Post by sparrow on May 26, 2007 23:46:14 GMT 12
It is often said the "media" are the Fourth Estate which means there is the assumption that they are objective. In the last three decades the media has been challenged more and more to either "locate" themselves or at least declare they have a bias. In America some commentators have declared the media basic racial profilers. Racial profiling used to be bad before 9/11.
In New Zealand the media are a strange beast. Not very well educated or versed in the ideals of objectivity. Even some I admire like John Campbell declare themselves "subjective" on certain issues. When people give up trying to be objective, we more or less get opinion rather than facts or an evaluation of key issues.
When reading the latest "stuff" on Maori TV I was struck by how badly informed the media are on Treaty issues. Here is the editorial from the Christchurch Press on Maori TV and the comments made by TVNZ's CEO, Mr Rick (should start with a "D") Ellis:
"The offhand, almost flippant way in which the chief executive of TVNZ, Rick Ellis, rattled off a list of programmes that he thought fulfilled the company's requirement to present Maori on screen was most unfortunate. Ellis's mind was obviously not on the job when the question was put to him at a parliamentary select committee hearing, particularly when he included the television programme Police Ten-7, where the Maori presence appears to be primarily as criminal suspects. He has at least had the grace to admit his faux pas.
But it is impossible also to feel some sympathy with Ellis. The requirements enshrined in TVNZ's charter are so vague and general that almost anything can be justified as fulfilling them. Also, any programmes likely to fulfil them are, as Ellis's predecessor, Ian Fraser, noted, unlikely to be ratings successes and are likely to conflict with the company's imperative to make a commercial return. Why a specifically Maori requirement should be part of TVNZ's charter is also not clear, given the $30 million or more being poured into Maori TV, which by all accounts has been doing an excellent job.
Nonetheless, TVNZ does see itself as the prime expression of New Zealand's culture and heritage. Maori are inevitably part of that and should as a matter of course appear on its programmess. It is not much to expect that the chief executive of the company should be able to articulate that somewhat less crassly than Ellis did this week".
I call this type of editorial "slap and tickle". First it castigates Ellis, but declares sympathy. I suspect Rick Ellis was trying to be humourous. Humour at a dinner party in Remuera is probably different from that at a Parliamentary Select Committee which is by all accounts - a humourless affair. Except for when Winston Peters or Richard Prebble shows up.
Second the Editorial declares the Charter "unworkable, vague and ambiguous". Once again - untrue. There are specific requirements to be included in its content which shouldn't be a difficult task for someone on the amount of money Ellis is on. If TV3 can produce such good local fare as programmes like Outrageous Fortune which could fulfil TVNZ's charter (even though TV3 don't have to) why can't TVNZ? Simple really - they don't want to and would far rather declare the Charter unworkable than their own organisation unmanageable.
Third the Editorial makes reference to a conflict between content and commercial imperatives of TVNZ. The Editor might have a point - except NZ is not the only country in the world to have a similar charter. Perhaps it might be beneficial for TVNZ to come up with locally made programmes that fulfil the Charter and see if it is commercially viable? Much better than simply whinging about it because at this stage, TVNZ is the Big-State-Funded-TV-Station that couldn't.
Fourth the Editorial queries the reason for "special" Maori requirements (which should actually be provisions) in the Charter. This is when it becomes almost ludicrous. The "special" Maori requirement is a Treaty provision and not based upon ethnicity. In New Zealand we often get equity and equality mixed up. The two are not the same. If the Editor of the largest South Island newspaper doesn't know this, then they should ask their investigative journalists to find out for them. To me this is not just ignorance, but wilful belligerance to not become informed.
Although this isn't in the Editorial, there seems to be the general sentiment that TVNZ should cannibalise Maori TV in order to fulfil its Treaty requirements. TVNZ and anyone else that advocates such an argument should ask themselves why Maori TV (by all accounts a success story on an albeit limited budget) would want to saddle themselves up to an organisation run by a CEO who thinks Police 10-7 is a Maori programme?
Onwards!
In New Zealand the media are a strange beast. Not very well educated or versed in the ideals of objectivity. Even some I admire like John Campbell declare themselves "subjective" on certain issues. When people give up trying to be objective, we more or less get opinion rather than facts or an evaluation of key issues.
When reading the latest "stuff" on Maori TV I was struck by how badly informed the media are on Treaty issues. Here is the editorial from the Christchurch Press on Maori TV and the comments made by TVNZ's CEO, Mr Rick (should start with a "D") Ellis:
"The offhand, almost flippant way in which the chief executive of TVNZ, Rick Ellis, rattled off a list of programmes that he thought fulfilled the company's requirement to present Maori on screen was most unfortunate. Ellis's mind was obviously not on the job when the question was put to him at a parliamentary select committee hearing, particularly when he included the television programme Police Ten-7, where the Maori presence appears to be primarily as criminal suspects. He has at least had the grace to admit his faux pas.
But it is impossible also to feel some sympathy with Ellis. The requirements enshrined in TVNZ's charter are so vague and general that almost anything can be justified as fulfilling them. Also, any programmes likely to fulfil them are, as Ellis's predecessor, Ian Fraser, noted, unlikely to be ratings successes and are likely to conflict with the company's imperative to make a commercial return. Why a specifically Maori requirement should be part of TVNZ's charter is also not clear, given the $30 million or more being poured into Maori TV, which by all accounts has been doing an excellent job.
Nonetheless, TVNZ does see itself as the prime expression of New Zealand's culture and heritage. Maori are inevitably part of that and should as a matter of course appear on its programmess. It is not much to expect that the chief executive of the company should be able to articulate that somewhat less crassly than Ellis did this week".
I call this type of editorial "slap and tickle". First it castigates Ellis, but declares sympathy. I suspect Rick Ellis was trying to be humourous. Humour at a dinner party in Remuera is probably different from that at a Parliamentary Select Committee which is by all accounts - a humourless affair. Except for when Winston Peters or Richard Prebble shows up.
Second the Editorial declares the Charter "unworkable, vague and ambiguous". Once again - untrue. There are specific requirements to be included in its content which shouldn't be a difficult task for someone on the amount of money Ellis is on. If TV3 can produce such good local fare as programmes like Outrageous Fortune which could fulfil TVNZ's charter (even though TV3 don't have to) why can't TVNZ? Simple really - they don't want to and would far rather declare the Charter unworkable than their own organisation unmanageable.
Third the Editorial makes reference to a conflict between content and commercial imperatives of TVNZ. The Editor might have a point - except NZ is not the only country in the world to have a similar charter. Perhaps it might be beneficial for TVNZ to come up with locally made programmes that fulfil the Charter and see if it is commercially viable? Much better than simply whinging about it because at this stage, TVNZ is the Big-State-Funded-TV-Station that couldn't.
Fourth the Editorial queries the reason for "special" Maori requirements (which should actually be provisions) in the Charter. This is when it becomes almost ludicrous. The "special" Maori requirement is a Treaty provision and not based upon ethnicity. In New Zealand we often get equity and equality mixed up. The two are not the same. If the Editor of the largest South Island newspaper doesn't know this, then they should ask their investigative journalists to find out for them. To me this is not just ignorance, but wilful belligerance to not become informed.
Although this isn't in the Editorial, there seems to be the general sentiment that TVNZ should cannibalise Maori TV in order to fulfil its Treaty requirements. TVNZ and anyone else that advocates such an argument should ask themselves why Maori TV (by all accounts a success story on an albeit limited budget) would want to saddle themselves up to an organisation run by a CEO who thinks Police 10-7 is a Maori programme?
Onwards!
