Last Monday, a reporter from Te Karere rang me, seeking my views on an interesting news story that was coming out from Valencia. I was delighted to share my whakaaro about the raising of the tino rangatiratanga flag at the Alinghi Base, speaking about what a great moment of pride it gives to all tangata whenua to see Maori represented at the highest levels in the elite world sailing sport.

I thought about the honour of that flag flying as a measure of our maturity as a nation, a recognition of the spirit of partnership enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Later that day I switched onto the news on mainstream telly, to see that same flag still flying proudly, but the interpretation was vastly different. I heard the Prime Minister talk about the flag being used as a symbol of psychological warfare, of the mind-games that occur within competitive sport; there was a comment from multi-millionaire Alinghi owner, Ernesto Bertarelli that he liked flags, and that was the end of the sound grab.

One flag. Two completely different stories. Which one is the truth?

This is the act of engagement that New Zealanders take up every day – that is, New Zealanders who also look to Te Karere, Te Kaea, Tangata Pasifika, to come to their own conclusions around the hot topics of the day.

But for those who only choose to link in to the 6 o’clock bulletin, the story is frequently unbalanced. A study undertaken in 2004, ‘The Portrayal of Maori and Te Ao Maori in Broadcasting, found that newspaper and television are unfairly unbalanced in their treatment of Maori people and issues. In general, the study reported that ‘bad’ news predominated over ‘good’ news. In some media, denigrating and insulting comments about Maori were reported.

So, going back to Valencia, where were the stories about Dean Phipps from Ngai Tahu – three times winner of the America’s Cup and with a string of other awards in World Match Racing? What did mainstream television tell us about the other two Ngai Tahu men in the Alinghi squad, Matt Mitchell and Brendan Simmons; or the Ngapuhi lawyer, Hamish Ross?

Where was the story contrasting the raising of the flag in Valencia, or the flag flying on Santa Monica Beach in California on Waitangi Day with the actions of Transit New Zealand in rejecting Ata Tino Toa’s bid to fly the flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge? Where was the commentary connecting the traditions demonstrated by Toi Maori warriors performing the haka, the use of traditional waka, the karanga that sent shivers down everyone’s spine, with the pride of the flag?

I was thrilled to be invited here today to talk to your communications faculty, particularly knowing that many of you will go on to study for the journalism major.

It is the right time to be considering how Maori issues are heard and presented over our soundwaves.

We, in the Maori Party, have entered Parliament determined to present a strong and independent Maori voice with influence.

The status of te reo Maori is being given meaning by our use of our indigenous voice in our speeches and our questions to Government. Maori views of the world are being described through püräkau, karakia, möteatea, whakataukï, whakapapa and many other puna korero. The experience of our histories, our practices is being brought to bear to assist us in responding to contemporary issues.

We are driven by kaupapa, handed down by our ancestors, which we firmly believe will benefit not only Maori, but all those people who lay claim to this country as their homeland. And so the stage is set for the political landscape to be enhanced through Maori models and meanings.

But – and it’s a biggie - a year ago this nation was issued with a girm challenge about the way in which our media depict Maori issues.

The United Nations sent over to this land, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Professor Stavenhagen. He was appointed to report on indigenous issues in New Zealand, referred by the CERD Committee (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination) following the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

On the basis of attending national hui, hui with iwi; meetings with Ministers and some twelve different Crown agencies, and extensive analysis the Special Rapporteur concluded that the treatment of Maori people and issues was of special concern, and highlighted:

So, what does all this mean in the context of government, and the relationship of government to the people?

Well against the glare of the international spotlight, our Government immediately proceeded to dismiss the qualifications of the Special Rapporteur, condemned the report as going beyond its brief of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, identified some minor technical errors as being of substantive concern; and concluded they would ignore it.

Not to be left in the lurch, the National Party also plunged in, criticizing the United Nations for having the gall to tell New Zealand what to do.

So let’s get it right. There are stories and story-tellers, ready to bring the wisdom of tangata whenua to the fore.

There is a Maori Party determined to bring Maori to the table. So, how do we maximize our negotiating power to ensure Maori can indeed be a significant influence in this land, Aotearoa?

How are Maori issues represented in the political landscape of Aotearoa?

An article by Professor Margaret Mutu in The Contemporary Pacific, lays out the context in which to understand how the Maori Party is viewed. She said:

To understand how the political landscape presumed the Maori Party MPs would be either ‘largely invisible’ or ‘peripheral’, we need to look first, at how the media currently treats minor political parties.

Internationally, minor party and independent candidates are often disadvantaged by their inability to attract media. Indeed, an analysis of interviews of some 515 third party, independent and major party candidates for the US Senate, the US House and other statewide seats concluded that such parties tend to be peripheral players in election because the political environment works to their disadvantage.

Only 23% of these candidates believed the media was fair to all of the candidates; whereas 54% of major party candidates believed it was fair to all. Their perceptions reflect the press biases against minor parties, a perception which United Future leader Peter Dunne and Progressives leader Jim Anderton, capitalized on in the 2005 election in seeking an injunction against TV3, requiring it to include them both in a televised leaders debate from which they had been excluded.

In the High Court, Justice Ronald Young talked about the key impact of the media on the democratic process. His finding was as follows:

And the rest was history – both leaders were eventually invited onscreen, and perhaps predictably the fourth estate reacted with outrage. In an article by High Court barrister and solicitor, Saul Holt, he referred to the New Zealand Herald’s editorial, quoting that the judgment represented “a cavalier disregard for fundamental issues of media freedom and private company rights”.

This concept of private company rights is of course interesting, because the presentation of political news is not just a matter of media editorial selection, but importantly about the ratings. It is a question of media economics, of commercialization, the influence of a tabloid culture upon our news desks, the demands of advertisers.

Such influence, can of course, be a powerful source for good in its own right. Just a fortnight ago in New York, radio host Don Imus was fired by CBS for his comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos” with sponsors threatened to withdraw funding. Not to be content with one sacking, CBS then sued a rival station, WFAN-AM in California for airing reruns of the offensive comment.

So where does all this lead us to, with respect to the Maori Party?

What are we to make of the nexus between the media treatment of minor political parties, with the consistently proven evidence of racism in the news media.

Sue Abel, in her article, Wild Maori and Tame Maori in television news, claims in her case study of Waitangi Day, that television news coverage routinely divides Maori into "tame Maori", who support the status quo, and "wild Maori", who are marginalized and demonized in news coverage. The wild Maori are further described as deviant (“them”) and making unreasonable demands in an unreasonable manner.

She explains further that the Maori presence is either typically seen in the reporting of crimes, or as part of an official welcome to an overseas dignitary.

Melanie Wall puts forward another couple of categories, including Maori as the "comic other" – probably best epitomized by the late Billy T James, in his black singlet character reading Te News. Or there’s Maori as the barbarous savage, the ferocious warrior.

It remains to be seen, how our four Members, and the future growth of the Party with new Members of Parliament coming into Parliament in 2008 under the Maori Party banner, will be either demonized or adored by the media.

I would have to say from the outset, that we have been consistently impressed at the way in which our issues have received the attention of media in a way which enables our voices to be heard.

Of course there have been exceptions, and there have been times when we believe in the interests of fairness and balance, elements of the media have let their audiences down.

And of course, not just the watching public, but the funder as well.

We must recall that the fourth priority on the top ten objectives of the TVNZ charter is that TVNZ shall:

And it is here, that I return to the recommendations from the UN Special Rapporteur. Recommendation 104 of this report suggested:

We have been fascinated at the way that this recommendation has been ignored, not just by politicians from National and Labour, but from the keepers of the Fourth Estate.

This last week, the world has been actively debating the concept of media ethics in relation to the NBC News decision to broadcast the video of mass murderer, Cho Seung-Hui. The call to release segments of his video confession, describing his reasons for killing 32 students at Virginia Tech before killing himself, have been condemned internationally, for its impact in shifting the balance from what should have been a focus of the tragedy of the victims, their families and the wider community.

What that whole debate served to remind us of, however, is that the media has a powerful role, in its explicit capacity for advocacy and its implicit ability to frame political issues.

We, in the Maori Party, are constantly aware of the vital need to do all that we can in advancing Maori interests for the benefit of the nation.

As Professor Mutu described, we expose every piece of legislation to a rigorous checklist, which includes consideration of factors such as how does it enhance the survival of Maori as a people, what experience is found in our tribal histories, how are the rights and responsibilities of citizenship for all New Zealanders improved, what will the Bill add to the opportunity for honouring the partnership promised in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, does it reflect tikanga Maori?

These are often complex issues, with much room for interpretation and debate which moves far beyond a FOR or AGAINST vote.

We are eternally appreciative of the insights and intellectual courage evident through the lens of Maori Television; through iwi radio; through Maori media working in the mainstream media industry in print, radio and television, for actually trying to respond to the complexity of these issues, and bringing our views to the world.

But the biggest opportunity and challenge still facing this nation, is the existence of Maori worldviews across all media outlets as worthy of comment in their own right, rather than the focus of oppositional or conflict politics.

A time when our flag can be flown, our voices heard, our positions presented. Now that, will be a great day to read, to listen, to watch the news.

ENDS

© Scoop Media