#hagerbook

[Ab]

Did you hear? There are people on the Internet BURNING BOOKS!

Those awful Internets.

Subscribe now.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...7e8a8e3feb90a6

[Delphinus]

How many people here have actually read the book? I've recently got myself a copy and I'm a few chapters in. It is quite interesting.

[Omegakai]

I’m someone mad about the media on this book, The media is all about ZOMG fat blooger ! and OMG he was told stuff!! ZOMG !

I personally couldn’t give a rats arse about who’s talking to who, the issue should be about the massive lack of transparency, and how a senior member of the prime minister’s office actively went out of his way to circumnutated official lines of communication by using aliases on gmail.

That shit in my books is totally wrong regardless of what party you work for end of story.

[pxpx]

JK is the man:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11312309

Cunliffe trying so damn hard to pin something on him.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

National's greatest advantage here is that Hager can't prove any of it. The excerpts I've seen so far read more like a blog than a work of journalism.

Fran O'Sullivan:

So where is it, Mr Hager? I waited until 5pm last night for you to release copies of the hacked emails, Facebook messages and documents to journalists which underpin your major exclusive from Wednesday night: Dirty Politics.

Just five weeks out from the September 20 general election you surely couldn't have expected the country's journalists to meekly parrot all your conclusions instead of making their own minds up based on source documents and taking the issue further through their own investigations.

But real journalists seek to base their stories on more than your own cynically timed splash for Wednesday night's 6pm television news where political reporters were expected to take down your words and publish them verbatim without even having read your book in the first place.

Where's the fairness of that in the midst of an election campaign?
...
You've sat on these hacked documents since earlier this year - and bashed out a book which glosses over the fact in many instances you do not have verifiable evidence to back many of your claims - just conjecture which, however well-based, is conjecture.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11309671

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by pxpx

JK is the man:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11312309

Cunliffe trying so damn hard to pin something on him.

Yeah it well could have been just a poorly written letter.

Though it's probably not a good look for National when the explanations on the news amount to - documents showing Tuckers "discussions with the Prime Minister" were actually talking about someone else. But not the Prime Minister.

[pxpx]

https://twitter.com/ThePigeonNZ/stat...79238472347648

made me lol

[chubby]

haw haw.
'cause its the ethics of the hacking that the left wing smear campaign rests upon that are the real issue here.

[Lightspeed]

I guess there's no question about authenticity at this point.

[chubby]

depends who you listen to

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I guess there's no question about authenticity at this point.

What? Of course there is. Hager can't prove any of it is real. And some of the things in the book are just plain untrue according to the people involved.

Making accusations and then saying "well prove it's NOT true" isn't journalism. It's crazy blogging done on paper.

I say this all with the authority I possess in virtue of being Jesus Christ the Son of God resurrected. Prove I'm not.

[Lightspeed]

So there was no email hacking then?

[Ab]

Who knows? I tend not to instantly believe the things I see posted to the Internet by anonymous strangers.

[Lightspeed]

Those who sent/received the emails, for sure. Have we heard much from them? Anything saying "hey, that wasn't an email I sent?" or "hey you buggers, how'd you get that email?"

[Ab]

Who cares?

[Lightspeed]

People looking to know whether the emails are authentic or not.

[Farmer Joe]

Originally Posted by Ab

What? Of course there is. Hager can't prove any of it is real. And some of the things in the book are just plain untrue according to the people involved.

Making accusations and then saying "well prove it's NOT true" isn't journalism. It's crazy blogging done on paper.

I say this all with the authority I possess in virtue of being Jesus Christ the Son of God resurrected. Prove I'm not.

Right, so nobody can prove anything ever is basically what you're saying? I'd happily watch you turn water into wine and be proven wrong.

My (left-leaning) take on it is that we know some of it's true, and we know Nicky Hager is an investigative journalist with integrity (as proven from past books/articles), therefore can't we assume that the other stuff is more likely to be true than made up? QED?

Or is the wildcard that the source made it up?

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Farmer Joe

Right, so nobody can prove anything ever is basically what you're saying? I'd happily watch you turn water into wine and be proven wrong.

My (left-leaning) take on it is that we know some of it's true, and we know Nicky Hager is an investigative journalist with integrity (as proven from past books/articles), therefore can't we assume that the other stuff is more likely to be true than made up? QED?

Or is the wildcard that the source made it up?

Originally Posted by Ab

Who cares?

Nicky Hager is not a journalist (or, isn't in the context of the Dirty Politics book). A journalist corroborates and fact checks. Dirty Politics is copy/pasta and blogposting in paper form.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Farmer Joe

Right, so nobody can prove anything ever is basically what you're saying? I'd happily watch you turn water into wine and be proven wrong.

My (left-leaning) take on it is that we know some of it's true, and we know Nicky Hager is an investigative journalist with integrity (as proven from past books/articles), therefore can't we assume that the other stuff is more likely to be true than made up? QED?

Or is the wildcard that the source made it up?

You have simultaneously gotten and missed the point.

Of course you can prove something's true. And if I were to claim "I am Jesus Christ resurrected" the onus is on me to prove it - not for you or anyone else to DISPROVE it. If I can't prove it, you probably shouldn't assume that I am in fact the Messiah returned.

So: can Hager prove that his claims are true?

To say "we know Nicky Hager is an investigative journalist with integrity" is just an argument from authority. The Bible is true because God wouldn't lie. The book is true because Hager has integrity. Whatever. Bob "Watergate" Woodward is one of the most respected journalists on earth but that doesn't change the fact that some of the things in his books about the Bush administration's preparation for war are just plain bullshit, because Woodward was fed bullshit by people who wanted him to put bullshit in his books.

Nicky Hager has published a book that contains some really interesting stuff that has a bearing on something as important as a general election. Is the interesting stuff true? Well, it appears not all of it. So how do you know if any given thing in the book is an interesting TRUE thing or an interesting OOPS I MADE A MISTAKE untrue thing or an interesting LOL IT'S TOTALLY MADE UP untrue thing? Well you check the sources. That's how research works.

And so far his source is "some guy on the Internet". Well, I'm fucking convinced. It must all be totally true then, even the stuff that isn't, because as we all know there is no more trustworthy source than Anonymous Guy On The Internet.

[Ab]

I will say this though - without commenting on the veracity of anything in his books, he does have great timing.


Secret Power, New Zealand’s role in the international spy network
Published: August 1996

Next NZ General election: October 1996

Secret and Lies, the anatomy of an anti-environmental PR campaign
Published: August 1999

Next NZ General election: November 1999

Seeds of Distrust, The story of a GE coverup
Published: July 2002

Next NZ General election: July 2002

The Hollow Men, a study in the politics of deception
Published: July 2006

Next NZ General election: November 2008

Hold on, wtf, that breaks the pattern, Hager should have done something right before the ele--

The Hollow Men: Documentary film
Published: July 2008

Whew. As you were.

Dirty politics, how attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s political environment
Published: August 2014

Next NZ General election: September 2014


I have no idea what he's like at writing books, but he's certainly good at MARKETING them.

[madmaxii]

HAGER - Have Another Go - Election Rooted

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

some of the things in the book are just plain untrue according to the people involved.

e.g.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/ho...ess_party.html

[Spink]

I was too lazy to do this earlier,

Originally Posted by Farmer Joe

For the people who keep saying that Nicky Hager is a loonie or just wants to make a quick buck (^^^) - care to provide some evidence?

Having actually spent time with him (he's a good friend of my mother) my opinion of him is that he's a genuine nice guy and extremely intelligent. He certainly doesn't come across as some wacky leftist conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by Rince

I've met him (socially, my FIL is a long term friend) and he does come across as a bit of a conspiracy nut.... even when he is not being Nicky Hager, author of Corngate, Hollow Men et al, he does give the impression of wearing a tin foil hat.

Which one is less perceptive about people? Tune in next week to find out.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

e.g.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/ho...ess_party.html

That is actually incredible. The emails Hager relies on turn out to be weak and not supporting the allegation in his book.

Did Hager intentionally lie because he thought that people would take his word as an "investigative journalist with integrity"? Or is he just incompetent?

[Ab]

I guess he decided not to do the things that real journalists do (fact check, verify sources, contact subjects for right-of-reply, etc) for at least 2 reasons:

1. Taking the time to do that would certainly have pushed the publication date out past the election, and that's not acceptable because either
a. his intention was to INFLUENCE the election, or
b. his intention was to make maximum money (see: marketing)

2. If he'd contacted the people quoted and referred to in the text, then someone who felt defamed or the victim of illegality would certainly have applied for an injunction, which would have pushed the publication date out past the election or prevented publication entirely, which is unacceptable because 1a and 1b.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Though it's probably not a good look for National when the explanations on the news amount to - documents showing Tuckers "discussions with the Prime Minister" were actually talking about someone else. But not the Prime Minister.

More lols today with Key explaining that when he specifically used the word "me" - he was actually talking about his office.

http://www.3news.co.nz/John-Key-will...0/Default.aspx

[Ab]

I hasten to acknowledge that just because Hager's level of journalism is shit does not mean that the National Party is a beacon of virtue.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

I guess he decided not to do the things that real journalists do (fact check, verify sources, contact subjects for right-of-reply, etc) for at least 2 reasons:

If a television journalist did that, an aggrieved party could complain to the BSA. What body does a person complain to about Hager's poor journalism?

[Spink]

Why are people referring to Hager as a journalist?

[CCS]

Gives him a veneer of legitimacy

But srsly, I think he's an author more than a journalist. Whether an author of fiction or non-fiction, or a mix, I'm unsure.

His bio shows he doesn't have any formal training in journalism (it shows) and is "the only New Zealand member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which sounds exciting.

Other than that, he writes sometimes for the Sunday Star-Times, which is not very exciting.

[fixed_truth]

Collins grants blogger's request in just 37 minutes

That was helpful of her. I mean her office.


Minister's staffer took part in blog

I suppose this shouldn't be happening during work time on work computers but this one's a bit meh and I'd say both sides do this type of thing. It's only semi-newsworthy because it was on the Simon Pleasants post.

[The Edge]

Lol.

[adonis]

Politics in 60 seconds, for teh lolz

http://www.3news.co.nz/Jeremy-Corbet...7/Default.aspx

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Collins grants blogger's request in just 37 minutes

That was helpful of her. I mean her office.

Thought that was a "separated at birth" pic for a minute there

[Rince]

Originally Posted by Spink

I was too lazy to do this earlier,





Which one is less perceptive about people? Tune in next week to find out.

I have to be relatively careful of my comments at home - both my wife and FIL think highly of NH... out of the blue he bought us a 2nd grape (tree? vine?) to go with our first one... which was nice of him.


(To be fair though, all politics is pretty much a no-go subject at home - my wife knows she can't beat me in a debate, and I know I don't sleeping on the couch).

[Lightspeed]

Ab, I think you should write a letter to The Guardian's editor. They just don't get how awesome National really is, and how this whole business is just noise the misses how awesome National is doing for NZ with their awesome powers of awesomeness.

Dirty politics: New Zealand's own House of Cards is collapsing

Perhaps include in the letter how the leader of the Opposition couldn't remember a letter they wrote years ago, something the Prime Minister knew about weeks before the question was even raised. Silly Opposition.

Perhaps then The Guardian will publish something more appropriate.

[Ab]

It's The Guardian, who gives a fuck?

[pxpx]

Conspiracy Theory: Story has been fed to international journalist with track record of left wing sympathies in order for local left wingers to suggest that international attention == credibility.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

It's The Guardian, who gives a fuck?

Well, not National supporters any more! They'll stick with the NZHerald's incoherent nonsense.

[fixed_truth]

Interesting conspiracy theory from Matthew Hooten who has pretty strong right wing sympathies. (7:15 - 11:15 & 16:00 - 17:15) http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...-mike-williams

Will this whole affair be enough to change the Govt? Maybe, maybe not. But as that interview points out regardless of the election outcome the matters raised in the book are important.