That doesn't mean that there's no mention of the Storm in a Teacup of course. The editorial staff of the HoS are trying to take a principled stance and berate John Key for not answering their questions. This morning's editorial fair drips with hubris; it concludes thus:
We take no pleasure in the discomfort Key has felt this week, though we are not unhappy that someone who has deliberately set out to harm us is being held to account for his evasiveness.
All of this is the Prime Minister's doing. His views on possible coalition partners are a legitimate story with strong public-interest - particularly in the middle of an election campaign that is, on the fringes, finely balanced. How they were gained prevent their publication this time, though the PM's claim of a right to privacy at a stage-managed photo opportunity is weak indeed.
What absolute nonsense! Has the editor of the Herald on Sunday not seen the Stuff poll which shows that 58% of respondents thought that the recording of the concersation between Banks and Key was a gross breach of privacy and that the recording should have been destroyed immediately. Only 29% of respondents thought that the tape should be released; a 2 to 1 margin. The public interest that the leader writer refers to is wrongly named; it is nothing more than self-interest on the Herald on Sunday's behalf.
And when the leader writer says that Key has "deliberately set out to harm us", is he or she really serious? The Herald on Sunday made a conscious decision to make an issue out of a tape made without the consent of those who were recorded. Do they really expect us to believe that this was not an attempt to damage John Key's credibility and popularity. The only harm that will be done to the Herald on Sunday will be if the police find evidence of criminal wrongdoing and prosecute, but in our ever-humble opinion, John Key was absolutely right to refer the matter to the police.
Let's just be thankful that this is the last issue of the Herald on Sunday to be published prior to the election. The newspaper, and TV3 have not covered themselves in glory this week with their obsession over a private conversation which was illegally reported, whether intentionally or not (we think the former applies), and if we may close by paraphrasing Churchill; in years to come, people will say this was NOT their finest hour.