GUEST BLOG: Gerard Otto – Stacey Kirk and the disinterested pursuit of the truth

Stacey Kirk wrote today that we should not pretend this is not exactly what Jami-Lee Ross wanted.

That rascally rabbit had calculated that by including the complaint made about Sarah Dowies’ text within his apology, that the Main Stream Media would be forced to do their job.

“…by dropping the bomb that the text had been sent to police via the Crimestoppers tip line, Ross knew it was incumbent upon the media to point out that a sitting MP was now at the centre of a police investigation.”- wrote Stacey.

Fiddlesticks and curses, National had been not allowed to “move on” as it so arrogantly told the press back in November and Ross was to blame again.

“He did it in the full knowledge of the law, and how the media has to work. While that text has been widely linked to Dowie on blogs and social media, the mainstream news has had to tread carefully around her identity and that of the other women he’s had relationships with.”- added Stacey.

Mainstream news had actually had a go at telling the National Party to be more transparent and to be accountable about these matters when Simon Bridges took the ill fated decision to just move on.

“I’m done with talking about him” and “National is moving on”, Simon Bridges told the parliamentary press gallery in early November 2018.

That dismissal of the truth by Simon Bridges provoked Fairfax to write an editorial titled “Moving on” is not acceptable on 10th November.

The editorial stated questions that Simon Bridges had left unanswered when he “moved on” – :

” * The “deserve to die” text reportedly came from a married MP. While National has indicated it is doing a review of its culture, has a separate investigation been launched to speak to the MP who reportedly sent this text?

* What discussions has the party had with the MP who reportedly sent a text like that?

* Has that MP been censured, faced internal discipline, or been stood down from duties? If no action has been taken by the party, why not?

* Does the National Party believe that the text message sent breached the Harmful Digital Communication Act?

* Does the National Party still believe the MP, who reportedly sent the text, is still fit to be an MP and represent the National Party, given they reportedly sent a text saying someone deserved to die?

* Has the MP offered to stand down? Or, are they still carrying out their duties as normal?

And wait for it, here’s the no comment from National.

“The National Party has no comment on these matters. Jami-Lee Ross is no longer a National MP and the party is moving on.”

Moving on … we don’t think so.”

Stacey’s own colleagues had raised these points on 10th November 2018.

They said :

“Where is the personal responsibility of a party that won’t answer questions. And where is the personal responsibility of the MP who reportedly sent the “you deserve to die” text?”

But today Stacey blamed everything on Ross whilst using vague terms like “innocent lives” to seemingly absolve everyone connected to him from all responsibility.

Ross was up to his old tricks again she said.

Tricks like being publicly scapegoated by Simon Bridges who decided an inquiry was required over his expenses bill.

The leaks are still flowing from National’s Caucus long after Simon Bridges decided that the PwC report was enough to get rid of Jami-Lee.

Notably that report did not find the leaker – but suspicion was cast upon Ross as the most likely leaker.

There was cause and effect at work here but Stacey Kirk unfairly did not write a balanced article that included it.

No mention of how Ross knew Bridges part and those National Party donations and the ethnicity issues raised concerning Indians and Chinese buying representation.

Was he supposed to stay silent?

Journalists should be interested in their pursuit of the truth here – not sweep this stuff aside.

National had successfully told the press to bugger off and talk about something else – like Karel Sroubek for five weeks.

Now Ross was guilty of bringing up the matters they thought they had artfully dodged.

None of this context was covered in Stacey’s article today.

Instead she isolated Ross’s reactions to Bridges and Bennett who encouraged him to use “health issues” as a cover story for gardening leave and wrote an insinuation Ross was destroying lives :

“But it appears as though Ross is resting on his genuine mental health crisis as an excuse for all that came before. That he does is an insult to the countless number of people suffering mental health crises of their own, who are decent human beings often sadly thinking of only protecting the people around them, rather than actively destroying them.”

This is breach of Fairfax’s code of ethics for journalists because it is not fair.

Fairness is one of three main principles Stacey should abide by in her writing and telling a half story is not fair.

She should be less interested in protecting National and “innocent parties” and instead pursue the truth.