Until it is taken to court and demonstrated that it was a private conversation this is a freedom of the press issue, not a legal issue. Key has already said he’s not taking it to court – why? Because he has the result he wanted: the tapes suppressed until after the election.

You say that it was not a private conversation, but then say the NZ Herald asked for permission.

Because it was unclear if they had permission – the guy had a conversation in a public location at a public event that was focused, at least partially, on him. It’s not clear if he meant that conversation to be private, so they called to ask.
Really, when you call the media together for a media event, and have a conversation in front of a ton of reporters at said event, I’d say you pretty much acquiesced to being recorded. NZ Herald didn’t really need to call in this case, but because they did it’s actually worse for them – because in doing so they admitted the possibility that it wasn’t a public conversation.

I’ve come across many inauthentic human beings but he would be somewhere near the top of the ladder when it comes to inauthenticity. No amount of baby kissing, handshaking and PR gobbledegook can cover it up. Unfortunately there are many suckers who buy into his game, hook, line and sinker.

It seems like many in the media decided to frame the issue by unilaterally saying the recording itself has no great importance. Personally, I think it does. Someone like Winston Peters could’ve made political hay from this (in the end, he didn’t need to, directly). However, given the ensuing drama, we’ll never see the content in its own context – the tape would pretty much need to have Key denying the holocaust for it to live up to expectations.

EDIT: Ugh, sorry. That was supposed to be a reply to Russell Brown.

1. The Herald on Sunday had sought permission to publish a transcript, was declined and did not publish. No major news organisation has even linked to the recording above. The reporting has hardly been feral.

2. The targeting of Radio New Zealand was particularly troubling. The national public broadcaster at no time had either a transcript or a copy of the recording. It was served with a warrant *because it reported the story* — and interviewed Ambrose. The police were seeking reporters’ notes — tantamount to trying to force RNZ to surrender its sources. RNZ continues to resist the order, but it is still possible that the police could seize computers in pursuit of the notes. It’s nasty and depressing and, along with one or two other things,  it presumably has something to do with our descent in the press freedom index.

Neither Key or his go-to guy Steven Joyce served any real political apprenticeship. They come from business (in Joyce’s case, commercial radio, where process in not highly valued) and I don’t think they have any real regard for ideas about civil society. They’re executives.

There was a sense of entitlement about not only the criminal complaint — and let’s note that many other leaders have suffered open-mic embarrassments without taking such action — but about the fecklessness of having a supposedly confidential conversation during a media stunt in a cafe, a couple of metres from the cameras and microphones.

The recording isn’t devoid of interest. They both revel in the fact that they’ve attracted 30 journalists to their event (a coy way of directing Key’s Epsom voters to vote for the other party’s guy, Banks) and Key seems to say that National has TV3 journalists “on board” for the campaign.

I suspect this is how he actually sees things. It may well explain 3 News journalists’ subsequent aggressive pursuit of the story.

It really is quite depressing.

The Police “raids” were conducted because by that time suspected distribution had occured – which turned out to be true as reflected by the fact that only Radio NZ did not have a copy. The fact that Radio NZ was investigated but cleared is actual evidence FOR the necessity of those actions, not against.

As I said, I dont’ like Key (or Banks) but I’m glad he’s taken this stance. The last thing we need in NZ is more underhandness sneaking into our governance.

The police and courts have acted entirely to the degree to which they are allowed/required to under the law.

Note, I said not a ‘strictly’ policital issue. I did not say politics didn’t play a part. I’m sure, in reality, the fact that it was the Prime Minister’s office making the complaint had a factor. Ambrose acted with intent – against a minister of the crown. The fact that it was the Herald that requested usage rights, and not Ambrose, should tell you alot about the initial actions.

But beyond the actual event, this has implications across all of NZ society.

The first illegal act was the recording. Any distribution after the fact is a further legal matter, which is why other organisations, beyond the Herald, were involved.

My main issue is with Cory’s ridiculous headline; which is how many people in NZ  also see the issue, due to the media’s poor handling. You don’t need a degree in Discourse Analysis to see the hyberbole. “Ordering raids” (the police conducted warrented walk-ups, not raids), “Free Press”. Come on. 

Cory also shows a lack of knowledge by calling the recording “utterly inconsequential”. Really? Try telling that to NZ First.

http://www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/692-wisconsin-senator-ellis-calls-school-a-sewer-exclusive-video.html

This is very much a freedom of media issue. The raids happened during election year and the recording itself during a media event. This was not a private conversation by any stretch of the term.

Since the recording wasn’t published – NZ Herald asked Key for permission, but he declined to give it – there really was no excuse to for the police raids. Unless of course you think it’s in order to intimidate media.

Key did not “order” the police to raid media organisations.  He has no power to do so. He laid a complaint with the police as he is entitled to do so under the law, as has any person in this situation. It was the police who decided to conduct the “raid”. This case is before the courts at the moment; due legal process is being followed to the letter!

Yes, the police decided to act upon receiving a complaint from the chap who hires and fires the Minister for Police, just like they would if you or I had made a complaint.

As would also be the case with anyone else, I expect Key spent an entire day at his local police station waiting in line, filling in forms, and explaining his complaint at least four times to various increasingly bored-looking police officers with a rank no higher than Sergeant.

Key did not “order” the police to raid media organisations.  He has no power to do so. He laid a complaint with the police as he is entitled to do so under the law, as has any person in this situation. It was the police who decided to conduct the “raid”. This case is before the courts at the moment; due legal process is being followed to the letter!

This is NOT a freedom of the press issue, nor a strictly political one. This is a case of breach of privacy as recognised by NZ law. It is illegal record a conversation in NZ in which the participants are unaware of the recording taking place.

Key claims he laid the complaint because he didn’t want NZ politics descending down those sorts of roads.

Regardless of if you believe the recording was made accidentally or not (I certainly don’t believe so. I’ve used similar types of equipment and I can’t imagine how anyone could accidentally record), the distribution of the tape was clearly intentional.

I don’t like Key and I don’t like the National government. I voted Green at the last election (the Green party achieved over 10% of the vote), but I’m sick of people with little knowledge of the issue misrepresenting it, and NZ.