03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) does not behave as a journalist should. He refers to the fact that Mr Slater has in the 36 Canon Media Awards 2014 “Best Blog”. past breached suppression orders; breaches which Mr Slater has accepted although he now says that he has turned a new leaf and will scrupulously abide by suppression orders. [61] I accept that a news medium that was shown to be using news as a basis for comment only might not be a news medium. I also accept that a news medium that published articles of such a low standard that they could not objectively be regarded as “news” might not qualify. Although the definitions in s 68(1) do not include a quality requirement, quality would be relevant to the extent that a writer who was shown consistently to invent stories or be inaccurate on a regular basis might not qualify. An article that is false is not news. I deal with what is a “journalist’s work” in the next section. [62] In my assessment, Mr Slater’s reports contain genuine new information of interest over a wide range of topics. Some may support a particular political philosophy but others are of general interest. The style of journalism may be criticised and can be dramatic and abusive, but the expression is vigorous and coherent, and there is no evidence provided to this Court of consistent inaccuracy or deceit (although there is evidence of consistent hyperbole). On my assessment, while criticisms can be made of Mr Slater’s style and modus operandi, Whale Oil is not of such low quality that it is not reporting news. [63] In February 2012 Mr Slater was reporting on recent happenings of importance and of public interest. He was providing new information about such events. He did not just comment. The list of stories set out shows him “breaking” new stories. He has “broken” the following further major stories since: (a) September 2013 – October 2013 – the “Paul Findlay story” reporting on a Christchurch Council candidate grooming teenagers via dating applications; (b) October 2013: the “Len Brown story” relating to Mr Brown’s affair; and (c) October 2013: “MEGA/KIM Dotcom Illegal copy of the Luminaries” story about MEGA hosting an illegal copy of The Luminaries for file sharing. [64] These stories may come from a particular political perspective, but so do stories from Fox News and the Huffington Post. Mr Slater was at the time running stories featuring new information of interest to readers. He had obtained this information from sources. Mr Slater was in early 2012 striving to provide news or recent stories on matters of public interest to his readers. His readers constituted a significant section of the New Zealand reading public. [65] It is this element of regularly providing new or recent information of public interest which is in my view determinative. He was not doing this as often as would occur in a newspaper or a television or radio station, but that could not be expected of a single blogger. Such a person would not have the resources to operate on that scale. I do not see it as a pre-requisite that the quantity of stories must be equivalent to that of a substantial corporate news organisation. His motives for reporting are not crucial either. Because Whale Oil at the relevant time with reasonable frequency provided such information, as well as commentary and the opportunity for debate, it was a news medium. Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work? www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 15/30