CSM Responds to VFF

by Hannah Spierer



VFF are again trying to present themselves as the moral arbiters of truth by suggesting that those who don’t do things their way are irresponsible. Case in point, their recent response to Liz Gunn’s Mother Of All Revelations. A story that Liz was compelled to share in an attempt to ensure that no more lives were unnecessarily lost.

Everyone knows how much work VFF has done to help the cause, as have many other great people and organisations in NZ and around the world. Nobody can ever take away from the work they have done. But this latest tall poppy cut-down is absolutely preposterous.

It can be easy to presume that new developments in a story are not reliable or valid in the context of not knowing the full story.

Throughout history many ‘responsible journalists’ have seen evidence for various stories but have been unable to release that evidence, and the story still gets published. Liz is ex-MSM and a qualified lawyer – hardly an idiot.

CSM also has security, intelligence and MSM experience. Again….hardly idiots.

Much thought and consideration went into making the statements Liz made. A simple off-the-record conversation between VFF reps and Liz could have alleviated the concerns VFF professes to have about the information witnessed.

Writing about her, without naming her is another slap in the face and suggests they are either trying not to “platform” her or are simply too gutless to stand by what they are saying about her. But this is a common occurrence with VFF, not wanting to give credit where credit is due, unless they are involved, or taking undue credit as with the Baby Will case.

The fact that VFF are determined to impugn Liz Gunn’s credibility and professionalism before being privy to all the facts shows that they are desperate to stamp their own opinions on this situation.

This doesn’t mean Liz is unable to be challenged on things. She is normal human being like the rest of us, but the fact that VFF think they need to give her a veritable public spanking shows their arrogance and very possibly their pique at not being the ‘centre of attention’ for key news on a major Covid story.

Newsflash: VFF are NOT the only ones who know that claims “must” be backed up with “solid evidence”.

Because VFF and their offshoot RCR are new to the media game, they haven’t yet learned that journalists routinely write stories without naming sources or getting into the detail about the underlying information.

Don’t take our word for it, though. (After all, we’re just … cough, cough … eye-witnesses to the underlying information whose assessment was confirmed by a qualified and independent medical stats expert). Here is what the Associated Press says about the whole “anonymous sources” issue:



Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation and is vital to the report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
3. The source is reliable and is in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source’s identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted by a manager should editors and producers allow it to be used.

In the case of Liz Gunn’s story, we can confirm that:

(1) the whistleblower needs to stay anonymous;

(2) the information is unavailable through any other channels or sources, such as OIA’s; and

(3) an independent expert is willing to sign an affidavit admissible in court respecting the data provided (as are we).

Liz is a professional and well aware of the need to have evidence, as is CSM, and neither of us go around making unsubstantiated claims willy-nilly.

When VFF reference the outright lies told by the “world’s authorities” and state that the public deserves better, they are strongly implying that Liz has somehow behaved equally dishonourably and/or betrayed the public trust. Such innuendo is despicable. VFF are at best seriously naive or at worst exhibiting a brutal case of tall poppy syndrome. They have outed themselves as willing to cut down a fellow kiwi and ally when experts all around the world are applauding Liz at this time. We marvel at their capacity for such negative self-exposure.

VFF have a history of ignoring truths that don’t suit them. In this case, they ignore the critical fact that the whistleblower approached Liz with their evidence because they had no confidence in other news outlets/avenues to move on the story. Period, full stop.

Suggesting that Liz has moved on the story out of a hunger for fame and glory can only fairly be described as the height of projection. Liz has experienced fame and renounces it hook, line and sinker. Like CSM, she is not driven by the desire to break a story; she is driven by the mission to deliver solid, reliable evidence (and leads to such evidence) to the public, where it belongs. And we note that the ‘standard of proof’ for reporting a story to the public is appropriately considerably less than the standard of proof required for beginning a criminal case or (we hasten to add) for imposing medical mandates on the public.

VFF’s statement will go down in the annals of this tawdry history as evidence of what many have suspected for some time – that VFF long to ‘own’ the freedom movement and the alternative media space that accompanies it. For some strange reason that will probably require a psychological assessment to unpack, VFF appear to think that they are the only competent people in the room, and they have unmasked themselves as willing to kick the boot into someone when they are down. Shameful.

Will VFF recover from this gross misstep? We don’t know, and we increasingly don’t care because beyond the underlying jealousy that people are reporting, these same people suggest there is a covert political agenda that was evident during this past election and only time will tell where this will lead.


For more original content from our team of NZ writers:
Please pass all Counterspin articles on to those you think would appreciate them but will not come to them without your assistance. We are creating the new world, and it begins with honest human interaction and the sharing of ideas.


Leave a Comment

This Feature Coming Soon!