-
 Originally Posted by Daytr
The condition doesn't dictate the tone or opinion, just that there is coverage of Maori issues.
Delusional.
-
No - I didn't present that.
Funding can help promote - that very clearly indicates that while not set as a condition it is possible that a well funded media can promote a wide variety of views. I said and nothing I posted said it MUST or that it SHOULD.
By all means if a media outlet wishes to promote that content because it's seen as pertinant, relevant and within wider publics interest.
Maybe you are getting confused with countries that do think it's ok for governments to influence their media? You know the ones? the ones we are very lucky not to live in?
-
Originally Posted by thegreatestben
No - I don't have any issue with the fact it's Maori.
The problem is that there ARE conditions, not the flavour.
A refresh on what those conditions (obligations) were for media to conform to in order to obtain PIJF funding. Some of these conditions are extraordinary and have been severely criticised ever since.
https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.ne...es_updated.pdf
-
Originally Posted by Bjauck
Something along these lines for example:
In the Far North, the flow-on effect of the unlawful actions of local iwi are now threatening the mussel farming industry.
Every year between August and November – the breeding season for green-lipped mussels – seaweed covered in mussel spat is dislodged by rough seas and washed ashore. Once beached, the spat dies, so commercial harvesters scoop up the seaweed from shallow water, load it into refrigerated trucks and transport it to mussel farms all around the country.
The spat is then farmed for up to two more years, before the fully grown mussels are exported to more than 70 countries around the world.
Such is the global demand for green-lipped mussels, that this $350 million industry with 2,500 jobs, has the potential to become a $1 billion enterprise.
Mussel spat has been harvested from 90 Mile Beach since the ’70s. The mechanical harvesters that have been used for decades are essentially raised tractors with scoops and wide tyres.
The number of spat harvesters is strictly controlled by the quota management system, and the collection methods follow a long-established code of conduct set by Aquaculture New Zealand that requires the mechanical harvesters to avoid shellfish beds, limit time on the beach, and steer clear of areas of high public and cultural importance.
But in 2019, local iwi decided to disrupt the industry.
Without proof they claimed mechanical harvesting was damaging toheroa beds and leading to a decline in numbers.
This is at odds with NIWA research from 2007 that showed the impact of mechanical harvesting on the toheroa beds was minimal. This was later confirmed by Fisheries New Zealand research in 2020.
In 2015 a Waikato University report on the decline of toheroa identified poaching as the problem: “Illegal harvesting of toheroa is widespread and frequent. The customary take is probably out of control in some places… Based on our recent observations in Northland, illegal harvesting of ‘protected’ toheroa is widespread, frequent and has in some cases resulted in the reduction and disappearance of adult toheroa beds.”
The iwi, however, pointed their finger at mussel spat collectors. To avoid conflict, the industry agreed to hand harvesting in the area of concern – where most of the spat lands. As a result, collectors with butterfly-style nets are forced to battle heavy surf as they attempt to scoop up the seaweed. It is difficult and dangerous work that is severely limiting their harvest to only a fraction of what’s needed to sustain the domestic mussel industry.
The flow-on effect is that mussel lines are operating at less than capacity and employment numbers are down. The industry is being held to ransom, starved of its major resource because of fabricated claims being made by Far North iwi.
Is this situation a foretaste of what’s in store once iwi control the coast?
There is talk that the disruption is part of a long-term strategy by iwi to gain control of spat supply.
Iwi already control marine mammal watching operations. By choking off the supply of spat, are they angling for control of mussel farming as well?
-
Originally Posted by Baa_Baa
For news outlets that receive funding from the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF), obligations related to the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) are specifically emphasized to ensure the funded content reflects New Zealand's commitment to its bicultural foundation. Here are the detailed conditions and obligations:
1. **Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi:** Applicants must show a clear and observable commitment or intent to uphold the principles of the Treaty. This includes respecting and promoting Māori as Te Tiriti partners, which should enhance public interest journalism through stronger Māori representation and greater bi-cultural collaboration within the journalism sector.
2. **Māori and Iwi Journalism Support:** The fund prioritizes and promotes journalism that is made by, for, and about Māori, focusing on Māori perspectives, issues, and interests. This includes creating a platform for Māori voices and representation on all relevant issues at local, national, and international levels.
3. **Promotion of Te Reo and Tikanga Māori:** Funded projects are encouraged to include content that supports the revitalization and use of Te Reo Māori and adheres to Tikanga Māori, reflecting the cultural heritage and current priorities of Māori communities.
4. **Support for Māori Capacity Building:** The fund encourages projects that contribute to the development of the Māori journalism workforce, including training, cadetships, and internships specifically tailored to Māori journalists.
5. **Cultural and Spiritual Sensitivity:** Projects must handle cultural and spiritual elements with care, particularly when these aspects are central to the content being produced. This includes proper management of language use, correct pronunciation, and cultural advising throughout the production process.
6. **Collaboration with Māori Entities:** Where possible, collaborations with Māori media entities or organizations are encouraged to ensure that the content is authentically engaging with Māori perspectives and that these collaborations contribute to the broader objectives of the fund in supporting an equitable media landscape.
These obligations are part of the broader goals of the PIJF to ensure that public interest journalism serves as a vehicle for all communities in New Zealand, particularly recognizing and integrating the unique status of Māori as partners under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The conditions help ensure that the funded journalism not only adheres to high standards of accuracy and integrity but also actively supports the principles of partnership, participation, and protection under the Treaty, thereby contributing to a well-informed and culturally inclusive public discourse.
-
Originally Posted by thegreatestben
No - we are specifically talking about government funding for the media.
I figure this is common sense but a good summary -
Why Fund Media?
- Informed Citizens:
People need quality information to make informed decisions. Media provides in-depth analysis of political issues, keeping the public engaged in civic life.
- Watchdog Role:
A strong media acts as a watchdog, holding governments accountable and exposing corruption. This strengthens democracy by ensuring transparency.
- Diversity of Voices: Funding can help promote a variety of media outlets, representing different viewpoints. This fosters a healthy public discourse.
Considerations for Maintaining Independence
- Funding with Firewalls: Government funding should come with clear rules to prevent editorial influence. Independent boards could allocate funds based on pre-determined criteria.
- Multiple Funding Sources: Media outlets shouldn't rely solely on government money. Subscriptions, advertising (with regulations to prevent undue influence), and donations can create a funding mix.
- Transparency and Accountability: Media outlets should be transparent about their funding sources, allowing public scrutiny.
Challenges and Considerations
- Fake News and Bias: There's a growing concern about misinformation and biased reporting. Funding could come with fact-checking initiatives and promoting media literacy.
- Concentrated Media Ownership: A few corporations controlling a large share of media can stifle diverse voices. Policies promoting media ownership diversity can be helpful.
Originally Posted by thegreatestben
No - I didn't present that.
Funding can help promote - that very clearly indicates that while not set as a condition it is possible that a well funded media can promote a wide variety of views. I said and nothing I posted said it MUST or that it SHOULD.
By all means if a media outlet wishes to promote that content because it's seen as pertinant, relevant and within wider publics interest.
Maybe you are getting confused with countries that do think it's ok for governments to influence their media? You know the ones? the ones we are very lucky not to live in?
You posted this, it's what I referred to as you presented. These are conditions.
There were plenty of conditions such as what the money can be used for.
How are they influencing what they say?
The condition outlined it must include Maori coverage of Maori issues and organizations must respect te Tiriti.
There were also stipulations about coverage of regional news.
Rather than me assuming, what specifically do you think the Government was influencing the media on?
-
Originally Posted by mistaTea
For news outlets that receive funding from the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF), obligations related to the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) are specifically emphasized to ensure the funded content reflects New Zealand's commitment to its bicultural foundation. Here are the detailed conditions and obligations:
1. **Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi:** Applicants must show a clear and observable commitment or intent to uphold the principles of the Treaty. This includes respecting and promoting Māori as Te Tiriti partners, which should enhance public interest journalism through stronger Māori representation and greater bi-cultural collaboration within the journalism sector.
2. **Māori and Iwi Journalism Support:** The fund prioritizes and promotes journalism that is made by, for, and about Māori, focusing on Māori perspectives, issues, and interests. This includes creating a platform for Māori voices and representation on all relevant issues at local, national, and international levels.
3. **Promotion of Te Reo and Tikanga Māori:** Funded projects are encouraged to include content that supports the revitalization and use of Te Reo Māori and adheres to Tikanga Māori, reflecting the cultural heritage and current priorities of Māori communities.
4. **Support for Māori Capacity Building:** The fund encourages projects that contribute to the development of the Māori journalism workforce, including training, cadetships, and internships specifically tailored to Māori journalists.
5. **Cultural and Spiritual Sensitivity:** Projects must handle cultural and spiritual elements with care, particularly when these aspects are central to the content being produced. This includes proper management of language use, correct pronunciation, and cultural advising throughout the production process.
6. **Collaboration with Māori Entities:** Where possible, collaborations with Māori media entities or organizations are encouraged to ensure that the content is authentically engaging with Māori perspectives and that these collaborations contribute to the broader objectives of the fund in supporting an equitable media landscape.
These obligations are part of the broader goals of the PIJF to ensure that public interest journalism serves as a vehicle for all communities in New Zealand, particularly recognizing and integrating the unique status of Māori as partners under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The conditions help ensure that the funded journalism not only adheres to high standards of accuracy and integrity but also actively supports the principles of partnership, participation, and protection under the Treaty, thereby contributing to a well-informed and culturally inclusive public discourse.
And what is wrong with any of that?
Don't worry Don Brash & his ilk will still get plenty of coverage.
-
I have had my two cents, I think my point is clear. I think it's also clear you disagree.
That's ok, I don't want to change your mind. I thought maybe you'd appreciate someone giving you respectful responses but you keep dragging race into the conversation.
I know when I'm wasting my time - I spent enough of it while being paid by the tax payer as a public servant under similar "conditions".
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks