Sometimes I wish you people would make up your minds. Ever since 2006 I've noticed a constant barrage of criticism from the public and commentators that the media's too soft on John Key. That we have a love affair with him, that we accept his lines without question, and that we let him get away unchallenged far too often.

However this week every man and his dog have been saying we're not playing fair over the teapot tapes, that we've invaded the Prime Minister's right to privacy, that we've been hounding him unnecessarily, that we're vultures, media scum, and tabloid charlatans of the very worst order.

Five years a marshmallow, one week a turd. Give me a break.

Well I'm making no apologies for my actions, nor those of my colleagues. I'm in the news business, not the law business, and if a politician says something of political significance in private but isn't prepared to front up and say it publicly then I'll call them on it every time. I'm a journalist, it's what I'm supposed to do. If you are trying to tell me that there's no story when a National Prime Minister talks to a former National Party cabinet minister turned ACT Party candidate about the political future of the ACT party leader (also a former National party leader – and incidentally was replaced in that role by the current Prime Minister) then don't be surprised when I disagree. Forcefully.

In and of itself the seeming duplicity isn't a big deal. It's a large part of politics. However what is a big deal is the reluctance of Key and Banks to front up to it. That's why they're being challenged.

And let's not have any of this slippery slide down the ethics slope bullshit either. That's simply a steaming load of shite being fed to you by politicians who would rather distract you with hyperbole so you don't pay too close attention to something they really don't want to talk about. The blunt truth is New Zealand media isn't as tabloid and ethically challenged as Messrs Key and Joyce would have you believe. The private lives of politicians pretty much remain off limits and their personal foibles generally aren't written about. If we were as dodgy as they claim well then why haven't we over the years written more about their misbehaviours and infidelities? Trust me on this, there is lot of material there.

The reason is that media are generally pretty careful about crossing that line. The time you do it is when a public figure is either breaking the law, or is acting privately in a way that contradicts their public position and the way they do their job. The latter applies when it comes to the teapot tape.

Another thing that's pissed me off a bit this week is the way a number of commentators seized on how Bradley Ambrose, when serving in the police, was investigated for his dealings with activist Kelvyn Alp. This, we were told, meant his credibility could be questioned. This despite the fact Mr Ambrose had never been charged with comitting a crime.

Forgive me if a I digress a little here. But six or seven years ago when I worked in Canterbury there was a particularly bad fire season that I covered. By reason of having good information and contacts I was generally able to get to the fires quickly and was able to operate behind the official cordons. I was later told that officials were curious as to how I managed this and there was an investigation (I don't know how serious) to see if I may have been responsible for starting the fires. Now of course I had no part in causing those fires, but if we were to follow the logic of those criticising Mr Ambrose's past I must be, by their definition, an arsonist or at least someone of dubious character. Journalistic stereotypes aside but that is plainly bullshit.

Some of the commentary's been interesting too (and I'm including some of my colleagues here as well). I rather suspect that in their reporting hey day, the likes of Richard Long, Bill Ralston and Janet Wilson would have run the teapot tape in a flash. I'm a little puzzled as to why they're so anti the idea now. Could it be because they have (gasp), and have had, links to the National Party? Methinks they doth protest too much!

And what of the behaviour of some of our country's most pre-eminent current affairs hosts (you know who you are) and their condemnation of the media's activities? Humiliation and disgrace are among some of the nicer words they've used to describe me and my reporter colleagues in recent days. I'm sorry gentlemen, but isn't highlighting double dealing among our politicians what we (and by we I mean you as well) are supposed to do? Your craven and slavish acceptance of the official line is a huge disappointment.

The fact is that journalism isn't always nice, it's not always about doing stories that people are happy or comfortable with. Sometimes what we do is unpopular. But if we seek to avoid that then we're not doing our jobs properly.

Original post and much more from Newstalk ZB political reporter Felix Marwick in ZB's Decision 2011 website.