Publishing Journalists’ Home Addresses Is A Tactic Of The Right, Not The Left



I think I’m starting to get rather annoyed with the conduct of some pro-MANA people over this ongoing Parliamentary Services crew complement issue.

Yes, we get that there are legitimate issues to be raised with how some political reporters in this country operate. InternetMANA Press Secretary and Caller-Out of “Puffed Up Little Shits” Pam Corkery eloquently and factually spelled out some of these in her excellent piece a few weeks back.

*THAT’S* how you raise issue with these sorts of things. In an appropriate context, and buttressed with appropriate content. As their own issue, rather than as an attempted deflection from the gravity and seriousness of the episode presently engulfing MANA.

You *don’t* decide to give the errant press a taste of its own medicine by taking it upon yourself to publish the address of the reporter in question online. 

What the hell kinda person does that.

Now I will note that there’s a certain sadistic glee to be had whenever a politico manages to “turn the tables” on the media and put *them* under the hard glare. This is, assumedly, why we enjoy watching Winston rip into and counter-interrogate a particularly obstinate journalist every now and again.

But has the MANA supporter behind the address posting thought about the likely results of this? If this actually turns out to be Tova O’Brien’s *actual* place of residence, then I imagine there’ll be more than just one fake camera crew turning up on her doorstep to demand an “interview”.

TDB Recommends

The way some Hone-fans are whipping themselves up into a frenzy, I’d half expect a whole baying mob!

Now if it *isn’t* Tova O’Brien’s actual address … then I imagine that some poor confused Wellington residents are about to be inundated with unwanted and unwarranted knocks at the door – and I don’t mean from Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Either way, this is profoundly uncool conduct from what I hope’s just a few excessively-irate MANA supporters.

I appreciate that emotions are running high right now in some camps, but casually putting up what you’re claiming is somebody’s home address and telling people to make sure “she’ll get the message” … isn’t an example of “[playing] her at her own game” … it’s an example of you sinking to the level of Cameron Slater or Cactus Kate.

Now let’s all take a deep breath … quit trying to make this about ethics in political-game journalism … and hurry up and wait for Hone to front on this issue.

Oh, and I’m assuming that, for various reasons, the alleged O’Brien household won’t be handing out candy to strangers who come a’knocking at their door this Halloween. Particularly if they come dressed as camera crews or political reporters.


  1. I don’t condone publishing anybody’s personal address online. And this is exactly what has happened in Dirty Politics with public servants, along with smear campaigns and attacks paid for by big business. Nobody has done a thing about this and nobody has been held accountable. Why? I haven’t seen the post, do you know for sure it was an actual Mana supporter? Or a paid ‘stand in’?

    • 4 give me for the cynicism… its just it’s not like there’s alot of trust left with all the ‘ paid by this person and that person to do this and that to this person’ shenanigans out there

  2. Curwen, I’m not a Mana member. I am a communist. This is what I think.
    Whatever liberal PC phrases you hide behind, you are part of a reactionary lynch mob mentality which ignores due process.
    Dirty Politics showed us how Govt and corporate media conspire to shape public opinion.
    Your behaviour is no different since NZF is threatened by the rise of Mana.
    O’Brien and Davis smeared Mana by charging ‘guilt by association’ with three people who have a record of offending, or have been recently charged with sex offending.
    First, if you claim to be ‘liberal’ let alone ‘left’ you should recognise that past offenders have paid for their crime and should be fully rehabilitated into society.
    In the case of the person recently convicted Mana is not responsible for his crime any more than others associated with him.
    In the case of the person charged in the weeks ahead of the election, that person is innocent until proven guilty.
    No, what you are really saying is that Hone and Mana has been charged with ‘guilt by association’ and has to prove in a trial-by-media that it is not party to this offending by having foreknowledge of it.
    In that you prove that you are not ‘left’ or even ‘liberal’ committed to due process but part of the right-wing Dirty Politics that subjects a feared left-wing rival to a lynch mob mentality.

    • Hey Dave; thanks for the feedback.

      i) can I just point out that “reactionary lynch mob” style antics would possibly feature turning up at somebody’s house in a mob …? The same thing some MANA supporters are quite possibly planning on doing?

      ii) can I further point out that two of the gentlemen in question have gone through the due process of the courts (one before he began employment with MANA; the other some time after being hired)

      iii) and can I question just how exactly NZF is “threatened” with the “rise” of MANA. Without wishing to be rude to MANA, I’m not *strictly* sure that being outside of Parliament and losing a seat is evidence of a “rise” or something we’d feel threatened by…

      iv) no, no I don’t think Tova smeared MANA by association with sex offenders; I do however think that Hone has some questions to answer about what he knew and when as applies at least one of these gentleman – and, given the period of offending overlapped with the period of employment for Taylor, more details on same..

      v) Alright, so the idea of past offenders earning redemption is a valid one … but that doesn’t absolve Taylor (whose offending took place *while hew as employed with MANA* and is presently doing time for); nor Mr Awaru (whose case is still before the courts)

      vi) Nobody’s claiming MANA is responsible for Taylor’s crime. What we’re doing is asking for more information about his employment history with MANA – like when it ceased and such.

      vii) yes, yes we get that Mr Awaru is subject to the legal presumption of innocence. However, he was out on bail on election night. Are we ENTIRELY sure that letting someone out on bail rep your party on election night is a grand idea?

      viii) no, no I’m not “really saying” that “Hone and Mana has been charged with ‘guilt by association’ and has to prove in a trial-by-media that it is not party to this offending by having foreknowledge of it.” We haven’t even established foreknowledge yet, as that would requre Hone to front up.

      ix) sorry, what “feared left-wing rival”.

      • Mr Rolinson, quoting you:

        “viii) no, no I’m not “really saying” that “Hone and Mana has been charged with ‘guilt by association’ and has to prove in a trial-by-media that it is not party to this offending by having foreknowledge of it.” We haven’t even established foreknowledge yet, as that would require Hone to front up.”

        Your not “really saying it” but you are actually saying it.

        You, O’Brien and Davis call on Hone to “front up” to prove his innocence.
        If he doesn’t “front up ” the implication is that he is guilty.

        By smearing Hone as guilty you rev up emotions about sex offending and target him, his family and MANA with “guilt by association”.

        • Good points Dave.
          Curwen is doing nothing more than accepting Tova’s idiocracy and taking it to new heights.
          I’m concerned that people think an issue as serious as this deserves a kneejerk reaction.
          Curwen’s commentary on this is dripping with political capital, we should be critical of everyone’s view and their framing of this, especially #TeamTovaAndCurwen

          • how is “asks for facts” a kneejerk reaction; and how is “publishes home address of journalist” *not* a kneejerk reaction, exactly…?

            And is your call for reflexive criticality also going to be extended to pro-MANA positions on this issue..>?

            Or just positions you, personally, disagree with.

            • “how is “asks for facts” a kneejerk reaction; and how is “publishes home address of journalist” *not* a kneejerk reaction, exactly…?”

              Yeah, yeah, we all know posting Tova’s details was a nasty thing to do. It goes without saying and we all know it…so what’s the point in writing a post about it? Like the rest of your articles, this one goes into the ‘who gives a shit’ pile.

              Your moralising and political point scoring is so Winston Peter-ish that its painful. We all know Mana has some shit to sort out, but that shouldn’t be framed by your or Tova’s half-baked commentary.

              Feel free to go clean up that one-law-for-all party. That’ll keep you busy…

              • I thank you for the high compliment of the Winston comparison.

                However, I’m not *entirely* sure how frequently parties sort out their own issues without external highlighting of same. Frequently, this sort fo thing gets brushed under the rug and we’re asked to wait for it all to blow over.

                Now as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m perfectly capable of multi-tasking, and rest assured that the same guy who got Richard Prosser officially censured last year is still working around the clock to make NZF even more awesome than it is already.


                While blogging about an array of other parties and happenings, to boot.

                • I was actually talking about the policies of NZ First. Anyone with a basic understanding of how history and power intersect knows that in a NZ context one-law-for-all policies are racist.

                  Nobody gave a shit about Richard Prosser. Hardly anyone knew who he was before his outburts, and nobody remembers him.

                  Sad to see you back-slap yourself over Prosser, because it made no difference to your party’s racist policies.

                  NZ First’s racism is systemic and built into the party’s DNA. Pretending it’s a bad apple issue is as insulting as it is ignorant

                  • Oh good grief. Bandies about the word “racist” three times in a comment can’t even provide a single policy to substantiate his use of the term. Nice going, Fatty.

                    For the record, things like our Foreshore & Seabed policy had the approval of ALL major Coastal Iwi.

                    We CONTINUE to poll well above our nation-wide party-vote in ALL Maori Seats.

                    Our Parliamentary Caucus is about 45% Maori right now.

                    Are you REALLY suggesting to thousands of Maori New Zealanders and 5 MPs of Maori extraction that they’re against their own people by supporting us?

                    Or maybe, just maybe … you’re attempting to speak on behalf of an entire people without a single shred of legitimacy or evidence to buttress your prejudice.

                    Go on, Fatty. Let’s have this debate.

                    I’m Waiting.

          • Yes, and I am concerned that Rolinson’s framing of this is acceptable to the TDB editor as he seems to have been promoted from Guest to regular contributor on the strength of his smear campaign. Perhaps Bomber agrees with trial by social media.

            I don’t think Rolinson has innocently fallen for O’Brien’s ‘idiocy’, or Davis’ crowing from the frontrow. I see this as a continuation of Key’s dirty politics that smeared Mana by association with Dotcom, and now goes in for the kill to smear Mana by association with sex-offending.

            The NACTs, Labour and NZF are all players in this dirty politics because the Mana/Dotcom alliance was for them the first real challenge to their complicity in enabling Key another victory to ram through his anti-worker agenda and sell off what is left of NZ’s economic sovereignty.


            • Funny 😀

              For the record, Dave, I made the jump from guest-columnist to regular contributor some time *before* I started covering MANA’s present internal contratemps.

              If you’re going to push a conspiracy theory, suggests you do the minimum modicum of research required to actually substantiate same…? [you can see all my blog output since being promoted by clicking on my name just under the title … this will show you my blogging about MANA ain’t got nothing to do with it.]

              Also, are you SERIOUSLY alleging that I’m part of #DirtyPolitics? Or that NZF is an active beneficiary from #DirtyPolitics?

              Because if you’d *actually read the book*, you’d find we were, if anything, the most prominent targets in National’s sights.

              Hell, you appearto be alleging the Labour Party deliberately threw the last election to “enable Key another victory”

              Also, if you think NZF is down with “selling off what is left of NZ’s economic sovereignty”, then you clearly and plainly dn’t know the meaning of the words “New Zealand First”.

        • No, no I’m not actually saying it, though? However dearly you may wish to impute that I am…?

          And I’m requesting a front-up from Hone to clear up this whole mess and hopefully put the matter to rest. It’s literally the *only* thing that will.

          I’m asking for facts. I’m *not* taking the position taht you think I am.

          How, exactly, am I “smearing Hone as guilty”, and what, exactly, are you alleging him to be guilty of…?

      • “can I just point out that “reactionary lynch mob” style antics would possibly feature turning up at somebody’s house in a mob …? The same thing some MANA supporters are quite possibly planning on doing?”

        Thanks for keeping us safe in our beds, which are not in the gated mansions of Howick. Those Maoris are bloody scary alright. Have you seen that haka thing they do? I will sleep easier knowing that some reactionary blogger is looking out for my interests.

  3. Reply to Mr R: “Taylor (whose offending took place *while hew as employed with MANA* “

    That, right there, is smearing.
    Facts you have conveniently omitted: When Mr Taylor (vile creature that he is) applied to work with Mana, he was rubber stamped by this government! He was a CYF approved child carer!! How were Mana supposed to know what CYF apparently could not uncover?

    Now if you have any genuine concern for the children at risk, do your next “investigative journalism” researching the number of CYF Child Carers who have turned out to be abusers!!

    • It’s not smearing. Taylor faced 16 (now 17) charges of sexually abusing five boys ranging in age from 12 to over 16 over a period from 2007 until early 2011. He was employed by MANA in 2010. These are facts. Unlike MANA, Paula Bennett fronted over it – even if I didn’t find it terribly satisfactory.

      • Thanks for repeatedly pointing out that Mana employed Taylor before he was charged with sexual offending.
        What should happen here…do you want Mana to appologise for not knowing the future?
        Should Mana build a time machine so it can go back and warn itself?

        Yes, silly comments…but only as silly as your logic.

        Oh, and give it a rest with preempting the race card. Saying that is racist. Yes, it is

  4. Further to Mr R: “one before he began employment with MANA”

    Why the sideways reference to Arthur? Hone has always been open about his resolve to stand by his brother. Yet you seem to imply that you are revealing some dark secret.

    As I wrote in a reply to your earlier post, and as is common knowledge, Arthur lost his son to suicide in 1996. Somewhere along the line, in 2008, he lost the plot and did time for that. Hone very openly stood by him. This was no secret. In 2012 Arthur founded Fathers Against Suicide.

    • He can stand by his brother, but there are serious issues when he’s doing it with taxpayer’s money with the intent of running for Parliament.

  5. “What we’re doing is asking for more information about his employment history with MANA – like when it ceased and such.”

    If you had shown diligence as a journalist you would have waited for their replies to those questions before going public. Then you might have had some actual facts to present rather than this sad mix of innuendo. … That is, assuming you did as you have claimed and actually asked them, going through the appropriate channels of communication.

Comments are closed.