Media watch – Thursday

24 May 2018

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

Previous Post

6 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  May 24, 2018

    “Remand or Bust?

    A single legal change has caused massive growth in the prison muster.

    Posted – https://yournz.org/2018/05/24/remand-or-bust-the-prison-problem/

  2. A cool image:

  3. “We weigh the fish the same way but we’ve changed the way we declare it,” Mr Hazlett says.

    “Absolutely not.” Having fishmeal machines onboard is efficient, & doesn’t hide catch of juvenile hoki, Mr Hazlett says.

  4. sorethumb

     /  May 24, 2018

    Stacy Morrison. [19:00]
    Freedom of speech is not under threat here. We can debat we can dissagree and agree to never agree best, if that freedom is based on fairness. That is a freedom for all, not just a select few. So as we consider what fair freedom of speech is, context is helpful.
    And the context of our history, [ ] to where we are now, do we consider who has most often enjoyed freedom of speech and had a strong and valued voice. And whose freedom of speech has most often been supressed or neglected.

    If we have an agreed understanding of free and fair expression the voice of the oppressed and the neglected is considered rather than fighting for airtime yet again. The heart beat of racism is denial.
    According to American Professor Ibram X. Kendi. And I believe the heartbeat of hate speech is also denial. When Taika Waititi called New Zealand”racist as f*** a common retort was to deny this and to point out other countries that are far more racist. Which somehow meant that we are winning. Denying racism exists in New Zealand is easy as a quick retort of: “that’s not racist” from people who are not part of the targeted group.

    Who should define what racit speech is? Here’s what I ask: that the people who are subject to the alleged racism have the defining response on wether or not it is or isn’t racism? They are most of them the voices of the suppressed or the neglected. Too often in media (and that’s my scene) we go to experts out of the targeted group to get comment on the alleged racism. Professor Paul Moon assuring readers that Sir Bob Jone’s ifamous colunm was not infact racist to Maori. Was an example of the voice of the targeted group being denied.

    Jumping out of denial can start with lookng at our own experience in that context. If we embrace the reality of our own paradigms we can fairly assess what we do have experience in and what we do not have experience in. Empathy and anticipation of what might be hurtful to others outside of our own paradigms experience, is harder when [ ] if we don’t belong to any minority group And are not accustomed to having our voices suppressed or neglected.

    Minorities are disadvantaged by nature, not having as many people in their group of shared experience, if they feel subjected to hate speech it is harder for minority numbers to drown out a majority. As that majority is determined to undermine the minority experience.

    The unique position Maori experience is as an indigenous minority. Indigenous recognised in the Treaty of Waitangi engaged in a partnerhip with the crown (you can see it just over there), yet still a minority in terms of numbers of population.

    Maori rights may be theoretically assured but they are not completely accepted, enacted and even considered in Aotearoa currently. A contributing factor as I see it is the colonial focus of history which largely denied the experience of Maori until recent time. So acknowledging that we have been taught a history that minimises Maori is what we call on twitter [ ].

    If we look to media moderators and media leadership does a lack of gender diversity; racial diversity and cultural diversity impact what is considered acceptable? Are our leaders looking outside of their own paradigm for understanding of the erosive nature of being the suject of hate speech and how it can weaken the expression of freedom of speech.
    A female writer I know told me that when she asked for her contact email to be removed fro m her story she was told she was the only one wh o had an issue with it (with hateful responses). It ends up, the male coloumnists didn’t have a problem but the female did. Another columnist told me she has dealt with comments that told her she need sto be raped ;another that she should abort with a coat hanger. The abuse was from men 30 to one. Although another indicated she was getting hate mail from women who were actually pretending to be me. Integrety is doing the right thing when no one is watching; integrety on the internet is doing the right thing when no one knows who you really are.

    https://internetnz.nz/event/hate-and-internet

    • sorethumb

       /  May 24, 2018

      She seems to be denying the right of someone in the majority group to make an assessment o.
      I think in discussing racism we should not generalise so much but work on concrete examples. I think there is something dodgy in this internet hate event. Paul Spoonley calls it deeply personal because he is subject to criticism. but he has a very Marxist definition of racism and it boils down to not just skin head types but those who oppose a mass dilution of the national identity.