Fran O'Sullivan defends the Herald's lack of follow up on Doone

I was pleasantly suprised and impressed to receive a prompt response from Fran O'Sullivan on my post sagenz: Fran Osullivan admits MSM is in thrall to helengrad.  She gives as good as she gets.  I wondered about posting the response.  On the basis it was a response to a published piece and there was no request not to republish, it is posted here for your edification.  A couple of interesting bits highlighted in bold.  I googled her self reference and included the link.  The problem is that it was made in May.  I have also added another link to the critical later post a few days before the election on Sir Humphrey's: Doonegate posts of Thursday 8th Sept, 2005 which pulled all the separate strands together.

I think O'Sullivan makes some fair points in her defence.  I think we have firmly established that Helen Clark is a liar.  Critical evidence was sourced and published on a blog in the days before the election that could have changed the course of it.  The mainstream media chose to ignore it.  We cannot change history.  Is it any wonder bloggers are sceptical?

Hi Phil

Thanks for the email and your own sentiments and criticisms on this.
They are well made and I do seriously take them on board.

Yes the Doonegate affair does still trouble me but several points.
1. We will reply to Ian's postings and letter separately.
2. The Herald did run a considerable number of front-page and other
stories on Doonegate and the PM's role when the briefs of evidence were
first released.

Here's an extract from one of my columns at the time where I described
the PM's behaviour as Nixonian.

"It is now clear Clark fed the SST a bum steer by corroborating untrue
claims by a police source (whom Fairfax is still protecting) that Doone
told a constable "That won't be necessary" when the rookie tried to
breath-test the commissioner's girlfriend on election night 1999. The New Zealand Herald.

Clark repeatedly assured the SST its information was correct. She then
amplified it sufficiently so that journalist Oskar Alley could later
write that Doone would be asked to "fall on his sword". She urged the
paper to "hang tough" in spite of a warning from the commissioner's
lawyer that the allegations were in dispute."


This column was focused on the Clark-Fairfax issues at the time -
because I also have an issue that a paper (SST) would go to print on
this in the first place with basically just one source - ie the PM and
then tell its readers in the very same stories that she would not
comment when she was a prime source in one untrue yarn and the only
source in the next.

If that canard had not been run in the first place this whole issue
would have been flushed out years earlier.

The Herald's  political team covered the briefs of evidence issues
extensively which were in the public domain and thanks for the lecture
on how to confirm these - but I sourced them months earlier for the
above column.

That minor serve aside - here's a bit more.

Re AL's email correspondence -  plain fact is I got the docts on  14th
Sept not 13th Sept as I was on assignment in WGTN that week.

At the risk if another mea culpa let's also point out that I was not one
of the 20 or so journalists who were alerted to them in the initial drop
- which occurred I understand about a week or so before I was tipped off
by Darren Greenword. If I had been I would have had more time to get
into the issue pre-election.

Re NBR and Independent which you put on a pedestal here - let's also
point out that neither of these business papers ran the story in their
two immediate pre-election issues  - which they could have if they had
considered the issue of real importance to voters.

As AL has subsequently said the docts were ex Act - and National also
had them - If they were so important as you say - surely Brash or Hide
would have used them months earlier or made sure they went to political
journalists directly at the time - maybe they did.

Anyway Phil - your points are well made and I will take them on board -
I'm not adverse to criticism and as I say the issue still troubles me

Thanks

Comments

[ian wishart]

One of the reasons I didn't shaft Fran at the time was because she was a Johnny come lately to the document drop, and I understand the pressures of news and elections.

Leaving that aside, however, and leaving aside Fran's defamation of me at a couple of points in her column, she raises a wider issue in it of the media's role at election time.

If the media were being oh so careful to be balanced, why did they climb into Mallard's vast left wing conspiracy theory so readily, or get stuck in on Brethrengate, both of which had no greater merit than Doonegate.

I did not see an overall honest media coverage during the election...I saw journalists prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt and not National.

The duty of a newspaper is, historically, to publish and raise hell. It is not to decide whether it should self-censor on the basis that something might bring down the Government.

There was no self-censoring in the laughable attempts to portray Brethrengate as a National Party plot. In such a tight election, that story probably cost National the election.

But contrast that with the sympathetic Herald coverage of Labour's campaign donor Owen Glenn...in sharp contrast with what Investigate later discovered.

Fran is right to still feel uneasy. Not for her own sake but for the sake of the MSM in general.

[sagenz]

I completely agree with your points. it sounds to me like Fran O'Sullivan has similar concerns. But she has a direct influence at the herald whereas the rest of us peons obviously dont. Having learnt from the travesty at the last election we can only hope to keep accountable toes to the fire and a better result next time.

[MrTips]

Hi Sage

excellent post and I have to confess the reply from Fran O'Sullivan has much merit. One almost feels a little rash in ones own critique of this issue.

Ian is also to be commended for the points he makes and for having the courage to print them. His attitude one finds healthy and refreshing. One suspects that Ian is extremely frustrated that journalists like Fran can see that Clark has manipulated the media and lied to everyone, but they can only take it so far because of "in house" issues within their respective publications (naturally Ian can write the whole thing becuase the buck stops with him). Perhaps Fran should go work for/with Ian ?

Fairfax comes out of this very badly. Not surprising really, their lineage is one of prostitution to the Left in the UK and in New Zealand.

[George]

How ridiculous of Ian to suggest that Peter Doone affair was of the same order of magnitude as the untimely intervention of Exclusive Brethrens into the election campaign!

Am I right in saying that the Peter Doone issue was about already about 5 years old? Surely the media would have sniffed some opportunism in the timing of these new "revelations"?

But why, during final stages of a wide- ranging campaign, pretend that Peter Doone was of more significance than Taxation, Health, Education, Social Welfare and a host of other major policy areas. [Frankly there could have been more discussion on actual policies, not less!]

On the other hand, Exclusive Brethrens stepped into the political arena, for the first time IN THIS CAMPAIGN to denigrate the Greens, and indirectly (or directly depending on your point-of-view) promote a particular result. They threw a sizable budget at it too. Yet they are historically non-voters for religious reasons, and in the past did not participate in the democratic processes as far as I know.

Among other items I saw in their pamphlets was criticism relating to NZ defence policy - I'd need to check, but I think it related to getting rid of those planes stored at Ardmore. Yet am I not correct in saying that as historically non-participants in the democratic process, they did not join our armed forces? If this were the case, what would our Returned Servicemen (including plenty of National Voters) make of that?

In Don Brash's shoes, the best approach would have been to completely distance himself from the Exclusive Brethrens. Up front. They may have done him more harm than good, short and/or long term. But why take the risk?

I actually think that investigation of the Exclusive Brethrens would be an excellent task for an investigative journalist - like Ian Wishart in his hay day.

[sagenz]

George - the issue is one of integrity. For the first time there was absolute proof that that Prime Minister of the country had actively conspired and lied to get rid of the nations top cop. If that is not more important to you than a group of private citizens legally exercising their democratic rights you do not understand what a democracy is.

[George]

The "group of private citizens" you refer attempted to hide their common affiliation - presumably for fear that they would lose credibility collectively (which they eventually did). When this affiliation became known, it was indeed worth highlighting.

An alleged figure of some $500,000 promotion is a significant input into a campaign with tight campaign spends per candidate. (Only about $20,000 each per candidate as I recall) It would take more than a few kiwis yarning over their back fence to put this together.

Apart from that, the aggrieved party (The Greens) took issue with much of the material, and they quite rightly objected. This group of guys from a way-out religious sect was not positively promoting themselves. They were denigrating another group.

On the other hand, the attempt to pull a Peter Doone rabbit out of the hat at such a crucial and late stage in the campaign was apparently seen for what it was by the media - opportunism and a stunt.

[sagenz]

To many people including myself the Greens have some way out policies. A law abiding group of religious people disagreed with those policies and spent their own money to say so. That is not a scandal.

The political angle that was breathlessly run at every opportunity was the possibility that Dr Brash had met with 1 of these people. Fortunately religious people in this country are not required to go around with big signs and they do not have horns. They look just like ordinary people. So Brash denied he had met with any sign wearing horned people until he made the connection and admitted he had been approached. If you believe that is anything other than a trumped up scandal I have a bridge to sell you. Private citizens versus actual proof of the prime minister lying & conspiring against a senior member of the justice system.

[george]

So what has been happening to the Peter Doone case now? The election is well and truly over. There is nothing to stop legal action being initiated if a grievance needs to be rectified or exposed? Or can we expect to see this highlighted by "whoever" in the fortnight leading up to the NEXT General Election?!

It is no problem that law abiding "groups" disagree with Green policies. They can spend their own money to say so. But please do not deny the Green Party the right to defend itself by:

(a) highlighting inaccuracies they see with such publicity

(b) identifying a concerted group and concerns about the group's credibility or lack of it.

The intervention by a group of members of fundamentalist religion into politics is well worth highlighting. In countries such as the US, a separation of State and Religion is recognised in law. The US is a great country.

The media called it correctly. Some are disappointed about it. That's life.

[sagenz]

read Fran O'Sullivans mea culpa with regard to the Doone case.

Doone clearly decided that the cost of a defamation suit was too risky on the basis of the waiver he had signed when he left originally. what he did not know when he signed that was just how deeply clark had been involved. That information became available shortly before the election. The media failed on doone.

I completely agree the greens were entitled to fight back. I agree the US is a great country but you are dreaming if you think that there is no religiously motivated political activity there.

The point is that the media focused on one and not the other. from an independent perspective one had far more implications for a democracy than the other.

[George]

As it happens, Exclusive Brethrens are back in the news today.

Is it really true that they had prepared pamphlets with Don Brash's photo to promote him.. and that when they had the design checked out by the authorities, they found that they could only release them if they became part of the National Party allowable spend?

Also, is it true that they had over $1 million available to put into their campaign. Incredible!

As I see it, the sole driver was not that a "law abiding group of religious people disagreed with those policies and spent their own money to say so".

In my opinion, it is at least as true to say they desired a National-led government and that they used negative advertising on a minor party in aid of the same goal. As indirect as when "Citizens for Rowling" was really trying to highlight deficiencies they saw in Muldoon. That is what I think.

In summary, representatives of a group that had always claimed to be "outside" the democratic system waded in with a huge budget, that influenced the outcome more than if they had simply used their own votes!

There is an interesting autobiography of an ex-EB NZer Ngaire Thomas called "Behind Closed Doors".

Take a look at this link to see more:
www.behind-closed-doors.org/NZPA_article.pdf

Clearly those in the church would take issue with some of Thomas's memories .. but taking her experiences as a whole - would you want this movement setting a direction for this country?

According to Thomas, members who broke their rules could be "withdrawn from" or "shut up". Is this in line with modern Human Rights principles?

......

BTW Sage, is the Robinson report regarded as an accurate statement of the events involving Doone? Did he really intervene when a junior policeman was heading towards the car where he was a PASSENGER, and off-duty? If so, do you think he set a good example to his newish recruit?

Assuming the Robinson report is reasonably on track..

If I had been Peter Doone, I would have stayed in the passenger seat and let the law take its course with the driver. An excellent opportunity to observe an example of his troops in action.

As it was, Robinson reports that the police officer felt somewhat overwhelmed, defensive, whatever ..