It was a lot more than 10 mins,but more importantly your answer completely misses the point.
It wasn't actually, he even stated so.
Your question does raise an interesting point.
Here's another angle... a journo goes to NZ, witnesses somebody selling drugs, goes to the cops, and the cops don't do anything. The journalist then writes about how poor the police in NZ are as they didnt follow up on his accusations and ignored him... story goes viral about how shit and probably corrupt the NZ police are becuase they failed to do the basics of their job on the back of "hard" evidence from a journo...
Which side of the fence are we all on then?
EDIT: Not sure what all the hypothetical talk is about - just trying to see if I can get people to see it from my p.o.v ?