Is Cameron Slater a Journalist or a cyber bully?



It is fascinating watching this defamation case between Cameron Slater and Matthew Blomfield.

Slater says he is a journalist and as such has journalistic privilege to keep his sources secret. Blomfield says Slater gained access to a stolen personal computer and Slater proceeded to publish these details. In Blomfield’s own words…

(Slater) 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.

…so that’s ‘Journalism’ is it? Surely the work Slater is being accused of defamation for must stand on its own two feet in terms of public interest to be granted such protections? Journalists are given such privilege because their work speaks truth to power. How was anything Slater wrote about Blomfield speaking truth to power?

Couldn’t it be argued that Slater in fact was being a cyber bully? Isn’t that the irony about this whole case? Slater cyber bullies Blomfield (for reasons that have never been made clear) and then claims that because he’s a ‘journalist’ he has privilege to protect his sources when the victim of his cyber bullying takes him to court for defamation.

That Slater is currently trying to join the Press Council to gain credibility shows how corrupted the Press Council is.


  1. Slater doesn’t follow norms of journalistic ethics. His treatment of Bevan Chuang as a source was the latest example of this. He also lied in public about what he knew and when he knew it. The only thing that saved him from being exposed was that Palino ran away.

    • In defence of Slater I don’t think he espouses the importance of “norms of journalistic ethics”, or for that matter ‘norms’ or ‘ethics.’

      He just does what he wants. He comes and goes like tides and weather with similar vagaries of those. But instead of being the actual tide, consistent and on time, what is left behind in the estuarial backwaters is his product. Flotsam and jetsam and rancid scum mark his contribution. Bullying might be part of the way he operates but the sullying of our whole landscape is his signature.

  2. He certainly thinks the law shouldn’t apply to him and gets nasty very quickly. Whether it’s bullying because of his foul personality and inadequacies, or because he’s operating as a stink bomb launcher for hire, I don’t know. What I do think is that he should be stopped. One day even cowards like him don’t do their risk analysis properly and upset someone who’ll do something about it. This is one reason why we need an internet code of conduct. No one should end up in prison because that lump of excrement has driven them past the point of self-control. A civilised society would stop him first.

  3. What is the cyber equivalent of the guy who gets the schoolyard brawl started then just sits back and watches the ensuing melee. That is what Cameron Slater is.
    Or maybe he is a cyber-sadist

    • Thanks for this link Kate. Excellent! Good on Phil Wallington for pulling no punches. Brilliant analysis of TV 3 and the networks of sleaze running back to the PM. I must admit Kim Dotcom has achieved a hit with my teenage children and their friends with his satirical take on the Internet party Manifesto featuring very convincing lookalikes of JK and Obama. Nice references to handshakes, hearings, going red, LOTR and Snowdon. Whatever else at least Dotcom has a lively sense of humour. Ironic anyway that Slater would call anyone a Nazi given his remarkable resemblance to Hitlers attack dog, gutter press, agent of sleaze Streicher.

  4. Remember that most bullies, whether physical or cyber have one thing in common, they have a terrible inferiority complex (that means they are terrified of being made to look inferior to anyone) and thus bullying, posturing and intimidation are their attempts to assert their imagined superiority over every other living thing. Do you remember a while back when Slater had been bagging Trevor Mallard over his weight and his love of cycling for exercise? Mallard challenged Slater to back up his posturing by having a cycle race with him. Slater was boasting about how easy it would be to beat Mallard but what was the result? Mallard won easily, Slater couldn’t even finish the race! Despite all the vicious bad mouthing that Slater had made against Mallard, Mallard was still gentleman enough to shake Slater’s hand afterwards, even though he hardly deserved it.

  5. Let him join the Press Council. They will then hold him to some sort of journalistic standard. I’m sure they must have one. Right?

  6. And yet you read him! And follow his escapades. Plump up his ego by noticing him.


    Do we have any useful legislation in this country for the removal to prison of people who incite threats and harms against others, irrespective of their claimed profession?

    We do?

    Do we know how to get the process rolling?

    We do?


    Start a Slater fighting fund and use it. And remove his sources of ‘intoxicating air’ aka noticing him, and those of like kind.

    They’ll pop up somewhere else; that kind always do. Yet there’s no need to tolerate increasing spite and venom, surely?

  7. I agree with Andrea. There are laws in this country against harassment, stalking, libel, slander etc. Surely one or more of these applies to Slater’s anti-social behaviour, without creating arbitrary distinctions between “journalist” and “blogger”, and between online media and print media. What Slater does would be no less distasteful if he was still doing it in a printed tabloid like the Truth.

    Also, there’s no such thing as “cyberbullying” or by extension a “cyber bully”, there’s only bullying and bullies. Adding the “cyber” prefix is a propaganda tactic, created by people who want to limit our freedom to engage in many-to-many debates on sites like this, and make us go back to passively consuming “news” through channels they control (television, radio, newspapers etc). Don’t buy into it, and don’t support the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Would we think it was acceptable for the government to censor our communications in a Harmful Print Communications Bill?

Comments are closed.