Is Maori TV self-censoring?

June 5th, 2015 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Maori Television’s star broadcaster Mihingarangi Forbes has quit the company after complaining of management interference in the popular Native Affairs current affairs show.

Forbes resignation came as a shock to many at Maori Television today but was the result of long-running tensions between the news team at Native Affairs and chief executive Paora Maxwell, appointed after a tumultuous process.

Forbes was unavailable for comment but confirmed the resignation on Twitter, saying: “I’ve resigned. Thank you those who shared stories.”

The Herald has been told Forbes’ resignation came after the Native Affairs team were told they were not to run a story on Te Kohanga Reo National Trust, planned for Monday.

If this is correct, it is appalling. Media should be about exposing wrong-doing, not covering it up.

Mihi Forbes is an excellent reporter and interviewer, and I don’t blame her for quitting if management were interfering in editorial decisions.

The Native Affairs team’s investigation into management and spending at the Kohangareo trust was considered by Maoridom’s old guard as a disrespectful way to probe an establishment organisation led by matriarch Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi.

But there were also those who championed the team for having the courage to raise questions about powerful establishment figures.

Respect runs both ways.

If Maori TV isn’t willing to scrutinise Maori organisations that are behaving inappropriately, then what is the point of having them?

A horrendous own goal

June 24th, 2011 at 11:14 am by David Farrar

The original comments by Alasdair Thompson were unwise and stupid (and I will detail why further down) but his dual performances on TV3 are the stuff legends, or nightmares, are made of.

Watch his interview with Rachel Morton and then with Mihi Forbes.  I don’t think I have ever seen such sheer awfulness before. Lew at Kiwipolitico has done an initial list of 10 things the EMA did wrong.

This has gone from just being an issue about Alasdair to an issue about the EMA Northern. I can imagine employers all over Auckland quietly removing from their office walls their certificate of membership before anyone notices it. They’d be embarrassed to be associated with the last 24 hours.

This may have been the most effective brand destruction we have seen since Wellington Airport tried to rename Wellington into Wellywood, or the CTU declared war on hobbits.

Before we come back to the interviews let’s focus on the substance of the issue, as a couple of people think this is just about political correctness – far from it.The issue is why do women on average get paid less than men.

Now I do not think the gap between the average hourly rate for men and women is due to discrimination. Sure there may be the odd employer who is an old bigot (and they generally are old) and actually thinks women are inferior. But they are dying out.

Part of the gap is because men and women tend towards different jobs. More men are police officers and more women are teachers for example and police officers get paid more on average. But that doesn’t explain all the difference as there is a gap within professions also. On average male lawyers get paid more than female lawyers and male teachers more than female teachers.

There are a couple of factors at play here. One is historic – until 20 years ago men far outnumbered women at university in the high paying professions such as law, medicine etc. So most of the senior ranks are still men. Fortunately at entry level the numbers are now more balanced, so over time the gender mix may get more balanced at the senior or higher paying levels.

The other factor (which Alasdair correctly pointed out) is that more woman than men take a break from the workforce to be the primary caregiver, and when they return are more likely to be part-time so prospects for advancement are not so good as the person who has stayed working full-time throughout.

Even this doesn’t fully explain the gender gap, as there has been a recent study that even early on in a profession, men are being paid more than women. Now one has to be careful about a study over a profession, rather than just one employer, as differences between employers may account for the gap. However if one accepts the study at face value, a possible answer is that generally younger men are more assertive than younger women in pushing for pay rises and generally in salary negotiations.

So I tend to reject the thesis that women get paid less because evil employers discriminate against women and think they are inferior.

The possible factors I have laid out above are all about individual choice. You may choose to enter a less well remunerated profession, because it isn’t just about the money. You may choose to take a break from the work-force. You may choose not to be aggressive in your pay negotiations and take whatever is initially offered. These are all individual choices. Sure there are issues around societal expectations, but that is a debate for another day.

But here is why what Alasdair Thompson said is so stupid and counter-productive. he listed something women have no choice over (having a menstrual cycle) and cited it as a reason why women get paid less. He basically said that women are less productive because they are women. It undermined all his other (generally sound) arguments.

This reinforced every prejudice unions and others have about employers – and worse this comes from the head of EMA Northern.

And I can only imagine how women feel, to have to put up with having a menstrual cycle is I suspect bad enough by itself, so to have some employer bigwig come out and say oh yeah and your monthly cycle is also why you get paid less would be beyond infuriating.

It is possible of course that some women do have a high use of sick leave due to their menstrual cycle. But I do not believe, and have not seen a shred of evidence in support, the notion that the prevalence of this is significant enough to actually affect average pay rates.

Now the original comments by Alasdair were survivable. All he had to do was to say something along the lines of “A couple of employers had anecdotally mentioned to me this was an issue for them, but I was quite wrong to link it to average pay rates between genders as it is not a factor, and I apologise for mentioning it in the interview”.

But instead we got the Tv3 interviews where he could not have made a worse impression of himself. If Helen Kelly could invent a wicked caricature of an employers boss, she couldn’t have done better than what we saw. Rambling justifications, instructions to the cameraman as if he was the producer, demanding no interruptions, walking out, patronising the female reporters, constantly referring to his own staff members in a way which I found demeaning, standing over Mihi Forbes and angrily remonstrating with her, calling her a liar, demanding previous footage be declared off the record retrospectively and the list just goes on.

I don’t know how professional media trainers like Brian Edwards, Judy Callaghan, Bill Ralston and Janet Wilson even managed to watch a few minutes of the video without their heads exploding in despair that someone could come across so badly in what is meant to be a damage control setting.

EMA Northern need to consider what they have to do to repair the damage. My only advice is that it does not involve Alasdair doing another round of TV interviews.

Ali Ikram’s satirical piece on Maori TV

October 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Maori TV has accused its rival TV3 of racism after it broadcast an item lampooning what its coverage of the Rugby World Cup would look like.

The TV3 Nightline parody showed an All Black diving for the winning try in the final, with the broadcast interrupted by a public service announcement, saying: “Pakeha. It’s time to talk. There’s a few things we need to sort out and you won’t get to see the rest of the game until we have.”

The reporter for Tuesday night’s item was Ali Ikram, who is well-known for his satirical streak.

And this is key. Ali takes the piss out of everything and everyone. I’m reasonably supportive of the Maori TV bid, but really they need to lighten up.

But Maori TV spokeswoman Sonya Haggie said it was “basically racist” and it would be laying a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The item also showed a match referee calling on the video referee, which turned out to be the Waitangi Tribunal, with Ikram warning “this could take a while”. There was also a “compulsory haka” for which the French did the can-can.

You can watch the clip for yourself here. I don’t think anyone is really going to think that the Waitangi Tribunal will be the video referee!

Ikram ridiculed Maori TV presenter Julian Wilcox, saying he presented virtually every show on the channel. …

TV3 received a number of complaints, including from its own staff, including Campbell Live reporter Mihingarangi Forbes who told the Herald it was disappointing and embarrassing.

“Given that it was supposed to be satire I didn’t find anything funny about it at all,” she said. “I think Ali [Ikram] would have hoped it was funny and clever but unfortunately for him and everyone else it was not.”

Ms Forbes said the jibes against Wilcox were hurtful.

“We have the utmost respect for Julian and it was unfair to pick him out like that.”

If the item was having a go at Wilcox, that would be regrettable. Wilcox is highly respected. But I didn’t see the clip as that. I actually thought it was paying Wilcox a subtle compliment by mentioning the large number of shows he presents.

Humour is always a challenge. Almost all humour can offend someone. My preferred Southpark type humour offends almost everyone :-). There is a difference between humour for humour’s sake, and using humour to attack or ridicule someone. I didn’t see anything in Ali’s item that suggested it was anything beyond his normal humour for humour’s sake.

My advice to Maori TV. Do your own satirical response! Fight humour with humour.