Monday, May 14, 2007

Sex with chickens

Can I just point out that anyone who thinks that a magazine cover story -- "A 2-Year Investigation!" -- "Our Biggest Ever!!"-- based around a group of twenty-somethings watching a porn fim twenty-six years ago is anything but humbug is deluded. Seriously deluded.

UPDATE 1: Lou Reed on gossip: "Don't believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear." On that score, Russell has this sober observation :
I don't find it hard to believe that Wishart would make reckless claims, because I've personally studied one Investigate story in which he made allegations against an individual (as part of an alleged feminist-communist-government conspiracy) that were quite simply baseless and slapdash - and had no success in prompting an acknowledgement, let alone an apology from him...

We have lately discovered some unhappy things about police culture in the 1980s, and for that reason it's hard to summarily dismiss further allegations with respect to that culture. But we shouldn't place much weight on the oft-voiced claim that if no one has sued Wishart, then everything he says must be true. Entering litigation is not a pleasant thing, and it may simply be the case that Wishart is not worth suing.
As I'm sure many people defamed in Wishart's conspiracy-ridden rag have asked themselves, "Why give publicity to the publicity-hungry?"

UPDATE 2: An old post at Bottomless Soup outlines the Wishart modus operandi:
There's an old story about columnist Walter Winchell, who was asked by a young colleague just starting out, how do you become a well-known and influential columnist. Winchell replied, "Attack someone more influential than you, until he notices you. When he notices you, he makes you important." The young columnist thanked him and promptly went off and began a series of attacks on Walter Winchell.

This is the trap that any public figure falls into -- not just your work, but eventually your personal life as well, becomes a subject for others to chew over. In public. If you respond, you dignify not only the subject, but the person who raised it. If you don't respond, the rumor, the gossip, the allegation, the accusation, the smear stands unchallenged.

In 1967, Paul Krassner printed [a vile piece attacking LBJ] in his magazine The Realist... Krassner was attacked on the floor of Congress for publishing such a vile piece. Perfect. That was what he wanted. Krassner said in the next issue that once you get a politician denying that he's a pig-fucker, you have everybody in the world asking why he felt the need to deny it...
UPDATE 3: Craig Ranapia makes the reasonable point below that,
"I thought this would be an opportunity for any libertarian with a historical sense to note the irony that 'a group of twenty-somethings watching a porn film twenty-six years ago' were the same people prosecuting hookers, queers, streakers, and other offenders against public decency."
Irony so noted. Lack of historic sense recorded.

It could also be pointed out the irony of laws that impose christian so-called morals on non-christians is that everyone involved starts looking like a hypocrite in somebody's book.

UPDATE 4: WishHard is on Newstalk ZB talking to Larry Williams, touting Howard Broad's "confession." In Wishart's words this afternoon, echoing those of his press release yesterday with the allegations against Broad at the head:

...Broad has now confirmed 1) that a bestiality video was definitely screened at a police party, and 2) that Broad felt so intimidated by the prevailing police culture in Dunedin at the time that he didn't do anything about this criminal act.

Or as the official police statement puts it:

The Commissioner confirmed that a Police Rugby Club fund raising party was held at his place around 1981. About 100 people turned up. Old rugby films were shown in the lounge. Late in the evening while he was elsewhere in the house someone put a pornographic film containing bestiality on the projector.

Mr Broad says that when he was told about it he was annoyed and irritated and said so to members of the Police Rugby club present.

"The fact that I didn't take any further action probably underscores the standards applying at that time. Twenty five years on it is obviously a source of embarrassment having regard to my current position and the context of police leadership today.

Compare the distance between those two statements and you'll understand the difference between a journalist and a muckraker.

Labels: , ,

21 Comments:

Blogger Matt B said...

Agreed.

5/14/2007 10:31:00 am  
Anonymous James said...

Don't ya love how the Conservative Christian sexual saddos get all wound up and mouth foamy over sex? The fact that they turn out the majority of sexual perverts and criminals should tell them that their denial of reality is the wrong path to take...

5/14/2007 11:13:00 am  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

James wrote:
Don't ya love how the Conservative Christian sexual saddos get all wound up and mouth foamy over sex?

Perhaps you could reverse the flow so the crap comes out your arse rather than your mouth?

I thought this would be an opportunity for any libertarian with a historical sense to note the irony that "a group of twenty-somethings watching a porn film twenty-six years ago" were the same people prosecuting hookers, queers, streakers, and other offenders against public decency.

Sex doesn't upset me much - though I draw the line at fucking animals, or any cretin who want to plug that kind of crap into my DVD player.

Hypocrisy does, though I can understand why neither Mr. Wishart nor Commissioner Broad want to look too closely into their brand of 'do what I say, don't say what I do' amorality.

5/14/2007 01:01:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

"Perhaps you could reverse the flow so the crap comes out your arse rather than your mouth?"

And your point was what Craig...? That you didn't have one?

It is a fact easily proved by just reading what they right and listening to what they say whenever the topic of off-centre sex that allegedly is condemned in the bible rears its head....I would have thought you of all people would know this.

5/14/2007 01:14:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

The rest of your post seemed to agree with what I said so why the crap comment?

5/14/2007 01:16:00 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

anyone who thinks that... "A 2-Year Investigation!" -- "Our Biggest Ever!!"... is anything but humbug is deluded. Seriously deluded.

Except that police commissioner Howard Broad himself acknowledges the truth of the allegation that a pornographic film containing bestiality was shown at a party held in his house in Dunedin in 1981.

5/14/2007 01:51:00 pm  
Blogger CD said...

It is beyond me why the media continues to refer to Ian Wishart as a "Journalist."

It doesn't do the profession many favours (not that journalists need any help to put themselves into disrepute)

"Except that police commissioner Howard Broad himself acknowledges the truth of the allegation that a pornographic film containing bestiality was shown at a party held in his house in Dunedin in 1981."

And... who gives a shit?

For the first time in my life I found myself thinking Helen clark was right on: "I am not prepared to condemn Mr Broad who was 23, didn't know the video was to be shown and didn't approve of it."

Exactly. It's a non-issue.

As usual the media enjoys a nice big "TOP COP SCREWS CHICKENS" headline, then divulges at the bottom that the source is Tin-foil-hat Wishart and that Broad didn't watch the video, bring it along or have much to do with it at all. And it was over a quarter of a century ago!

What a waste of bloody time.

5/14/2007 02:10:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Richard: So what?

5/14/2007 02:16:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

Beastialty videos are two a penny and all over the net now.As it doesn't fit the definition of a crime,meaning a violation of individual rights, why the hysteria....?

5/14/2007 03:07:00 pm  
Blogger Richard said...

So what? Well, it depends on the meaning of the word 'humbug'. If the story's central allegation is true, then that much, at least, is not humbug. And I'm not seriously deluded for thinking so.

5/14/2007 03:15:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

'Humbug'? I'm using it in the sense of pretended concern (or professed outrage) over something about which few really, genuinely give a shit.

5/14/2007 03:27:00 pm  
Blogger MikeE said...

Am I the only one thinking..

"How the hell does someone fuck a chicken?"

I mean the logistics of it are mind boggling..

With friends like Wishart who needs enemies eh?

5/14/2007 04:17:00 pm  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

The rest of your post seemed to agree with what I said so why the crap comment?

What was with the witless comment about the fact that they turn out the majority of sexual perverts and criminals?

I've been looking for any breakdown of the political or religious leanings of 'sexual perverts and criminals'. You know, it's just as fatuous as saying it's a well known "fact" that libertarians turn out the majority of fraudsters and bank robbers, because they're greedy thieving douche bags.

And shocking and horrifying as this may sound, I'm a Christian who actually likes living in an parliamentary democracy rather than a theocracy of any type, believes the meaningful separation of Church (and Mosque and Synagogue and Temple) and State is a bloody good idea, has much better things to do with my life than pantie-sniffing, and thinks we should not be living under the rule of law.

The likes of Brian Tamiki, Graeme Capill and Ian Wishart don't speak for me, thanks.

And when you get right down to it, some of the powerful neo-Puritans in this country don't have a religious atom in their bodies but a constantly engorged outrage gland. Either way, fuck 'em all.

5/14/2007 05:29:00 pm  
Anonymous andyL said...

I suggest that Ian Wishart should try bestiality with a horse and see what's it like? I am sure that he would enjoy it.

5/14/2007 05:55:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

What was with the witless comment about the fact that they turn out the majority of sexual perverts and criminals?"

In the States I'm informed thats the case...and criminals meaning sex criminals.I bet a study of NZ would reveal similar stats..

In the States the worst stats for crime,family breakdown,teen pregnancy etc are also amongst the Christian fundamentalist religious community's.This should come as no surprise as the further from reason you go the more shit the real world hands you...

5/14/2007 05:58:00 pm  
Anonymous danger mouse said...

Great post. This whole affair does an excellent job of showing up Investigate for the bad joke it is.

5/14/2007 08:39:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

The only problem is that bestiality is and was a crime. So a senior police officer doesn't follow up on a crime when his friends do it. He just gives them a warning.

Where can I make friends to such officers?

And who gets such treatment?

As true libertarianz we all agree of course that one consenting adult should do with his consenting chicken whatever he wants to do with it. That speaks for itself. Just read Ayn Rand for the specifics.

5/14/2007 08:59:00 pm  
Anonymous michael fasher said...

KFC anybody?

5/14/2007 09:33:00 pm  
Blogger Shout Above The Noise said...

Berend, it's a 'victimless' crime (and don't we get so tired of this excuse when the social liberals' kinkier tolerances and practices are exposed)

However if we could all speak chicken talk, I bet that bird is screaming "help, please, give me an epi-dural"

5/14/2007 11:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

I can't find anything remotely funny in this; the topic and the parties concerned. Based upon what I've heard, (ie I haven't read the lengthy article in its entirety and don't want to), I find it all completely repugnant.

CR: "And when you get right down to it, some of the powerful neo-Puritans in this country don't have a religious atom in their bodies but a constantly engorged outrage gland. Either way, fuck 'em all."

Well said.

5/15/2007 09:35:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two words for craig - perhaps a paradigmatic example - : Ted Haggard.
Isaac

5/17/2007 08:31:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home