Flying The Flag Of Progress
The Manukau City Council exercised some commonsense last night in voting down a motion put forward by Councillor Jamie-Lee Ross calling for a ban on the flying of the Maori flag on Council buildings. For that it should be congratulated. But the fact that the motion was even put forward, let alone the amount of time devoted to debating it, leaves me completely dumbfounded, and it is certainly saddening that in the 21st century people can feel so threatened by something as simple as the flying of a flag.
I can see no good reason why the council should not fly the Maori flag, and arguments that it would be separatist, racist, or a step toward Maori sovereignty only serve to highlight how ignorant, uninformed and seemingly uneducated those who hold such views are. On the other hand, there are many good reasons why the Council should fly the flag. Maori are tangata whenua, and it is recognised in many statutes that they have a special relationship with both central and local government. Furthermore, district councils and local Maori are considered Treaty partners for the purposes of a number of Acts, so it makes sense that the flags of both partners should fly, if only for a few days a year. But overwhelmingly it is a sign of good faith on the part of the council toward its Treaty partner, and, it would seem, would do much to improve race relations. If that is the case, then where is the harm?
Ross was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying:
“…if Maori expected their flags flown, each of Manukau’s 185 ethnic communities would want to do the same thing”
That kind of dim logic from a supposedly “intelligent” councillor simply amazes me, but then again it is somewhat of a hallmark of National Party supporters. It conveniently overlooks the important role that Maori play as tangata whenua in New Zealand and underestimates the intelligence of New Zealand’s ethnic communities to recognise that role. No other ethnic group in New Zealand can claim tangata whenua status, and I imagine that most would accept that fact.
The irony is that those who say it is time for Maori to let go of their grievances and for New Zealanders to move forward “together” are the very people who are stifling New Zealand’s progress by their determination to hold on to our Eurocentric past and keep the status quo. If something so simple as flying a flag can garner greater race-relations and a more harmonious society, then all Kiwis should be embracing it with open arms.
Powered by Qumana
Where Is New Zealand’s Quality Journalism?
Recent comments by Helen Clark and Peter Davis regarding The Herald have served to highlight some interesting and pressing issues concerning the role of the media and the quality of journalism in New Zealand. The comments have probably done Labour more harm than good, but I think they are both valid and timely. For a number of years now the quality of reporting in New Zealand has been on a downward slope. Not only is it now rare to come across a good piece of well researched investigative journalism about hard issues, the journalistic qualities of balance and fairness also seem to have disappeared. The Herald’s coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill, regardless of one’s political persuasion, was a prime example of all that is wrong with New Zealand’s media.
No one could deny the media has an absolutely essential role to play in society. Perhaps this is made no more clearer than in the American Constitution which protects freedom of the Press in the First Amendment. In a democratic society the media is the citizens’ watchdog, charged with placing checks and balances on government and those with power. A secondary role of the media is to provide information to the public to help create an informed citizenry. In this regard, The Herald is right to scrutinize the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet, the actions of government departments and alike. If The Herald did not do this then it would not be fulfilling its role as the Fourth Estate. However, in an election year the political landscape is markedly different, and accordingly the focus of any media outlet, particularly those reporting the news, should be widened. Not only should the government be under intense scrutiny, but every party contesting the election, and especially the opposition, should receive equal attention, and this is where The Herald’s reporting has been particularly unbalanced. Instead of pressing National for policy details and what it intends to do should it be in government post-election, the public has been fed a diet of “fluffy” articles about John Key and his “meteoric” rise in opinion polls. The public deserves better than this.
From the very outset The Herald took an alarmist approach to the Electoral Finance Act, labeling it an attack on democracy. While significant editorial coverage was devoted to exploring the possible implications of the Bill, the same was not given to the underlying reasons for the introduction of the Bill in the first place, namely the antics of the National Party during the 2005 general election. Instead, The Herald chose to run with a completely unsubstantiated line that the Bill was simply an attempt by Labour to entrench its position in government. What was called for was an assessment of National’s use of secret trusts to fund its election campaigns and media pressure for the party to come clean on who it was that was contributing to these trusts. If free speech is the first hallmark of democracy, then transparency must run a close second.
The Herald’s reporting of any event surrounding the government has since tended to involve intense analysis, whilst the opposition has been largely left to its own devices. Particularly alarming has been the suggestion, often explicit, in a number of articles and editorials that the Labour government will not and should not be the government following the 2008 election. One has to ask whether The Herald has broken down the boundary between informing the citizenry and telling the citizenry what to think. Of course, journalists are human and as such any reporting carries an element of opinion, however that opinion must be restrained if balance and fairness are to be upheld. Recent coverage of political issues indicate that The Herald has no intention of improving its journalism practices. Of particular note was Audrey Young’s coverage of the Owen Glen affair, which, in some cases, was almost entirely speculation awaiting confirmation by facts. Such reporting should worry every New Zealander.
The Herald appears to have positioned itself as the self-proclaimed saviour of democracy, but it is debatable whether The Herald even has the integrity to advance such a position given previous events in New Zealand politics which have failed to attract its attention, a prime example being the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Where was the saviour of democracy here? Where was The Herald when Maori rights to due process were completely railroaded? Where were the daily front page articles decrying this attack on democracy? Where were the alarmist headlines and monthly photo montages of all those MPs supporting the legislation? Where were the attempts to hold the government to account over this? If simply limiting, as has been claimed, the free speech of citizens is an attack that goes right to the heart of our democracy, then surely completely removing one’s right to access the courts is a death blow. The Herald obviously didn’t see things this way, and their campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill must thus be hollow, or perhaps The Herald just has a very selective view about what democracy actually is.
Powered by Qumana
