Media watch – Thursday

21 December 2017

MediaWatch

Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

Next Post

41 Comments

  1. Three name spelling mistakes in one shot.

    • Gezza

       /  December 21, 2017

      Can’t altogether blame them for the given name. If her parents had spelt Jacinta properly in first place on her birth certificate it wouldn’t be a problem.

      • How she gets away with her parental manufactured name is bizarre. I thought Mormons were a more mindful of these matters.

    • Missy

       /  December 21, 2017

      Seriously, did they not look at the top of the video which shows her twitter account name and has her name spelt correctly?

      SMH

      Australians!!

  2. Jerusalem. Well, if there’s one thing that could turn Whale against Winnie P it’s this. If he does he’ll have to put the begging bowl out for legal bills, but hey, the Knesset might pay them. The fury of a back to hater of Winnie unleashed would be worth it!

    “We can be on the right side for once in this debate or we can side with despots, dictators and anti-Semites.”

    https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/take-note-winston-dont-stuff-one/

  3. sorethumb

     /  December 21, 2017

    Why does Don Brash think it is so important that we are one people?
    by Steve Maharey
    But is the tide of history leading to a more diverse society and is Maori language and culture becoming part of all of our lives?
    [History is the result of players:
    Parr (2000) writes “[T]he views of New Zealanders are not conducive to the population of New Zealanders becoming more diversified globally.”
    From localism to globalism? New Zealand Sociology, 15(2), 304-. 335
    &
    The immigration policy review in 1986 was part of a much larger agenda for change</B in New Zealand (Bedford 1996). It was not essentially a change in state policy with a primary focus on one region of the world, as Parr (2000:329) suggests, although clearly through the 1980s and 1990s immigration from countries in Asia was a highly topical issue for both politicians and the public. The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the “infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in the future” (Burke 1986:330).. ]

    The question worth asking is – why is it so important to Brash (and others) that we are one people? The answer can only be that Brash believes British language and culture is superior. Brash can live with Maori being Maori as long as they do not intrude into the space that he believes we should all have in common.

    [What does superior have to do with it? It is our culture/identity. Do Japanese like being Japanese because they believe their culture is superior? No, it is the comfort of being part of a family.]

    But that is what is happening. Ever since the Treaty of Waitangi became the basis for settling long standing greivances, we have seen Maori move out of the cul de sac Brash, apparently, would like to see them tucked away in.

    [actually a decoupling of the nation and the state. Under Labour the state decided (unilaterally) it no longer reflected (primarily) the interests of it’s people. In setting up the Waitangi tribunal etc it bought into neo-marxist – most acute angle -thinking]

    A powerful reason for this is that New Zealanders of other ethnic backgrounds discovered that in a globalising world the only thing that distinguishes them from other nations is the culture that is unique to the land they live in – Maori. That is why they sing the Maori version of the national athem with gusto, learn the haka, learn the language at school, value Maori brand names and support the use of the Maori language in everyday life.

    [Pakeha have a distinct culture also. it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree. Michael King.]

    etc

    https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/why-does-don-brash-think-it-is-so-important-that-we-are-one-people
    Did an academic really write that?

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 21, 2017

      ‘Are we all New Zealanders now? A Maori response to the Pakeha quest for indigeneity’

      – Ani Mikaere, Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture 2004

      http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iwi-am04.pdf

      • sorethumb

         /  December 21, 2017

        Ani Mikaere
        For Päkehä to gain legitimacy here, it is they who must place their trust in Mäori, not the other way around. They must accept that it is for the tangata whenua to determine their status in this land, and to do so in accordance with tikanga Mäori
        ……
        Captain Cook observed that Maori were too busy fighting each other to form any resistance.

        • Gezza

           /  December 21, 2017

          That’s fascinating. Can you give me a link to the journal, log book or anything authenticated that he wrote that says that please.

          • sorethumb

             /  December 21, 2017

            I’ll get back to you on that. Might have been in A history of New Zealand – By Keith Sinclair.

            • sorethumb

               /  December 21, 2017

              During Captain Cook’s earlier visits, he had recommended New Zealand as ideal for settlement by Europeans. Cook had described the Māori as “intelligent and adaptable, in spite of their inter-tribal wars.” Cook particularly recommended the Bay of Islands in the far North, for settlement.

              As Cook departed, he had a felicitous thought for the Maori inhabitants, who “seemed to live in friendship one with another altho it does not att all appear that they are united under one hand.”
              http://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/detail/the-circumnavigation-of-new-zealand-along-the-east-coast

              That wasn’t the quote I had in mind. I have to get hold of Keith Sinclairs book.

        • Gerrit

           /  December 21, 2017

          Problem I have with the notion of Tangata Whenua is that this status is reserved along racial lines for Maori only when it’s true meaning is

          “people born of the whenua, i.e. of the placenta and of the land where the people’s ancestors have lived and where their placenta are buried.”

          http://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?keywords=tangata+whenua

          Moari came here by canoe just like I did some years later. My children and grand children are Tangata Whenua having been born on this land.

          You cannot separate Tangata (human beings) from the Whenua (nation) along a racial divide. That is rascist.

          http://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?&keywords=tangata

          http://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?&keywords=whenua

    • Gezza

       /  December 21, 2017

      Did an academic really write that?
      If you mean the pundit article you linked to, yes. Do you think someone else wrote it & he plagiaised it or something.

      If you mean all your efforts above that, no I don’t think an academic wrote that. I found it strange.

      • sorethumb

         /  December 21, 2017

        Steve Maharey

        But is the tide of history leading to a more diverse society
        …….
        History has players. In this case Labour were un-mandated. Note quote from Parr and Burke report.

        Steve Maharey
        The question worth asking is – why is it so important to Brash (and others) that we are one people? The answer can only be that Brash believes British language and culture is superior. Brash can live with Maori being Maori as long as they do not intrude into the space that he believes we should all have in common.

        The fact is Maori language wasn’t being taken up because of it’s lack of utility. To remedy that they add it to the water (so to speak).

        Maori want to feel New Zealand is more Maori. The problem with that is that the colonists were more advanced having competed and interacted with the rest of the world for millennia. If Maori had an advanced culture settlers would have appropriated it.

        • Gezza

           /  December 21, 2017

          Maori want to feel New Zealand is more Maori
          What an odd thing to say. New Zealand couldn’t be any more Maori. New Zealand IS where Maori come from & where they live.

          Maori are perfectly able to utilise all the beneficial aspects of the advanced technologies that came with Maori. And the great majority do. They are not expecting their people or you to turn the clock back & return to the way they lived before 1840 any more than Don Brash is asking you to return to the way the European settlers & whalers lived.

          I think you’re missing the point, hopefully just thru ignorance, about what Maori are asking for.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 21, 2017

            Ignorance?

          • Gezza

             /  December 21, 2017

            Whoops – Maori are perfectly able to utilise all the beneficial aspects of the advanced technologies that came with The British, my 1st sentence should have said. (These days they also utilise all the technologies that come from China, or Japan, or France, or Germany, or wherever, as well. The Brits have got left behind in many areas.)

          • sorethumb

             /  December 21, 2017

            Way back North & South asked “What do Maori Want?”. It wasn’t obvious and it still isn’t apart from more there is no definable amount.

            Having (say) an upper house or Maori places on environmental boards ahead of people with Phds in fresh water ecology is ludicrous. It would be at best a second best solution.

            Biculturalism (a decoupling of nation and state) gives special resources to Maori and has created a cancerous Maori bureacracy that exists to further it’s own ends.

            • Gezza

               /  December 21, 2017

              It’s not really about the money – but they are entitled to that, in fact usually much more than they get. They still have to negotiate from a position of weakness. I might come back to you later. I get the feeling you’re so off beam it would take hours to explain what I think a lot of it’s about, & I’m a Pakeha, not a Maori, so I can’t speak for any hapu or iwi.

  4. sorethumb

     /  December 21, 2017

    The only identity Maharey sees as valid is that of a minority. The super ordinate identity proposed is but a paper cut out propped up by appropriated of 90% of the means of expression/ resistance.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 21, 2017

      Why would you listen to Maharey ST? He’s a middle age white guy and therefore irrelevant.

      • PartisanZ

         /  December 21, 2017

        Hear that background hum of traffic? … and almost everything else you see, hear, touch, smell, taste, speak and think [in English] and ‘believe’ … that’s Pakeha culture … the dominant culture busy dominating everything …

        Get a life! Enjoy it! It’s OUR culture …

        • sorethumb

           /  December 21, 2017

          You are arguing for preindustrial society when populations were limited by food resources and there were only about 100,000 (or less ) Maori here.

        • sorethumb

           /  December 21, 2017

          Actually that is the point 10/13 white children who upon capture by Native Americans became Indian through and through: the close knit family/tribe the simplistic living , “every day was like a holiday”*. Industrial society relies on a division of labour and spoiling of the environment. It also produces larger populations (crowding/cramming/concrete).

          * In line with evolutionary psychology

        • sorethumb

           /  December 21, 2017

          So you are saying everything is our culture and we need more Maori culture here?

  5. sorethumb

     /  December 21, 2017

    Gezza / December 21, 2017

    I don’t think he’s fully up with the play.

    Refresh me

  6. sorethumb

     /  December 21, 2017

    Steve Maharey
    One day (this is a prediction) all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnic background (mine is Scottish), are going to define themelves in part by the uniqueness Maori offer to them.

    In the meantime, many are ok, enthusiastic even, with this vision of the future. That is why, even if they do not understand every word that Guyon Espiner says on Morning Report, they want to hear the language so they can be familiar with it and they want to incorporate aspects of Maori culture into their lives. With each generation, it is likely that the influence of things Maori will grow
    /////
    Brash represents a view that has an audience. That is why his Orewa speech had such an impact.
    ….
    Read between the lines.

  7. sorethumb

     /  December 21, 2017

    Gezza / December 21, 2017

    I might say that, just from a quick look at the “quick definitions” in both of those & what you’re writing, you seem to be both ethnocentric & racist, sorethumb?
    ………
    Goodwins law

    • Gezza

       /  December 21, 2017

      Who’s Goodwin? Have you read the definitions?

      • sorethumb

         /  December 21, 2017

        The longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely someone will be compared to Hitler. I substituted racist for Hitler.

        • sorethumb

           /  December 21, 2017

          Bear in mind racist shouldn’t be a black and white concept.

        • Gezza

           /  December 21, 2017

          That’s Godwin’s Law.

          I haven’t compared you to Hitler.

          I substituted racist for Hitler.
          Well that’s not Godwin’s Law. In fact I don’t think that’s anyone’s law.

          Look, sorethumb, you’ve wasted enuf of my time already this morning. You wanted to know the difference between racism & ethnocentrism. I’ve given you links to several dictionaries so you can find out what the difference is, if any.

          If you read the Quick Definitions in those Onelook pages, & then read what you’ve posted today – both those definitions describe you, in my opinion. That’s all I’m saying. You haven’t disagreed, so I take it that either you agree they correctly describe you, or you haven’t read them.