Media watch – Friday

22 March 2019

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

57 Comments

  1. More incompetence from Facebook. This is appalling.

    • NOEL

       /  22nd March 2019

      Talking to son about the difficulties of moderating social media and said anyway I don’t have a Facebook account. He said yes you do, it ghosts off mum’s. Bugger!

      • Duker

         /  22nd March 2019

        Write a comment here and you will notice the facebook and twitter logos, thats because they are harvesting the info like email addressees from commentators

    • MaureenW

       /  22nd March 2019

      Yes Alan it’s stupid – about as meaningful as people changing their Facebook profile picture to one of the current Christchurch flavoured memes floating around.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  22nd March 2019

        I don’t think it’s stupid since it is result of genuine empathy but I think it is not well-considered.

        • duperez

           /  22nd March 2019

          It was obviously considered. It would have been ‘well’ considered in terms of seriousness, it may have been ‘well’ considered in being thought about and talked about for a length of time and in consulting appropriate people.

          It may not have been ‘well’ considered as a quality of action according to the perception of some like the author of the Stuff article. It is obvious from the reactions to the gesture by Muslim and other commentators internationally that perceptions are different, widely so.

          The discussion reminds me of the responses by disparate, far-flung people to a particular piece of abstract art. And the conversation makes me so thankful to not be so engulfed in personal grief, and overwhelmed by and submerged in it, that I can luxuriate in spending time in an academic exercise about the significance of the wearing of a scarf by an outsider doing what they thought was right.

          I’m going to a funeral today (true) and will plan my garb with great care.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  22nd March 2019

            I think it can be seen as a betrayal of Muslims who don’t dress to be different and a message that they are less than real Muslims. I think that is unwise.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              As per the example I mentioned below, some in the ANC would have said or thought the same when Nelson Mandela for much the same motive of national healing from bitterness and divisiveness, once famously wore a Springbok jersey on a special day.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              Also there is no such thing as to whether one is a “real” Muslim or not. Instead, as per the tenets of the three Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, once you are a respective member, you are in a dynamic faith which renders you at any point to some degree faithful or unfaithful. And the reasons and actions which prompt that assessment are the subject to internal analysis, discussion and disagreement within those constituencies.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd March 2019

              The difference with Mandela’s gesture is that with the ANC government taking power the Springboks had become a team for all South Africans.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              No, I would suggest you have got the cart before the horse.

              Irrespective of the 1994 election, as in the old days when the Blacks and Coloureds in the cheap segregated seats used to cheer for the All Blacks, there was still much misgiving in their communities about supporting supposedly national teams bearing the names, livery and symbols of the past. Hence the name of the South African national cricket team was changed from “Springboks” to “Proteas”.

              It took Mandela’s magnanimous and electrifying gesture (and the subsequent 15-12 win! 😀🇿🇦!) to effect the emotional and mental buy-in from most of the public that the Springboks, playing the favoured sport of Afrikaaners, were now indeed the team of and for all South Africans.

            • Blazer

               /  22nd March 2019

              wrong…

              ‘Some in South Africa consider the leaping Springbok as a leftover from the apartheid era and there is renewed political pressure to have it removed from the rugby jerseys of the national teams.

              African National Congress party MP Strike Ralegoma asked for the Springbok’s removal during Tuesday’s meeting of South Africa’s parliamentary portfolio committee on sport and recreation.

              “For successful transformation, all national teams must play with a single emblem,” Ralegoma said in a Planet Rugby report.

              “The Protea is used by all other sports as the emblem, but there is SARU that will use the Springbok. It is important that we have a single logo.”

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              Indeed, Blazer.

              Confirming the use of particular gestures and symbols is always dynamic and context-driven, in some way always connected to the past, yet always subject to change.

              Which means that today, for many, it is appropriate to wear the hijab, irrespective of, or even despite what it may or may not mean regarding the subjection of females. And why, say, the Super Rugby team based in Christchurch may or may not choose change their name.

          • Gezza

             /  22nd March 2019

            While it is worn or not worn by some Muslim women it is a universal symbol that one is a follower of Islam. It is the equivalent of inviting Muslims attending the funerals of the London terrorist attacks to wear a cross.

            • Gezza

               /  22nd March 2019

              I will be observing the remembrance today because I share everyone’s horror at the despicable act of this mass murderer and I grieve for the loss of their loved ones and friends – but I will do so as a non-religious person who empathises with their loss and is still feeling the anger at what this man has done to all New Zealanders.

            • Duker

               /  22nd March 2019

              In some circumstances non jews wear the jewish cap, the yarmulke

              What say our [self censored] now ?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd March 2019

              No it isn’t. The cross is a symbol of a religion. The hijab is a symbol of a gender compulsion.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd March 2019

              For a true comparison, see the red cross and the red crescent devised as their religious symbol by the Ottoman Empire.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              @ Alan Wilkinson

              The cross is a symbol of religion. The hijab is a symbol of gender compulsion

              No, that is a false dichotomy, with the second half concerning gender compulsion not even automatically axiomatic.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd March 2019

              The best you can argue is that the hijab may be a symbol of Islam for some and of gender subservience for others, Kimbo. Beyond that you deny reality.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              No, as Islam means “submission”, and that concept and action, including in the matter of gender roles and attire, is not necessarily a pejorative for some, for them it can still mean both at the same time. And some of them would even argue that wearing it is a faith-inspired empowering choice. You may or may not agree with them, but it is indeed a reality that they will most certainly make that argument. And, again, irrespective of whether one agrees or not, it is an argument not totally devoid of merit.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd March 2019

              It is devoid of merit if it only applies to females.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              Merit is subjective depending on subjective, not universally shared judgements and values. Plus, leaving aside the very recent efforts of (unrepresentative) transgender activists, many spheres including business assign particular attire to specific genders. Men are expected to wear a tie in the boardroom whereas women are not.

              Hence Muslim women maybe encouraged/expected to wear a hijab, while the men wear a taqiyah to express their shared modesty and submission. Which, yet again, for them are not pejorative concepts or actions.

      • MaureenW

         /  22nd March 2019

        Empathy and support are required, not trying to take on their look for a day – to “prove” something. Heartened to see the fund has topped seven million – link for anyone who wishes to donate

        https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/christchurch-shooting-victims-fund

        • Kimbo

           /  22nd March 2019

          In Ardern’s case it was an outward sign and vital affirmation in her capacity as New Zealand PM, and in defiance of the attacker’s warped values, that the victims in particular, and the wider Muslim community in general are in no way alien in New Zealand. Has nothing to do with Ardern’s personal non-religious and public secular values being subjugated or compromised. Just as if If a Catholic such as Bill English had worn a Jewish kippah if he had been PM and the target had been a synagogue.

          And in a moment like this, and for the same reasons as with “Je suis, Charlie”, there is truth in the statement “We too are New Zealand Muslim”. So it is appropriate if some choose to express that solidarity with a hijab…irrespective of the internal disagreement within Islam about its use. Just like Nelson Mandela once wore a Springbok jersey just a year after some in the ANC sought to have it banned as a symbol of racism – which in many ways it was/had been.

          For the same reason for this day, irrespective of whether one is Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, agnostic, atheist, whatever, it is appropriate, indeed valuable that we have the Muslim call to prayer.

        • Blazer

           /  22nd March 2019

      • Duker

         /  22nd March 2019

        Was this “stupid”

        • Trevors_elbow

           /  22nd March 2019

          It’s his wife’s culture and was honoured with a title. A tad different context

    • So much nonsense about what Ardern and others wore.

      It matters to those who matter.

    • Wear a headscarf today if you respect what it means

      I’ve been asked so many times if it will be hurtful to the community for non-Muslims to wear it. I am no scholar, but I can promise you it will not be disrespectful. Jacinda Ardern got it right.

      So that brings us to another question, is the headscarf a symbol of oppression? Oh dear Lord, where do we start.

      First, let’s not shy away from the uncomfortable. There are countries around the world where women are forced to wear it. And of course the hijab represents oppression for them.

      But Muslim women in New Zealand choose to wear a headscarf. So for us, it is a symbol of liberation. It’s also a way of being recognised as a Muslim. In a world where everyone looks the same, it gives us Muslim sisters an identity.

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/22-03-2019/wear-a-headscarf-today-if-you-respect-what-it-means/

      • Sheeneez

         /  22nd March 2019

        I usually greet Muslims with salaam aliakum, despite being a Christian who has no time for the claim that Mohammed is a divinely-appointed prophet, much less a successor to Moses and especially Jesus. Part of the motive is that it is sometimes a doorway to interfaith dialogue which I think is important and valuable, indeed a part of NZ public life to be encouraged and practiced without fear. I also use the greeting with the in-laws of my wife who is a former Muslim/Christian convert. Is a matter how of courtesy, but also because, no matter what our differences, saalam/shalom/peace/universal wholeness is a shared hope of the three Abrahamic monotheistic faiths.

        Anyway, I was served by a shop assistant yesterday who was a Muslim wearing a hijab, and it was hard to fight back the tears when I gave her that greeting.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  22nd March 2019

        Except not all Muslim women in NZ choose to wear a hijab.

        • Or scarves. Or hats.

          Which means?

          Wearing scarves here has beeen largely been a symbol of solidarity that seems to have been much appreciated by some Muslims. And most of the criticism (just about all of it) has been from non-Muslims, most of whom seem to have been looking for anything to dump on Ardern.

        • Kimbo

           /  22nd March 2019

          In the opinion piece Mavash Ali neither stated nor implied Otherwise. But like the taqiyah, kippah or crucifix it is a readily recognised and understood identification of a particular faith. And as our national secular tolerance was attacked last Friday, it was an appropriate symbol by which to express solidarity in this situation, irrespective of what other connotations it may have in others. As I mentioned before, just as with “Je suis, Charlie”, today “we are New Zealand Muslim”.

  2. Bill Brown

     /  22nd March 2019

    And dickhead Brian Tamaki…. Self appointed (cough cough )Bishop Tamaki strikes again about Allah & God.

    He must need a headline to stay relevant – what a joke. Much like what I witnessed at the lower treaty grounds this year at Waitangi.

    Today is for the slain victims, their families and NZ to be remembered regardless of religion.

    • Kimbo

       /  22nd March 2019

      And also because of it. Tamaki, for all his railing against secularism, overlooks that it is the civic, cultural and legal value that allows him to practice his faith unhindered. In that sense, even though he rejects Mohammed as God’s prophet, Tamaki’s religion was (indirectly) threatened last Friday. Hence the Muslim call to prayer today is a national affirmation of New Zealand public liberty, tolerance and solidarity, irrespective of one’s religion or lack thereof.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  22nd March 2019

        He seems to ignore the fact that a bishop is appointed by other bishops; to be one in isolation is meaningless. His ignorant followers refer to him as ‘Bishop’.

        The idea of going straight to being a bishop is ridiculous.

        He’s a mean-spirited git to object to the Muslim prayer; he doesn’t have to say it.

        • Kimbo

           /  22nd March 2019

          At the risk of adding to the mean-spiritedness, I can but observe that for we faithful Presbyterians and/or Calvinists the office of bishop is the device of anti-Christ, and the alleged tradition of an unbroken laying on hands stretching back to the Apostle Peter nothing but a quasi-Papist superstition. 😀As Charles I discovered when he tried to impose them upon us, and sparked a civil war that ultimately cost him his head.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Wars

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  22nd March 2019

            He didn’t deserve that, but he was a fool not to be less intransigent over divine right.

            I have read some of his letters, and he wasn’t very refined when it came to writing to his mistress.

            Don’t you like the name of Praise-God Barebones who was the leader (?) of Parliament in Cromwell’s day ?

            Have you read The Children of the New Forest ?

          • Kimbo

             /  22nd March 2019

            No, have not read Children of the New Forest. Will look out for it. And yes, those Puritans sure knew how to name their kids, almost as cool as West Indian cricket players. And almost as memorable as the American Civil War Confederate general, Jubal Early.

            “Fool” sure describes Charles I and a number of the Stuarts, although like a similar idiot out of his depth, Tsar Nicholas II, I always thought he was a pious and faithful family man.

            But back to Tamaki. To be fair about my knee jerk Presbyterian distaste for his self-appointed title, I don’t think he understands the original biblical Greek episkopos as “overseer/shepherd”over a multiplicity of congregations. More “franchise owner and manager”. $$$ 🤑

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  22nd March 2019

              A rabbi, a priest and Brian Tamaki were talking about how they managed the collection.

              The rabbi said that he drew a little circle on the floor, and tossed the money in the air; what went in the circle was his, the rest was for God.

              The priest did the same, except that he drew a little square.

              Brian Tamaki said that he also tossed the money into the air. What God wanted, He kept, what came down was for Tamaki.

              What about Kill-Sin Pimple, Sorry-For-Sin Coupland, Farewell-and-Dyewell Sykes, NoMerit Vynall and Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hads’t-Been-Damned Barebone ?

              The last was the son of Praisegod Barebones and changed his name to plain Nicholas Barbon.

              New Forest is a really good book; the main characters are staunch Royalists, but it also shows the other side, so that one can see why a person would change, I read it again as a handbag book not long ago, and really liked it.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  22nd March 2019

              The last Tsar was a fool who let Rasputin and his wife have too much say and power; but he paid too high a price for his idiocy.

              I cam never quite believe that as I knew someone who grew up around the palace ( an old Russian princess whose mother was a lady-in-waiting to Alexandra) there are two degrees between me, the Romanoffs and Rasputin !!! My great-aunt knew Grand Duchess Olga who lived near her in Canada; she was a friend of a friend.My great-aunt wasn’t a friend and would never have claimed to be, just an acquaintance.

              It makes time seem very short.

              I have just finished another book about the Romanoffs; as my late husband was Orthodox, there are a few books here about them.

              I have a 1916 copy of a mag called War News or something like that, and it has a photo of the Tsar inspecting the troops…

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd March 2019

              Hmm, I’ve had the privilege of knowing a few old All Blacks, but none who played against the great White Russian prince, Alexander Obolensky, who scored a brace of tries, the second famously running against the tide to touch down on the opposit left wing when England beat New Zealand 13-0 at Twickenham in 1936.

              Then again, I’ve known some folks who worked at Smith & Caughey, including rubbing shoulders with old Sir Tom Caughey who was on that 1935-36 tour, so maybe a lot of people in NZ are just a few degrees removed from Rasputin. 😀

  3. Zedd

     /  22nd March 2019

    TV1 & TV3 @ 1pm.. maybe of interest ? 🙂

  4. Duker

     /  22nd March 2019

    Meanwhile one person who was definitely involved in tokenism has deleted his [self censored] imagery, as money has the biggest message of all.

    • The Consultant

       /  22nd March 2019

      So both you and Hosking – and many others – are the fools who actually bought into the trolling of White Supremacists in their attempt to takeover the old “Ok” hand signal?

      Will it be banned by Apple and other online companies?

      So the WS are winning on this front.

      • Duker

         /  22nd March 2019

        Was this a fool who bought into the trolling as well…wait isnt that …
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1vMyprVAAI5_CC?format=jpg

        Hosking of course in his Mikes Minute didnt mention once , mosques, muslims, 50 deaths.
        I wonder if there was a connection to his previous promotion of the ‘Hosk’ tee shirt.
        Your mansplaining is beyond ludicrous , as its you thats a [self censored ]

        • Duker

           /  22nd March 2019

          Hosking was playing with fire and now will get burnt as a result .

    • Blazer

       /  22nd March 2019

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  22nd March 2019

    Stuff removes a story accusing an Auckland school of banning hijabs:
    https://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111469426/removed

      • duperez

         /  22nd March 2019

        The Herald article suggests hijabs were banned but public reaction because newspapers carried the story saw the policy changed.

        I’m not sure if the pupils of the Muslim girls’ secondary school in Auckland wear hijabs or not and if they do, if it is compulsory.

        • Duker

           /  22nd March 2019

          I think Stuff got a letter from a defamation lawyer working for the school.
          Stuff had to backtrack of a story they did yesterday about ‘Ardern overseeing a change to the vetting process by police’ , which happened last Dec.
          They had to ‘clarify’ that story as it was a load of nonsense what they were suggesting- Police would still meet a person at home, just paper work would be filed online. The writer was a their journalist Tony Wall ….hardly a novice.

    • Duker

       /  22nd March 2019

      “The story Auckland Diocesan School accused of ‘excluding’ Muslim community with hijab stance did not meet Stuff’s standards for fairness and accuracy, and has been removed.”

      They have an explanation. Thats virtually unheard of to say what s happened behind the scenes…luckily for Dio they arent one of those low decile schools which just have to wear any adverse comment…no doubt a high powered lawyer helped the school to get the story removed.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  22nd March 2019

        The story’s still online; I saw it when I was turning the computer off, and I wasn’t looking for it.

        Hamilton schools just have them in the school colour; no big deal. The girls also seem to wear longer skirts; again, no big deal. It’s like Sikhs wearing turbans in the firm’s colours, which is common.