The Dim-Post

August 15, 2014

DPF Hacked!

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 11:18 am

Via Stuff

David Farrar, whose company does polling for National and who operates the National-sympathetic Kiwiblog, was also a subject of Dirty Politics.

He posted on Kiwiblog this morning that after a careful reading of the book, he realised Hager had information “that could not have come from the hacking of Cameron Slater, but could only have come from my computer, my apartment or my office”.

The two most likely scenarios were that his computer system had also been hacked, or someone had physically removed documents from his office or apartment, Farrar said.

Or, y’know, Hager could have talked to one of Farrar’s employees, who read the scripts hundreds of times, and if you look in the footnotes to Hager’s book it turns out that information about Curia is attributed to an ‘employee’. 

About these ads

69 Comments »

  1. Yeah it’s great. Was only a spy. And I should trust that the spy only took papers, and didn’t also access any computer systems.

    Comment by dpf — August 15, 2014 @ 11:22 am

  2. Can get the staff eh? Especially when you want to pay peanuts, and a large number of people really, really hate you.

    Comment by richdrich — August 15, 2014 @ 11:24 am

  3. Ah, I see Hager used the oldest form of hacking of them all: talking to people.

    Comment by Giovanni Tiso — August 15, 2014 @ 11:26 am

  4. I don’t pay peanuts. The 2013 industry survey found Curia pays higher pay rates than any other polling firm. Sorry to break your stereotype with some reality. And people can hate me all they like, but to go take a job with someone you hate in order to steal from them is wrong. But no in your world it seems.

    Comment by dpf — August 15, 2014 @ 11:27 am

  5. Sorry you’re upset about having your privacy breached, DPF, but not that sorry since you’ve gleefully publicised Cameron Slater’s hundreds of far more egregious privacy breaches over the years, most of which, we now know, he did either for money or the pure pleasure of wrecking people’s marriages and destroying their lives.

    Comment by danylmc — August 15, 2014 @ 11:28 am

  6. Danyl your usually impeccable logic and rational opinion is steadily disappearing on this subject. Please enlighten us with facts that Hager has produced to justify your position that this is material evidence to conclude the “right” has acted illegally.

    Hager himself has admitted the left has committed a crime but he believes it is OK as it is in the public interest. Hipocrasy at its worst, yet post after post you endorse it. Please explain. Tw

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 11:32 am

  7. Wow Danyl, that’s a bit harsh.

    Comment by PaulL — August 15, 2014 @ 11:34 am

  8. And Giovanni Tiso anyone who has seen twitter realises you are a self indulgent individual who berates anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your beliefs and and label them a lesser person intellectually and therefore irrelevant.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 11:39 am

  9. And you can see how what people type on a computer bears little relationship to real life – can you imagine how this discourse might look in a book called ‘Evil Bloggers’?.

    Comment by LeeC — August 15, 2014 @ 11:39 am

  10. @6 Not at all, considering the glee that the Penguin takes in spreading the most sick material such as this: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/07/quote_of_the_week_2.html

    uote of the Week

    July 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pm by David Farrar
    Oh yes we have a WINNER for quote of the week, even though it has just started:

    “Ethical counselling from the Labour Party is like a parenting COURSE from the Kahui family”

    – Matthew Hooton on Nine to Noon yesterday.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 11:42 am

  11. Edit: @7

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 11:44 am

  12. @10 because you dislike a quote it is justification for illegal behaviour?? How far do you believe that illegal behaviour extend? Theft, obviously. Blackmail? Assault? Further?

    Slippery slope….

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 11:48 am

  13. “Hager himself has admitted the left has committed a crime”

    what utter bollocks – hagar has admitted that he, himself, received illegally obtained material – not “the left”, nicky hagar

    but it is funny watching all those who cry about nanny state not being able to see any difference between case a) the govt using its powers and info to smear political opponents and case b) a journo exposing shady dealing that the govt is trying to keep secret

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 11:52 am

  14. And people can hate me all they like, but to go take a job with someone you hate in order to steal from them is wrong.

    Wow … that’s pretty solipsistic! Or paranoid. Or just silly.

    Breaking news – investigative writer talks to person who has a job with one of the figures he’s investigating and that person then gives him material relevant to his investigation! This is the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Flashing Light — August 15, 2014 @ 11:52 am

  15. I was saying that what Danyl said wasn’t harsh. I suggest a cup of tea, Sam – lemon and ginger.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 11:54 am

  16. @13 so you honestly believe someone politically neutral has hacked and disseminated this information? Funny that not one left wing source was disclosed despite a simple read of either kiwiblog or WO demonstrate’s both have left wing sources.

    Looking forward to your response.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 11:57 am

  17. I suggest a cup of tea, Sam – lemon and ginger.

    Lemon & ginger? The poor little bastard had both of his eyes poked out on Twitter, by someone using only one finger.

    Comment by Joe W — August 15, 2014 @ 11:59 am

  18. sam – “so you honestly believe someone politically neutral”

    show me where ive said this – your inventing things and putting words in peoples mouths – your use of the term “the left” to describe hagar and his source is somewhat.. erm… idiotic

    and so what if dpf and WO have some posts from non nat sources – that doesnt suddenly absolve them of their roles in the alleged dirty tricks machine does it

    your being a bit silly mate

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 12:02 pm

  19. So, David, you going to condemn Cameron Slater for using information from disgruntled ex-employees of Kim Dotcom’s? In fact, are you going to go through and delete that information which you have used from disgruntled ex-employees of KDC’s? Or is this just complete and utter hypocrisy?

    Comment by Keir Leslie — August 15, 2014 @ 12:06 pm

  20. Ahh joe w the lefts default reaction, personal insult. Pure class.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:07 pm

  21. Sam: “How far do you believe that illegal behaviour extend? Theft, obviously. Blackmail? Assault? Further?”

    I offer this to you, hat tip to David Haywood at PA http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-dirty-politics/?i=325#replies

    ““Cathy Odgers is a lawyer. She wrote an attack post about it for the Whale Oil BLOG and sent the following e-mail to David Farrar, Cameron Slater and Matthew Hooton. To Farrar, Slater, Hooton: Make sure when Cam finds it that you subtly repost where Hager lives. I’ve done a post for Saturday on whale blog as can’t run myself as too close to work. The leaks he is involved with include tens of thousands of rich Chinese. Mainland and HK. It would be a disaster if they all knew where he lived. He may even need police protection. I’ve spent all day telling clients it is not our company but have asked a few how they would react if they knew a bit about the people publishing the material. I was delighted to assist with the full details for Mr Hager. Those Chinese can be very vicious when they lose face. Hiding money from wife for concubines and having their family trust deed leaked online with beneficiaries for example makes for very unhappy billionaires. Many trusts are not tax driven at all in Cooks they are cock driven. Chop chop for Nicky. Shame Russians don’t seem affected but our Chinese friends need a helping hand.”

    There’s the incitement to violence it you want to see one. I don’t think that she meant that they should send a delegation of Morris Dancers.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

  22. @framu so if its not the left or someone politically neutral then it is ….. Who?

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

  23. Can’t see how anyone can be absolved of a role in an allegation. That’s like saying “I can’t see how anyone can be found not guilty of something that no one has yet proved they did.”

    So you’re the one being silly.

    Comment by LeeC — August 15, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

  24. @21 nothing illegal there, if indeed it is true as many “facts” from the book have already been disproved. If you believe there is nothing in the hacked information about personal correspondence of the the left that has a similar tone, then all I ask is how was Mars?

    Cactus meant nothing, would be interested in how NH house was published as anything like this is dispicable! Yet some felt it fine to attempt to publish Slaters house, wife, kids and contact details or in John Campbell’s case doorstep his house on primetime TV when already told he was out of the country.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

  25. Mars? Rather dry, I gather from what I’ve seen of it through the various rovers, and the air was bit thin, but the cliffs of Valles Marineris were spectacular. As for the rest, Sam, you contradicted yourself: apparently Odgers “meant nothing”, so by your, ahem, ‘reasoning”, identical behaviour allegedly done by others is also meaningless, and not “dispicable” (sic) no? You really need that tea – and a lesson in syntax, you writing is virtually gibberish, making it hard to determine what you are trying to say.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

  26. sam – “@framu so if its not the left or someone politically neutral then it is ….. Who?”

    for christs sake – “hagar has admitted that he, himself, received illegally obtained material – not “the left”, nicky hagar” – read it this time

    for the third bloody time – your using “the left”, is nicky hagar and his source “the left”?

    LeeC – “Can’t see how anyone can be absolved of a role in an allegation” – then why is that the exact thing that is attempted when people say “oh but he posts other stuff”?

    You can be absolved from an allegation – it usually called an alibi. Its not me trying to minimise the roles of DPF and WO here. Im pointing out that the argument that attempts this doesnt work

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

  27. So when Andrea Vance’s private data was “accessed” without her permission, were you also so ambivalent?

    Comment by rickrowling — August 15, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

  28. “It was “outrageous”, and his gut reaction last night had been to give up politics, Farrar said.”

    Heh. Sure it was.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 15, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

  29. @25 your descition of Mars leaves it somewhere low on the list of my travel priorities, disappointing really as I had high hopes!!

    Where is the identical behaviour? There has been no personal communication from people not associated with farrar or Slater ie the left published.

    Also once again with the personal attacks. Attacking syntax calling my comments gibberish yet responding to every point. You sir are pure class!

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

  30. So if Hager isn’t the left then tartar and Slater will never be referred to as the right? Really?

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:55 pm

  31. “ie the left published. ”

    sam – i will try once more – did the left publish the book or did nicky hagar?

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

  32. “then tartar and Slater will never be referred to as the right? Really?”

    yes thats correct – good to see youve finally grasped the difference between individuals and a diverse grouping of people.

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

  33. Damn phone and auto correct tartar is farrar.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

  34. you gotta admit sam – its a jolly good nickname – even if unintended :-)

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 1:00 pm

  35. Tin foil hat anyone? Really Danyl your risking an orbital alignment with LPrent and Micky Savage with your current rantings…just sayin’

    Comment by TransportationDevice A7-98.1 — August 15, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

  36. http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/oia-this/

    Check out the comments, there is one from David Farrar. I’d be willing to bet he knew that what Danyl suspected was true but there he is, doing pork pies in the comments section.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 15, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

  37. From DPF’s post, it was the inclusion of the question numbers that was the give-away.

    “Or, y’know, Hager could have talked to one of Farrar’s employees, who read the scripts hundreds of times,”

    – which I guess explains why Hager got not only the verbatim content but also the question numbers from the employee’s memory, rather than the employee just saying “it’s published at …” which had all the content needed, but not the question numbers.

    Hmmm, no actually that makes no sense at all.

    Comment by rickrowling — August 15, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

  38. So in your opinion one may not talk about talk about “the left& until labour, the greens and internet mana have sat down and voted in agreeance and published said vote?? Or is it The standard and the daily blog et al. that must agree?

    It is a book published by a far left activist that has been roundly endorsed by internet/mana, multiple complaints laid by the greens and labour pursued attack lines over its content yet it doesn’t come from the left? Are you actually being serious or should I wait for Monty python to appear with ” and now for something completely different”?

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

  39. Suggesting that I am off the planet is not a personal attack? Not that it matters of course, since I also wear ugly shirts and I have male pattern baldness to add to my lack of class, you poor wee delicate flower.

    You claimed that you have an example of behaviour that is both comparable and yet is meaningless, or something… God knows what. This is the second time that I’ve had to say that, framu’s up to three, so that’s enough of that. Obviously it’s not possible to attempt to explain anything in a way that won’t seem condescending and cruel, so I’ll just say that you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny and your indignation at that can keep you nice and warm on this cold day.

    Now I think I’ll just sit back and watch the expressions of outrage at something that is awful, criminal, untrue… and yet also strangely insignificant so that therefore I shouldn’t actually pay any attention to it at all.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 15, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

  40. How does one “do” a pork pie pray tell, after a romantic dinner or is it de riguer to simply jump on and go for it?

    Comment by TransportationDevice A7-98.1 — August 15, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

  41. @ 34 I can definitely see the humour!! Attempted to get autocorrect to ruin other names, no luck. :-( haha.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

  42. How does one “do” a pork pie pray tell, after a romantic dinner or is it de riguer to simply jump on and go for it?

    One does a pork pie with in either (a) a knife and fork, accompanied by a sharp cheddar and pickle or (b) with chutzpah in a public forum prior to getting caught out.

    A variation of bokhim ve-yorim.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 15, 2014 @ 1:15 pm

  43. @39 attempt at humour which obviously failed and I apologise.

    I am talking illegal behaviour, not behaviour in which you judge to be comparable.

    On a slightly different note it is quite unusual to be able to debate actual points on the internet with only minor transgressions from the topic (myself included) and I appreciate that.

    Comment by Sam — August 15, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

  44. No framu isn’t an allegation is by definition unproven? If so, you can’t be absolved of one because it hasn’t been proven to have happened. You can only be absolved of something you actually did, or prove you didn’t do it, with an alibi whihc produces a proven fact to contradicts an unproven one (ie an allegation). You can’t be absolved of something someone alleged you did, not until the allegation becomes proven at which point it is no longer an allegation. That’s why people say ‘alleged’ to protect themselves from defamation or libel.

    To suggest you can absolve someone of something alleged suggests that you have prejudged them as guilty without anyone needing to produce any evidence. That’s been called a number of things: a ‘kangaroo court’, ‘Mao-ist’ McCarthyism’ ‘Stalinism’, more prosaically, ‘trial by media’ even a ‘witch-hunt’. I’m not saying people are inherently evil, but just easily fooled by those that feed into their prejudices. My theory, Hager published earlier than he wanted and was in a rush because of KDC’s impending ‘bombshell’ so Hager got Very, very, very, very, very sloppy ;0).

    Still he sold books, and after all that is the business he is in. But the blurring of ‘allegation’ and ‘fact’ does bring us back to Nicky Hager’s ‘Dirty Politics’ ‘allegations’ so ‘valuably summarised’ (allegedly) by Danyl recently – and – one might tentatively suggest – has galvanised ‘the left’ – whatever that is – into a collective rush to gather up their pitchforks and torches…

    This can be solved quite easily: Throw Cameron Slater into the sea. If he floats, he’s guilty, then you can burn him with a clear conscience.

    Comment by LeeC — August 15, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

  45. I am talking illegal behaviour, not behaviour in which you judge to be comparable.

    What is the illegal behaviour you are talking about? Because if it is “getting a copy of the questions that David Farrar’s company asks people from someone employed to ask them”, that’s not a crime. If you mean more generally that there’s been some breach of confidence or the like, then you need to consider the public interest defence. Because dollars for donuts, this applies.

    As for this being a “breach of privacy” like DPF is bemoaning … oh, please. It’s a freakin’ set of questions that got asked to hundreds upon hundreds of people! How exactly is he harmed here? And if it’s by people being generally interested in his shit, well then, perhaps he shouldn’t be so interesting. No-one forces him to make most of his money by being the taxpayer-funded pollster for a major political party who also runs a major blog that seeks to influence public opinion.

    Comment by Flashing Light — August 15, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

  46. What is the illegal behaviour you are talking about? Because if it is “getting a copy of the questions that David Farrar’s company asks people from someone employed to ask them”, that’s not a crime.

    If Danyl’s right, the proposed “illegal behaviour” would be something like “talking to a Curia employee,” which thus far the government has not seen fit to criminalise.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 15, 2014 @ 1:43 pm

  47. If Danyl’s right, the proposed “illegal behaviour” would be something like “talking to a Curia employee,” which thus far the government has not seen fit to criminalise.

    Give it time … in fact, you can expect to see posts calling for such a move in four … three … two … .

    Comment by Flashing Light — August 15, 2014 @ 1:56 pm

  48. I prefer Rob Salmond’s version: http://polity.co.nz/content/i-am-victim-stand-over-tactics

    Comment by Thomas Beagle (@thomasbeagle) — August 15, 2014 @ 2:35 pm

  49. About a day or so ago the PM was in the frame. This has quickly descended into DF & WO vs Hager. Suspect it will soon enough hit rock bottom soon enough and then digging will really commence.

    Doubt if WO will be the push over that Don Brash was. Won’t end well.

    Comment by Simon — August 15, 2014 @ 2:54 pm

  50. “you can’t be absolved of one because it hasn’t been proven to have happened. ”

    well to be pedantic, yes your right – but when people say “but WO posts other stuff” i think we both know what the intent of such a statement is.

    also – if an allegation has to be proven before you can remove yourself how on earth are the cops able to eliminate people who are on the periphery of crimes before the case has gone to court?

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

  51. sam – “So in your opinion one may not talk about talk about “the left& until labour, the greens and internet mana have sat down and voted in agreeance and published said vote?? ”

    nope wrong again – im saying that the actions of nicky hagar is the actions of nicky hagar, nothing more nothing less.
    Just like if you go and kick over some old granny, that crime can only be attributed to you. Not to your family, neighbours or someone who happens to share the same political view point as yourself.

    You started by saying that the left has commited a crime – which considering that were talking about hagar and his sources is kinda daft, unless your alleging some kind of grand conspiracy. Are you?

    Comment by framu — August 15, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

  52. Am enjoying this “hacking” and ‘publishing” for it sets a precedent for future behaviour. Every entity be it a state institution, private individual, business, unionised labour, political party, blogger, newspaper, television network etc., etc. can now have their databases and email servers hacked by anyone without fair of post discovery prosecution. Don’t get caught in the actual hack and sweet as. .

    Just pass your cached catch to an “investigative” journalist and its fair game to publish.

    Actually very good for transparency in that nothing can be hidden. Everything will be out in the open.

    Hope ever ones emails are not salacious!!

    You never know when someone might like to publish what is stored on your computer system.

    Comment by Gerrit — August 15, 2014 @ 3:42 pm

  53. I recall reading that the German government was considering going back to using old fashioned typewriters as a security measure. (Not for everything, but for sensitive stuff.)

    Comment by MeToo — August 15, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

  54. MeToo,

    Yeah, but can you trust the typist? One could get paranoid very quickly!

    Comment by Gerrit — August 15, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

  55. @Gerrit,

    Hope ever ones emails are not salacious!!

    You never know when someone might like to publish what is stored on your computer system

    No. This isn’t true.

    Hager can publish this book because he’s got a “public interest” defence against any breach of confidence action. If anyone hacked your or my computer, then handed the material on to someone to publish it, they wouldn’t.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 15, 2014 @ 4:30 pm

  56. Andrew,

    How do you define “public interest” and what is its measurement? Would the records of say the CTU, or the private emails of Winston Peters be in the “public interest”. Maybe the players contract negotiations at the Warriors?

    To judge if they are you first need to view them. Sort of catch 22. You don’t know if they MAY be in the “public interest” until you download them.

    By then your security, your privacy, your information is in the public domain. Be intersting court cases coming up on judging levels of “public interest”.

    Comment by Gerrit — August 15, 2014 @ 4:37 pm

  57. @Gerrit your arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous — perhaps quit while you’re ahead?

    And “investigative” journalist: why the scare quotes? Hager is an unquestionably an investigative journalist, who has turned his attention to goings-on in both Labour and National governments (which is why these attempts to pigeonhole him as a partisan “leftie” are so daft. Did no one else hear him scorn Mary Wilson’s suggestion on Checkpoint the other night that he might coordinate with the Labour Party?)

    Or is this just your attempt at a wee Slater-style smear of your own!?

    Comment by prgcnt — August 15, 2014 @ 5:16 pm

  58. Hager can publish this book because he’s got a “public interest” defence against any breach of confidence action. If anyone hacked your or my computer, then handed the material on to someone to publish it, they wouldn’t.

    Oh come on, Andrew, you’re very interesting…

    Comment by Ross — August 15, 2014 @ 5:23 pm

  59. Is it just me, or is there a creepy sameness in the response of many of the players in this sorry tale? DPF, Judith Collins, John Key all calling out “I’m the victim! It’s me! It’s me!”

    Comment by McNulty — August 15, 2014 @ 5:25 pm

  60. Bullies think it’s all about them.

    Comment by Sacha — August 15, 2014 @ 6:22 pm

  61. @ prgcnt

    Quote marks because it follows up that a definition is required of just who is an “investigative ” journalist and who qualifies? My definition is that every journalist is an investigative one, that is the job description, to journal activity. No need to define Nicky Hager as an “investigative” one. My bad for not explaining that to all and sundry.

    Interesting that you took offense at the quotation marks around “investigative” but not the “hacking” and “publishing” or, in the follow up post “public interest”.

    Do you have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of computer hacking for information that might (or might not) be in the public interest?

    If so please explain. And what is your understanding of the term public interest? What does it legally entail and how is it measured?

    Comment by Gerrit — August 15, 2014 @ 6:46 pm

  62. Do you have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of computer hacking for information that might (or might not) be in the public interest?

    Computer hacking, for the “public interest” or otherwise, is illegal.

    Using material gained from computer hacking may or may not give rise to legal liability, depending on the “public interest” involved. The test “public interest” is then what it says – is it in the public interest for this stuff to be published/debated (which is not the same as “is the public interested in this stuff”).

    This is not a new issue. For instance, the photocopier made it much, much easier to get hold of copies of documents that could then be given to journalists to run stories about political/business shenanigans. This did not mean that every office with a photocopier suddenly became fair game for everything within it to be sent out into the public arena. So let’s not go around crying that the sky is falling just yet.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 15, 2014 @ 7:24 pm

  63. Hagars book will not change my vote. Two months ago I painted a sign for my window that said “National is ethically bankrupt”. This was because of what was going on at the time and nothing has happened to change my mind.

    Comment by A M Thom — August 15, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

  64. Gerrit,
    The context for your quote marks around “public interest”, etc was pretty clear, but ‘investigative’ did seem more like scare quotes.

    Not every journalist is investigative – a court reporter would not usually be considered investigative, for example. It’s generally accepted that investigative journalists concentrate on longer form stuff that requires a lot of investigation, as opposed to beat reporters who may have some investigation but have to pump out 3 or 4 stories a day. It’s fair to say there’s not an absolutely hard and fast line, but the general concept is apparent and definitely Hagar is an investigative journalist – whether or not one thinks he’s rubbish or brilliant or somewhere I between.

    Comment by steve — August 15, 2014 @ 8:45 pm

  65. * in between.

    Comment by steve — August 15, 2014 @ 8:47 pm

  66. #44 LeeC: The Dead Sea, then, given its salt levels? Given he’s visiting Israel, it’s only a stone’s throw away.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — August 15, 2014 @ 11:32 pm

  67. “Hager is an unquestionably an investigative journalist”
    Pffft he’s a left wing activist with investigative skills.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — August 16, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

  68. …and a journalist. Hence, investigative journalist.

    Comment by steve — August 16, 2014 @ 6:11 pm

  69. And if Whaleoil does count as a journalist, he’s definitely not an investigative one. He’s more a Fox News/Daily Mail-type paparazzo.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — August 18, 2014 @ 10:48 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: