The Bleeding “Edge”: End of a Saga?


Press Release: For Immediate Release, 11/19/2019

Eyes Open Media, XXXX Easy St., Port Charlotte, FL 33952    (415) XXX-XXXX

Zoophile American Author Wins Case Against New Zealand Radio Station, Gets Nothing In Return

PORT CHARLOTTE, FL – Writer, publisher and self-described zoophile Malcolm J. Brenner has won a case against MediaWorks, Inc., a New Zealand broadcaster, for airing a distorted interview with him – where one member of the trio of interviewers insulted him, cursed him, and then left the studio.

“The interview lasted about 20 minutes, but that four-minute segment was all they used,” Brenner said, “and they lied to me about that.”

However, he’ll get nothing for his troubles, not even an on-air apology.

The ruling came from the Broadcast Standards Authority, New Zealand’s equivalent of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which found that a program on the station The Edge had deliberately edited an interview with Brenner to present an unflattering portrait of him.

“That’s disgusting! You’re sick! Dolphins cannot give consent,” said Meg Annear during a March 30 interview with the author of the controversial novel Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover.She then got up from her microphone on The Dom, Meg and Randell Show, removed her headphones and, over the protests of her partners Clint Randell and Dom Harvey, walked out of the studio.

“I’ve had this happen before,” Brenner said. “Some people, particularly certain women, are ‘triggered’ when I begin to describe the dolphin’s uninhibited courtship behavior toward me, and they react as if I was describing my own behavior.” When this happened at a radio station in Australia several years ago, the station opted not to air the interview.

The Dom, Meg and Randell Show, however, took a different course – one that involved the station’s lawyers, management, deception and eventually brought in the BSA itself.

“I went ahead and finished the interview with just the two guys, Dom and Randell, and it was okay and about 20 minutes long,” Brenner explained. “Then Dom and I exchanged some mail about when the clip was going to air. Finally, several days later, he emailed me a 10-minute edit of the interview and told me it would air in a few days.”

Brenner tuned in the podcast, but heard nothing. By now suspicious, he went back into the show’s archives and discovered, to his horror, that not only had Dom sent him a decoy audio file, the material that they did air was the most inflammatory part of the interview, where Meg curses at Brenner on her way out the door.

“Once I realized what the station had done to me, I was astonished and outraged,” Brenner recalled. “Nobody has acted with such contempt for me since junior high school, where I was an unpopular student. It was like getting mugged in the hallway, and they didn’t have to do it. It was malicious, it was intentional, and they thought they could get away with it because I’m a foreigner and an admitted zoophile.”

Bestiality has been illegal in New Zealand since the adoption of the constitution in 1963, by nation-wide law. Brenner’s interlude with the dolphin, named Dolly (Ruby in the novel), occurred over six months in 1971, but bestiality wasn’t made illegal in Florida until 2011.

“I did nothing illegal, not in Florida and certainly not in New Zealand, and yet Dom saw fit to deceive me, lie to me, lie about me and defame me,” Brenner said. “He did this solely based on the idea that I had the experience with Dolly 48 years ago and therefore I must be a non-person with no rights under New Zealand law.”

Worse yet, Brenner suspects the station’s attorney, Tom Turton, conspired with the rogue DJ’s plans.

“A couple of days after we wrapped the interview I inquired about when it would air, and Dom said it was being considered by the station’s lawyers, for content, because zoophilia is illegal in New Zealand,” Brenner said. “By that time the edited, four-minute clip of Meg leaving the studio had already aired!”

Was Dom advised by Turton to deceive Brenner?

“If so, I’d find a new attorney,” the writer half-joked. “When Dom told me he had to run it by the lawyers I had a bad feeling, but I decided to say nothing so as not to ‘bad vibe’ the situation. If Turton collaborated, he should be reported to the New Zealand Bar Association for misconduct.

“I learned it doesn’t matter if you voice your suspicions or not, by the time you’re aware of them the bird has flown,” Brenner said. He asked the BSA to order the station to apologize to him on-air, place the full interview in its archive, and to pay him whatever amount the BSA thought would prevent the station from running similar slanderous stories in the future. The Administration can impose up to a $5,000 NZ ($3,600 US) fine.

However, the BSA decided not to place any orders on the station, thus giving it only an symbolic “slap on the wrist,” Brenner said.

“MediaWorks advise that its processes have been reviewed with respect to how it responds to audience feedback on challenging topics. Taking into account the above factors and the action taken by MediaWorks, the Authority considers that the publication of this decision is sufficient to censure MediaWorks conduct and clarify our expectations of broadcasters under the fairness standard. Accordingly, we do not make any orders,”the BSA’s decision, signed by its chair Judge Bill Hastings, reads.

“I’m appalled at the lack accountability,” Brenner said. “This decision leaves MediaWorks free to practice this kind of slander on anyone who comes along, anyone they feel is ‘different’ or vulnerable.

“I don’t even get a formal apology from the people who lied to me, lied about me, defamed me, sent me a false file and tried to bury the truth afterward. MediaWorks said they had no problem making an apology and archiving the show, but the BSA doesn’t require it, so they won’t do it. It’s absolutely disgusting.”

Brenner is filing an appeal of the decision, citing the lack of any orders. He is also the author of a memoir, Growing Up in the Orgone Box: Secrets of a Reichian Childhood,and a science-fiction novel, Mel-Khyor: An Interstellar Affair.

For a copy of the complete decision by the BSA (15 pgs.), please contact Brenner at or at (415) 640-5013. He is on Miami time.




Closer to “The Edge”

It’s a dolphin, and it looks like it’s smiling. It always looks like that.

Here it is, fans, my response from the MediaWorks Standards Committee about my complaint.  According to law, I had to file a complaint with MediaWorks first and be declined before I could appeal to the Broadcast Standards Authority, New Zealand’s FCC. Stand by for my response! All italicization is mine, for emphasis.

Dear Malcolm,

The MediaWorks Standards Committee wishes to advise you we have completed our inquiry into your formal complaint about the decision to broadcast on The Edge on 3 April 2019, an edited version of your interview with Dom Harvey, Meg Annear and Clint Randell. You complained that this breached Standards 4, 5, 6 ,8, 9 and 11.

We have not identified any breach of the standards set out in the Code of Broadcasting Practice. Our reasoning is outlined in further detail below.

If you are not happy about this decision you have the right in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to refer your complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, (P.O. Box 9213, Wellington or for the purpose of an investigation and review. You have 20 working days after receipt of this email to exercise this right of referral.

The Broadcast

The broadcast on 3 April was the final installment of a storyline which ran over three episodes of the Dom, Meg and Randell show. We have provided copies of all of the audio from these episodes, with this response. However in summary:

On 29 March the hosts first discussed the viral ‘Florida man’ birthday challenge, in which people conduct a Google search with their date of birth and the words “Florida man”, and receive news stories about the behaviour of a ‘Florida man’ on their birthday. ‘Florida man’ is a generic descriptor for a person who commits bizarre or idiotic crimes, popularly associated with—and often reported in—Florida.

Dom had conducted such a search using his birth date 3 February. The first search result was an article about you with the headline “Florida Man who had sex with dolphin says it seduced him”.

Following this discussion, listeners rang in to contribute their own birth dates and “Florida Man” stories.

On 1 April: the hosts discussed how they had recorded an interview with you, and provided some more detail about your story, including that:

  • you had written a book;
  • you had been fired from the aquarium where this occurred (which we are aware is not the case, but do not think is material);
  • you had been interviewed by MediaWorks’ journalist (at the time) David Farrier;
  • you had reviewed the movie “The Shape of Water” in a piece for Huffington Post;
  • the dolphin’s name was Dolly;
  • you had made a documentary about your relationship with Dolly;
  • you didn’t go through the court system and weren’t sent to jail;
  • you claim Dolly was in love with you;
  • you claim Dolly initiated the behaviour and seduced you over time;
  • you claim Dolly was so distraught when you were separated that she took her own life.

Meg made clear her opposition to hearing about bestiality and outlined her counter-view that Dolly was “traumatised because a man had seduced her and she’s a dolphin”. The hosts then sought and received feedback from listeners on whether or not to broadcast the interview.

Dom indicated he would need to clear it with his legal team before broadcasting.

On 3 April the hosts described the “Florida Man” challenge again, played extracts of the previous show and emphasised to listeners not to ‘flip out’ because they had heard the audience feedback and weren’t going to play the full interview.

They talked about Meg’s opposition to this storyline and played the following extract from the interview:

Malcolm: Dolphins’ skin is peeling all the time so they need to have it rubbed. She would roll over on her back and then swim forward until I was rubbing her [bleep].

Meg: This is sick. This is sick. I think you’re sick in the head and this is disgusting. This is a non-consensual situation. A dolphin cannot consensually choose to have sex with a human and you absolutely took advantage of that and I don’t want to be involved with this.

Meg explained she was flustered and furious, and the hosts explained that everyone who got into contact with the show – apart from one listener named Peter – had agreed that the topic was not appropriate for broadcast. Peter was given the opportunity to listen to the entire interview off-air and was then asked for his view of the interview. Peter indicated that he regretted having heard it.

Standard 4 Violence

The Violence Standard states that :

Broadcasters should exercise care and discretion when referencing violence.

We have not identified any content which referenced violence, and no breach of this Standard.

Standard 5 Law and Order

Under the Law and Order Standard:

Broadcasters should observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order, taking into account the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast.

As the commentary on this Standard makes clear, its purpose is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.

This broadcast did not promote criminal or serious antisocial activity; rather the inverse is the case. The hosts criticised behaviour which is unlawful in New Zealand under section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961. We consider that this was appropriate,and there is no breach of this Standard.

Standard 6 Discrimination and denigration

Under the Discrimination and Denigration Standard:

Broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

Although elements of the Broadcast – particularly Meg’s comments – were dismissive and even condemnatory of your behaviour, the Commentary on this Standard is clear:

“This standard does not apply to individuals…
The standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’ which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.”

We do not accept that people who have sex with dolphins, or even at the broadest level, zoophiles (i.e. people with a persistent sexual interest in animals) comprise a “section of the community” within the scope of this Standard. Although the Human Rights Act does prohibit discrimination on the grounds of “sexual orientation”, it defines this as “heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation” only (see section 21(1)(m)), and not an orentation towards animals.

This is consistent with the fact that bestiality is illegal in New Zealand. Zoophiles are not protected from discrimination in the Human Rights Act and we do not accept that the Standard applies here, or that the Standard was breached by this Broadcast.

Standard 8 Balance

Under the Balance Standard:

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

As summarised in Guideline 8a, for the standard to apply, the subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’ and it must be ‘discussed’ in a news, current affairs or factual programme.

The Standard does not apply in this case, because at least two of these requirements are not made out:

  • While clearly important to you, this issue is not relevant to the wider New Zealand public and is not ‘of public importance’. Bestiality, and the capacity for animals to consent to intercourse with a human are fringe issues, without any widespread or mainstream importance.
  • The Dom, Meg and Randell show is not a news, current affairs or factual programme. The show is promoted as a place for “the latest entertainment news, celebrity gossip, scandal, competitions and all the funniest gags to spark up your morning”. Listeners expect light-hearted chat and laughs, but do not reasonably expect it to be “authoritative or truthful”, which is the defining characteristic of a factual programme according to the commentary on the Standards.

Standard 9 Accuracy

Under the Accuracy Standard:

Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:
• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
• does not mislead.

The purpose of this standard is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed. However the Standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programming, which this was not (see para 16b above) . Therefore there cannot be a breach of this Standard.

Standard 11 Fairness

Under the Fairness Standard:

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in any broadcast.

There are serious issues with how Dom, Meg and Randell dealt with you and your contribution during the Broadcast. In particular the Committee is concerned about the way the interview was edited and broadcast on 3 April, and the information which Dom Harvey provided to you after your interview, which was misleading and incomplete. We have raised these concerns with the show’s producers and presenters and have reminded them of their obligations under this Standard. We have also reviewed our processes to take into account the slightly unusual situation here, where a storyline was modified in response to clear listener feedback.

However overall we are satisfied that the storyline or the 3 April broadcast were not unfair to you, and fairly reflects your position in relation to your interactions with Dolly.

The BSA’s Commentary on this Standard states:

Generally, a consideration of what is fair will take into account the following:

  • whether the audience would have been left with an unduly negative impression of an individual or organisation
  • whether an individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme was adequately informed of the nature of their participation
  • whether informed consent was required and/or obtained (guidance on what constitutes ‘informed consent’ is found in Guidance: Privacy at the back of this Codebook)
  • whether the individual or organisation was given a reasonable opportunity to comment, and whether their comments were adequately presented in the programme
  • the nature of the individual, for example, a public figure or organisation familiar with dealing with the media, as opposed to an ordinary person with little or no media experience
  • whether any critical comments were aimed at the participant in their business or professional life, or their personal life
  • the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech

The Committee has considered the context around the broadcast:

We accept that the show’s audience would have been left with a negative impression of you based on your behaviour with Dolly. However we do not accept that this impression was caused by the Broadcast. In the Committee’s view, any negative impression was a result of pre-existing perceptions of bestiality and those who engage in it. The Committee is satisfied that there is already widespread distaste for the behaviour you engaged in. The feedback from listeners of the programme supports this view, and again we note that the New Zealand legislature has seen fit to prohibit bestiality with a serious criminal sanction of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

We consider that prior to the broadcast you were adequately informed of the intended nature of your participation. At that time the hosts did plan to broadcast your interview in full or use it for a podcast. It was only after they received overwhelming listener feedback and appreciated that there was no audience appetite for this story, that the hosts and production team reconsidered their approach. We would have expected them to communicate their decision to you. In any event is clear to us that you are experienced in dealing with the media and have told your story before, and we are certain that you would have expected and would have been prepared for opposition or condemnation of your behaviour.

The Committee does not approve of the way your interview was edited, and we understand why you might feel you had not been given a reasonable opportunity to comment. However we agree with producers that in light of the audience’s clear expectations it was not appropriate to play the entire interview. A better decision would have been not to play any part of your interview, rather than playing only the portions of the interview in which Meg reacted to your behaviour. Despite this we are satisfied that your position was adequately presented across the series of broadcasts, and the 3 April Broadcast on its own. In particular your claims that Dolly initiated and consented to this behaviour were presented, as were your claims that Dolly was forlorn by your separation and died of a broken heart, and the fact bestiality was not illegal in Florida at that time or until 2011. We do not accept that listeners were unaware of your position.


In summary there is no basis to uphold your complaint.

Kind regards,
The MediaWorks Standards Committee

Stay tuned for more exciting news!


Communications from “The Edge”

March 28, 2019

Hey Malcolm,
I do New Zealand’s #1 music radio show on a station called The Edge
(  We would love to chat to you on our show about your
life and story.
Please let me know if this is something you would consider.
Thanks heaps mate

*Dominic Harvey   **Announcer*
*The Edge*   MEDIAWORKS    *MOBILE* +6421451835

Dear Dom, yes I’d be delighted, particularly if you will let me explain that dolphins are telepathic. Several other people besides me have discovered this. It isn’t in the film “Dolphin Lover” ( because the filmmakers ran out of time and money. You should watch the film anyhow to familiarize yourself with my experience.
I’ll be tuning in to your show (so to speak, I’m old school) to see how you do what you do. Be warned!

Yours, Malcolm J. Brenner (the J is important, as there are at least three other Malcolm Brenners running around).

(Addendum) By the way, did I mention there’s a Kiwi angle to this? Look up author Frank Robson’s books, “Thinking Dolphins, Talking Whales” and “Pictures in the Dolphin Mind.” Finding his books meant I wasn’t crazy, or alone. Here’s an article he wrote for a trainer’s journal, and an audio clip from another trainer, “The Cove’s” Ric O’Barry.

Thanks Malcolm.  I’ll look it up.

I just watched your movie.  It was a fascinating watch….I just wish it
was longer.


If it was any longer, it would be boring. – Malcolm

March 31

Hey Malcolm,

When would you like us to call you?  It is now Monday morning here in NZ.
We could call you in an hour if you wanted?


Dom, thanks for writing. Yes, I am available for interview by phone or Skype in an hour. (415) ***-**** or malcolm.brenner1 Shall I expect your call?
BTW, I thought your piece about the friend who committed suicide was quite touching. You really can’t know what it’s like until it happens to you.
Yeah, give me a call. — Malcolm

(PS — please remember when you introduce me to use the middle initial “J.” in my name, as in Malcolm J. Brenner, as I am trying to distinguish myself from Malcolm K. Brenner, an MD who does very wonderful work with pediatric leukemia patients at a hospital in Texas, and I’m sure he is too. Thanks.)

(Addendum) Hey, did you get my earlier message? Are we go for this? Standing by with phone and Skype on for your call. (415) ***-****. — Malcolm

(Addendum) Oh one other thing, Dom, would you please let me know when the segment will air, and where it will be archived? I want to share the information with readers of my blog, Thanks.


in which Meg, about one minute into the interview calls me “sick in the head,” my behavior “disgusting” (without letting me finish the story I was telling about Dolly’s behavior), states that “a dolphin cannot consensually decide to have sex with a human,” (like she knows?) and says that I “absolutely took advantage of that,” then rather than stay around and have herself corrected on air by me, walks out of the studio, leaving Dom and Ryan to interview me. Which they did, rather well, I thought at the time, for about 20 minutes.

Thanks very much for your time Malcolm.

Apologies about Meg.  But I suppose the polarizing nature of your story is
part of the reason we thought you’d make a good guest.  Randell and myself
both appreciated your candidness.

The interview will likely play out in the next couple of days.  We will
just have to get the audio cleared by our legal team here in Auckland, NZ
before doing so.

I’ll be in touch. Thanks again, Dom

Thanks for responding, Dominic. Why is it necessary to clear the audio through your station’s legal team? I didn’t do anything illegal, at the time, so this puzzles me. Can you clarify? Thanks, Malcolm

Our legal team just like to listen to anything we may play that could be
considered offensive/indecent/questionable by listeners.

It is basically just covering our arses in case a complaint is made to the
BSA (thats the NZ equal of the FCC in the US).

Dominic, ok, thanks, that sets my mind more at ease. — Malcolm

April 2


  My section begins at about 42:40.

NOTEZ BIEN: My show has already aired!

April 4

Hi Dominic, Being a former investigative reporter and of a suspicious bent, I’m beginning to wonder if there isn’t a Spaniard in the works, as John Lennon so aptly put it?
Was my interview too hot to handle? Was Meg’s abrupt departure staged for my benefit? Her hostility didn’t seem appropriate to the provocation, and I think she misheard me. I said that after Dolly had maneuvered herself so that I was rubbing her genital slit, I broke off, went back to her head, and she did the same thing again.
In other words, I was trying to be modest, but Dolly had other ideas. So who is Meg really mad at, me, or the dolphin? For being a dolphin?
I haven’t heard anything from you yet, so of course I’m beginning to wonder if the interview is going to air and if so, whole or edited?
Please fill me in. If you’re going to shelve it, it was nice talking to you. — Malcolm

Hi Malcolm,

My apologies for the delay.  This is the edit of the interview.
Our sensitive (possibly over sensitive) legal team (big corporation bullshit) made us remove some of the more graphic stuff. 

(No signature, no sign-off? Dom knows the show has already aired, and what he’s sending me is a BULLSHIT FILE! He must think I’m stupid, because he hasn’t told me the air date yet, and you know I’m going to look in the archives, don’t you? I mean, wouldn’t you?)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks, I’ll listen to it. — Malcolm

Dom, the audio interview is quite OK, such as it is. Would you please send me Meg’s email address at the station, as I should like to write to her personally. Perhaps I can smooth some ruffled feathers. — Malcolm

Sure mate! That’s unnecessary but if you wish to write it is

(He knows it’s “unnecessary” because the show’s already aired and moved on to something else now, having chewed me up and spat me out like a chunk of gristle.)

CenturyLink Webmail: You, me, and dolphins

April 5, 2019

Dear Meg,
I want to reach out to you personally because I think your performance last week was un-called for, and I’d like to know, for once, what motivated it?

What makes you hate me so much that you stormed out of the studio, leaving the interview to Dominic and Randell? I was for almost a decade a reporter for two daily newspapers covering the Navajo Nation, and I can only remember a couple of cases where I did that. In both cases I was provoked far beyond what you were; in fact, I question whether you were “provoked” at all by what I was saying. Your rage had a pre-digested, packaged quality that suggests it was actually manufactured long before you heard what were only the beginnings of my story about Dolly.

Furthermore, I think you misheard me when I described the dolphin’s behavior . Yes, I was a zoophile. But that was a quirk of my adolescence; it embarrassed me, and I wanted nothing more than a normal relationship with a woman.

Unfortunately, Dolly didn’t care about what I wanted, at least at first. What I was attempting to describe, when you exploded and fled, was Dolly’s attempt to take advantage of me. She positioned herself so I was rubbing her vulva, twice, and at that point I realized it was deliberate and broke off. I wanted to talk to the damn dolphin, I had no ambitions to have sex with her!

It was, as she explained later, what she did to all the adult humans at the park: try to solicit some sex from them. Sort of like a game. ( That was only one of several things she had to explain telepathically. Before you conclude I’m totally nuts, consider that 4 other trainers – Ric O’Barry of The Cove, Michael Greenwood of Peter Fisher’s Odyssey, David Holroyd, who wrote The Perfect Pair trilogy, and even your own Frank Robson, a fisherman from Taranaki who discovered that dolphins responded to pictures in his head and wrote two books about it, Thinking Dolphins, Talking Whales and Pictures in the Dolphin Mind – have spoken about the telepathic bond they shared with dolphins.)

Here’s two pictures of what happened when I brought my prospective girlfriend down to the dophin’s pen: (see below)

The dolphin recognized her as competition and threw her out of the pool!

The dolphin, in other words, had a serious jones for me. I thought I could control her, but I couldn’t; the idea that any human being, even a US Navy SEAL team (or the equivalent) can, is a ridiculous fantasy. The Navy SEALS I’ve talked to admit they’re helpless before the dolphin, which can outswim them every time. There’s no way that I, alone and naked, could “take advantage” of a 180 kg dolphin!

And in fact (to draw this to a close), Dolly actually defended me against an attack by the last male dolphin in the pool with her, and then, entirely on her own, figured out how to wriggle through a very narrow space where the male dolphin could not or would not follow, so we could have some privacy!

So where did I “take advantage” of her? Please explain.

Let me tell you a little bit about her. She was kept in a sea-level pen, rather than a pool, so she could perform in open water , swimming alongside a riverboat in the Intracoastal Waterway (Lemon Bay, to be exact) and jumping for fish from her trainer’s hand, about 3.2 meters above the water. Sometimes she met wild dolphins and swam off with them, but she always came back! Wondering why was really the start of our relationship. The answer I got was that she was studying us.

I will leave you with the ramifications of that statement.

But enough about me and the dolphin, back to you. You couldn’t even listen to my story! What did you think a guy who has written a novel called Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover was going to talk about, Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Come on, Meg, that’s why I believe your anger was manufactured on the spot.

You were all primed and ready to explode with self-righteous rage at me because I was an “animal abuser,” when in fact I’ve been married twice, once for 12 years, once for 9, and I have a grown daughter by my first wife who loves my writing and designs the covers for my books. She works for a San Francisco ad agency, and she makes a hell of a lot more than you do. What does this mean? I have about 1000x the experience making love to women as I do females of other species.

And you know what? I abuse as much as I want, which (as Penn Teller pointed out) is ZERO. You didn’t react to me, you reacted to a paper cut-out in your mind, a convenient target for your rage. I think I deserve an explanation. I hope you learn some professionalism and tolerance in your career. – Malcolm J. Brenner

April 9

Dominic, it’s no wonder you never let me know when the interview was going to air – it never did! Instead you put on this disgusting excuse for journalism, in which I am denounced by Megan as an animal rapist (I am right about that, Meg?) but never given the chance to rebut any of her statements. My interview lasted a good 20 minutes, which you cut down to 10 on suggestion of the lawyers, but I guess that still wasn’t enough for station management or the advertising department. I’ve been through this before. How disappointing.

Furthermore, by calling me “an animal abuser” Megan has utterly defamed me. I have never been convicted of any such crime, and I never will be, because I do not abuse animals, people, or other living creatures! How a naked human could possibly abuse a 180 kg in the water is a question for physicists. It can’t happen, because the dolphin can do whatever it wants with the human, even the toughest military divers will tell you that. What a laughable accusation!

I demand that Megan retract her statement on the air, allow me equal time to address your audience on the facts regarding my relationship with the dolphin, OR that you put the full interview on your web site so your audience can judge for themselves what happened.

I expect an answer in 24 hours or I will take the appropriate actions, and those lard-ass lawyers of yours will start earning their salaries.
Sincerely yours, Malcolm J. Brenner

Dear Malcolm
I am the lawyer for *The Edge*.
You may not be aware, but New Zealand’s law of defamation does not cover legitimate expressions of opinion.  There is no basis for us to take any further action on this issue, and we do not intend to. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this further.
Kind regards

…and so begins my case with the Broadcast Standards Authority of New Zealand. Stay tuned for more exciting details!

Interviewer denounces author as “dolphin abuser,” walks out.

Well folks, I went on the Dom, Meg and Randell podcast this morning (in New Zealand, it was late afternoon the day before in Punta Gorda) and about 4 minutes into the interview, as I was describing Dolly’s first advances, rolling on her back and swimming forward until I was rubbing her genital slit, then, when I moved back to her head, doing it again, Meg (the female member of the interview trio, as you may have adroitly guessed) exploded into rage completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

Without giving me a chance to answer her accusations, she said I was a “dolphin abuser” who “took advantage” of that poor dolphin! Then she stormed out of the studio, all too eager to leave before she could learn the truth: dolphins are sexual creatures.

Very sexual.

The two male interviewers, Dom (who recently had a good friend commit suicide) and Randell, continued the interview without her, and it went rather well from my point of view. I got to say everything I wanted to say, got to promote human-dolphin telepathy, got to answer all the interviewers’ questions about the event and got to plug my book and ebook at the end. Listen to it all here, friends. (As soon as it’s published, it was pre-recorded.)

UPDATE: They recorded it, then sent me a version that was half long but still all right, and then, without telling me, they ran this shit. I’ve been treated badly by shock jocks before (Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern come to mind), but I’ve never been set up like this! I feel like a bowling pin, and the station is going to get a letter from me denouncing this.  It’s right here, and they start talking about me at 42:30.