KEY POINTS:
I don't want to dwell too much longer on political blogging [see previous blog] but it's gratifying to see that Russell Brown in his Listener column, Wide Area News picked up on the significance of my blog on David Benson-Pope's resignation.
For the record
book, this will explain in a little more detail more about what happened and how quickly it changed Helen Clark's thinking and point out another interesting feature of the case.
Soon after Question Time on July 26, after Benson-Pope had admitted he had told Hugh Logan (Ministry for the Environment chief executive) that he would be less free and frank with Madeleine Setchell in his office, Clark sent one of her press secretaries around the Press Gallery.
His comment on her behalf was that BP had admitted the conversation to her only the night before [as it transpired, only after the State Services Commission had conveyed the fact to Clark's office], that she had advised him to tell the House, but that she believed it was not inconsistent with other statements he had made.ie, she did not regard it as sackable.
That press secretary crawled through the gallery at about 3.30pm. I don't know what response he was getting from other offices but in ours, he met disbelief that Clark saw BP's statement as not inconsistent with his previous statements. At all stages BP had given the impression that he had had nothing to do with the decision to remove Setchell from her job (her partner works for National) by insisting it had been a matter only for Logan.
Soon after the press secretary disappeared, I replayed the interview John Armstrong and I had had with BP four days before. Only then did I realise that BP had been caught in a lie with the very first question when I asked him what Logan knew of his view - and he had said "nothing."
That part of the interview had not been previously published. I also trawled back through an interview the previous week with Acting State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie, who was pretty clear that BP had not given an opinion to Logan. That part of the interview had not been published either.
Armed with those discrepancies from two interviews, The blog was posted at 4.20pm. It was the first time the website had led with a blog. It was given a "breaking news" banner and I'm told drew incredibly heavy traffic.
I then texted Clark's press secretary pointing him to the blog so I could get comment from Clark based on the new information.
She was in Christchurch. I'm told someone in her office sent her the blog. Not sure how. She also received word that TV3 also had incriminating answers by BP. By 5pm she had sent her press secretary back around the gallery to say she was now reviewing all the transcripts.
Guyon Espiner on One and Duncan Garner on TV3 both conveyed Clark's changed position on their live crosses at 6 pm that night. The timing was crucial. If Clark had stuck by her original position - what BP had said was not inconsistent with previous statements - it would have been more difficult for her to have moved against him.
Benson-Pope's press secretary supplied Clark's chief of staff with the tape of all the media interviews he had conducted on the Monday. On top of that, several key party figures were polled on what they thought should happen and BP and he was asked to resign.
This example, and my John Key blog blog - "I'm bloody angry," are interesting for two reasons: not just for the fact that they were blogs that had news impact, as Brown points out, but that both blogs used quotes from interviews that had not been previously published. Same with TV3. Some of the incriminating answers of BP had not been used in their original story. Clark would have advised BP to come clean to Parliament based on the belief there were no inconsistencies with published stories - not unpublished comments.
It is still a mystery to me why Clark did not sack him on Wednesday night when she first learned of his comments to Logan. At Labour's pre-cabinet meeting in her office two days previously - the one that doesn't have to be noted in official cabinet minutes - Benson-Pope was asked if he had disclosed everything of importance, to which he said he had.
It was clear on Wednesday that he had misled his colleagues. I think Benson-Pope was treated very generously by his colleagues in this instance because the previous attacks on him were perceived to have been so unfair.
I'm not sure yet what news stories are perfect for blogging first and news second - it certainly won't be most. But both the BP blog and the Key one were perfect because each involved a personal experience, and a tape recording to prove my points.
It is comforting to know that someone like Russell Brown is watching the development of blogging at the news interface without the fearing and sneering it has provoked in other quarters. RNZ's Media Watch noted my Benson-Pope blog, in fact the whole gallery coverage of the BP story, with an inexplicably sneering tone. My blog played a small but significant part (TV3, the DomPost were among the others that played key roles) in doing what the gallery should be doing - keeping the bastards honest.
