did not pay me for this blog. I criticise Slater pro bono.