据说这次最先拿到数据的是媒体 媒体通过工党洗白的

飛飛天天

说是nz herald 和 the nation 先拿到的消息的再通过工党的洗白的，这些媒体明明知道这样是违反隐私法的。。。但。。。

SOMEONE ISN’T TELLING THE TRUTH AND MY PICK IS IT IS PHIL TWYFORD

This story was run contemporaneously by the NZ Herald and TV3’s The Nation. Both outlets would have been working on this for some time and it is clear they were both colluding with Phil Twyford and Labour since they all managed to be in the studio at The Nation first thing on Saturday morning before most people had even read the newspaper.

If Peter Thompson is to be believed the media were the ones running this data, but according to Phil Twyford he was working with a “whistle-blower”. Could it be perhaps they are not the same person?


The Herald editors must have known they were sitting on a time bomb with perhaps their biggest advertiser. They could hardly lead the charge…no they would need this data laundered through someone…like Phil Twyford, so they could claim it was leaked, and given to a political party who went public and therefore it became news.

By the afternoon we had more information.

Firstly that the agent in question, Grant Hargrave, has denied handing any data to the Labour party, or speaking with anyone in the Labour party. He even says he doesn’t know them.

The newspaper who kicked this all off wrote:   

Grant Hargrave
Grant Hargrave
Mr Hargrave said he did not want to be interviewed on this issue. “I very much would rather not talk about it, I’m sorry.”

But he did say that he had no idea how Labour had obtained the information he was sacked for passing on.

“I don’t know them. I don’t know the Labour people. I honestly just don’t know (how the party got it).”

So who did give the data to Labour then?

If you go back to the newspaper’s first story on the issue they said at the time:

The Weekend Herald has seen the leaked sales figures data and reviewed Labour’s methodology. The party updated its figures based on our feedback. We were not able to redo the analysis independently, as it relied on data sets such as the electoral rolls database, which is only available to political parties.

So, we know that the Herald worked with Labour before publishing the story which is surely against all journalistic ethics. When I say worked, they closely shared information and refined the data together.

We also know too that The Nation was heavily involved, because they prepped a show and arranged people to appear on it like Phil Twyford before the story was even run. That must include producer Tim Watkin.

Peter Thompson from Barfoot & Thompson confirmed that their investigations showed:

“We can also offer no insights into the motivation of the staff member concerned.”

Mr Thompson said that while the data was passed to media and political figures, it was not given directly to the Labour Party.

So, we have both Peter Thompson and his former agency saying that no data was passed directly to the Labour party…but it was passed to media.

Right now the focus should be on NZ Herald staff, in particular Anne Gibson, and staff on The Nation programme including Tim Watkin who is the producer.

Tim Watkin
Tim Watkin
They have a problem, because both outlets have shilled this data and had prepared in advance and worked with the Labour party on this data in order to get a comprehensive media uptake of the story.

In pimping this story though they have had Phil Twyford making repeated claims about how Labour got the data, how it arrived and who gave it and comments about the integrity of the leaker.

Labour’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford would not discuss the source, claiming the same confidentiality claimed by journalists. “I can’t in good conscience say anything about my sources or any of my contacts with the source and I intend to protect that confidence as you would as a journalist,” he said.

He believed the data Labour had used was genuine, even though its connection to the original source had grown a number of steps. Asked if Labour could prove its data had not been tampered with after Mr Hargrave sent it to another party, he said: “We did various things to verify it.”

This morning he said that Auckland owed the leaker a “debt of gratitude”.

Just days ago he was saying this:

In a statement which did not confirm whether the fired staffer was his source, Mr Twyford said: “The whistleblower who I worked with wanted to shine a light on what is a very real issue for New Zealand – foreign investment pushing up house prices and shutting people who live here out of the property market.”

“This data provided an important snapshot of what’s going on in the Auckland housing market.”

He said he had not revealed his source’s name to other Labour colleagues or staff, including leader Andrew Little. “I’m not going to reveal the identity or even speculate about the identity of the person or the firm from which the information was obtained.”

He said he believed the leaker should thanked, describing them as “a whistle blower.”

“I think the whistle-blower I dealt with did Aucklanders a favour and put this information into the domain out of a sense of public duty. I think Aucklanders owe that person a debt of gratitude.”

The person who has been fired has said he has never worked with the Labour party or Phil Twyford, so who is this whistleblower that Twyford says he worked with? Do they even exist?

How can Phil Twyford understand the motivations of a person who says he has never met him? Was it another person entirely?

We have statements from Peter Thompson, denials from Grant Hargrave and contradictory statements from Phil Twyford.

All this means is that the data was laundered, by persons unknown, so far.

Anne Gibson
Anne Gibson
Hargraves handed over the data to media. The focus is now on Anne Gibson and Tim Watkin to explain how it was that they came to work with the Labour party when the leaker of the data says he never gave it to them and it was only supplied to media.

Phil Twyford has made many media statements now and they simply don’t hold water. I think it is safe to assume that he is lying about the involvement he claims about a whistleblower.

We also know that Labour data man Rob Salmond extensively worked on this data. So Labour’s involvement seems to be well after the fact and well after media got their hands on the data.

What is interesting too is the snippets of info I have gleaned today from other media sources, one of which told me that David Fisher was gloating, along with several of his fellow Herald staff members about “his” big real estate and housing story coming up. This was several weeks ago. So we know that the Herald has been working on this now for more than two weeks, possibly more.

It was strange to this media source then when the story broke and it was fronted by Anne Gibson. But then David Fisher revealed himself in the mix when he wrote about the leaker’s identity.

What we have here now is the nub of the real story. That the Herald and The Nation got hold of some data, they knew that data was illegally obtained and would breach privacy laws. They needed clean hands and so they fed the data to Labour, then worked on it with them (self admitted) and then ran the story contemporaneously across their networks, all with Phil Twyford claiming that they were the source of the data all along.

We now know those claims are false and that Phil Twyford is lying at worst, or being economical with the truth at best.

What is more alarming now, given what has transpired and we have found out, is that the NZ Herald, in collusion with The Nation and the Labour party have laundered stolen data to give it a “public interest” wash, and removed themselves from the original crime of obtaining the data all to run a political hit job on the government.

There is a name for this, Nicky Hager coined it, it is Dirty Politics. It is also combined with my phrase Dirty Media.

There simply is no other explanation for events.

Media contacts must have fed this to Labour in order to sanitise the data and give them clean hands, but the ham-fisted manner in which it begun, clearly with a trail that IT experts were able to quickly follow and then with Phil Twyford machinations have led to this unpacking on them all.

But what can be done?

You have the largest print outlet seemingly involved in manufacturing a political story, working hand in glove with a political party and another media outlet, Mediaworks (The Nation) involved as well.

Are Fairfax and TVNZ and Radio NZ up with the play in being able to properly hold them to account? They must, the original story as told has been shot to pieces and by the actions and words of all the players.

Who is going to hold media to account when they are acting unethically, immorally and politically?

The media are supposed to hold the powerful to account, but what happens when the media become the powerful?

This has revealed much, and there is much for the public to be concerned about.

There is more to this story and it is starting to leak out.



– WOBH, a newspaper
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/07/someone-isnt-telling-the-truth-and-my-pick-is-it-is-phil-twyford/

love_3_month

好长，不过说到点子上了

NewLynnHse

let's see whose head is gonna roll

NewLynnHse

哦。。。找到链接了