This article by Graham Adams comes from The Platform, a fairly recent site that claims to hold all sides to account but is also “anti-woke.” I can’t vouch for Adams’ claims about the poor coverage of important New Zealand events by the country’s media, but other Kiwis can chime in below. I do know that many New Zealanders are cowed at expressing opposition to wokeness, as I’ve heard from people fearful of ostracism or even of losing their jobs.
Note that the American media, too, is sometimes accused of not just parochialism in coverage of different countries, but also of neglecting stories that are politically unpalatable to particular media. (You won’t often read anti-woke stuff in places like the New York Times or the Washington Post unless the story has gotten pretty big, as with the coverage of the fracas at The Evergreen State College.)
Click on the screenshot to read.
Adams takes the media to task for its thin coverage of three issues of national import.
1.) The debate about indigenous ways of knowing versus modern science. There is some coverage in New Zealand about this, but since there’s a hands-off policy of criticizing the Māori—New Zealand’s indigenous people—local media and scientists are simply afraid of criticizing some of the more outrageous claims of Mātauranga Māori (MM), the indigenous “way of knowing”. I know this because I’ve gotten many emails from Kiwis who agree with my own criticisms of MM and the government’s initiative to teach it as coequal to modern science, but are afraid to put their heads over the parapet. At the risk of being self-aggrandizing, I’ll quote Adams on the main source of news:
One of the most depressing features of journalism in New Zealand is that if you want to follow simmering debates of national interest you often have to look somewhere else than the mainstream media.
If you want to follow the mātauranga Māori debate closely, for instance, the most consistent coverage has been provided by Jerry Coyne, an emeritus professor of ecology and evolution from the University of Chicago, who has written at least a dozen lengthy posts on the topic over the past year on his blog Why Evolution Is True.
Professor Coyne has covered all facets of that debate in depth — from the Listener letter signed by seven eminent professors a year ago to the plans to insert mātauranga Māori throughout our science and research sector proposed in a government Green Paper.
In New Zealand, there have been critical articles on the topic published by the Free Speech Union and The Platform, but coverage of both sides of the debate has been sparse to the point of non-existence in the mainstream media.
2.) Accusations of nepotism by Nanaia Mahuta, the Māori Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Labour government headed by Jacinda Ardern. There’s no mention of accusations of nepotism in her Wikipedia article, but Adams mentions them below, and you can read a bit about them here and here. Mahuta has been accused of using her position to get perks and positions for members of her family.
Similarly, if you want to follow the barrage of Written Questions lodged in Parliament concerning accusations of nepotism made against Nanaia Mahuta, you need to follow the pseudonymous Thomas Cranmer on Twitter.
Over the past four months, Cranmer has analysed the relevant documents and collated the questions and answers put to government ministers by MPs — including David Seymour, Simon Court, Paul Goldsmith and Simeon Brown — to build a detailed picture of family contracts.
Despite Cranmer having set out all the details with accompanying documents, mainstream journalists have almost totally ignored the evidence and the serious questions raised by them. The couple of times Mahuta has been asked timidly about the accusations of nepotism by mainstream journalists, she has simply brushed them aside.
But there was an article by Kate MacNamara about these accusations. I’ve found it, but, as Adams notes, it’s paywalled.
A leak in the dam appeared on Tuesday with a detailed article by Kate MacNamara in the NZ Herald about a contract (worth $72,299 including GST) that was awarded by the Crown housing agency to a company co-owned by Gannin Ormsby, Mahuta’s husband, in a period when she had associate ministerial responsibility for housing.
MacNamara’s story was behind a paywall. It’s yet to be seen whether Mahuta — or Ardern, who is ultimately responsible for managing her ministers’ conflicts of interest — will come under the sort of pressure from other journalists that the allegations appear to warrant.
3.) The shutdown on Britain’s Tavistock Clinic and reevaluation of “affirmative care”. Adams is especially concerned with the paucity of news about the closure of the Tavistock Clinic, an issue I’ve written a lot about, for there are implications for “affirmative care” in New Zealand as well. Adams:
However, the avoidance behaviour of local journalists has been most evident recently in the wake of the decision to close London’s Tavistock Clinic — the UK’s only gender-identity clinic for children and young people.
Worldwide, discussion around the contentious issue of puberty blockers prescribed for gender-transitioning children and whether they and other young people are being rushed into drug treatment without adequate assessment and counselling has been intense.
But if you want to read about the debate in detail, you’ll either have to go to niche gender-critical websites or to the Times of London, or The Australian, or the Guardian, or the New York Times… just about anywhere except the mainstream media in New Zealand.
The problem with outsourcing such news to international commentators, of course, is that no matter how many overseas news sites cover the developments, none is going to provide detailed information about New Zealand’s situation.
Adams notes that New Zealand public health policy researcher, Dr Sarah Donovan, did write a piece merely asking why there was no coverage of the report on Tavistock by Hilary Cass—the report that led to Tavistock’s closure—but Donovan was immediately subject to a social media onslaught. This despite the fact that New Zealand’s position on puberty blockers is now at odds with that of Britain’s National Health Service:
Yet Dr Donovan did nothing more dramatic than mention that it is extremely difficult to find media coverage for questions such as why New Zealand’s Ministry of Health has a statement on its website at odds with the guidance on Britain’s NHS page.
The MOH asserts: “Blockers are a safe and fully reversible medicine that may be used from early puberty through to later adolescence to help ease distress and allow time to fully explore gender health options.”
In contrast, the NHS guidance says: “Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones.”
If this is indeed the case, then New Zealanders do deserve fuller reporting on the rising controversy about “affirmative care” and hormone and surgical treatment of adolescents who feel that they’re of the wrong sex. After all, that issue arises in NZ.
What all three issues have in common is that questioning them is perceived as anti-woke and thus socially unacceptable. You can’t criticize anything Māori; the government and its Māori minister are off limits (perhaps in part because of Mahuta’s ancestry; and of course even discussing potential problems with “affirmative care”, including medical intervention, is seen as transphobic. Many Kiwis are indeed afraid to buck the government:
The obvious question arises: why are our journalists and editors — with the notable exception of Newsroom’s editors Tim Murphy and Mark Jennings — so much more cautious than many of their peers in nations such as Australia, England and the US, among others?
Of course, open discussion of trans issues in many countries has been heavily restricted by a long-term strategy — dubbed “No Debate” — that pillories anyone who even raises the topic as a bigot, a transphobe or, worse, accuses them of helping to push trans people towards suicide.
Those who are even slightly critical are in danger of being de-platformed and perhaps losing their jobs and careers.
I was struck by the confident, nay, assertive statement of the MOH: “[Puberty] Blockers are a safe and fully reversible medicine that may be used from early puberty through to later adolescence to help ease distress and allow time to fully explore gender health options.’
There is no evidence at all these products are ‘safe’ or their effects ‘fully reversible’, and to top it we haven’t got good evidence they even reduce ‘distress’.
It is profoundly unconscionable (as well as highly irresponsible) of a Ministry of Health to be so assertive about such a consequential and potentially harmful treatment, the long term effects of which we haven’t got a clue about.
If I were a New Zealander, I would have voted for Adern at the time, but if she doesn’t investigate how her MOH got to that ridiculous and dangerous stance, I’d not do that again
If not Adern, would you be happy with the alternative? Seems risky to hinge such a decision on one issue.
I agree w/ Dr. Stempels (as usual).
I really liked Arden years ago but she’s so full on woke, utterly behind the Maori Science bs (and this trans thing) I wouldn’t vote for her if I still lived there now. (it has been many years since I did but I have a lot of affection for the place).
D.A.
NYC
me;https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/06/10/photos-of-readers-93/
You would think that AT LEAST the fear of possible HUGE future lawsuits by people who have been damaged by the cavalier endorsement and use of such powerful medications and crucial periods in the development of young people would make at least a few of them think twice, since their consciences are apparently detached from reality.
There is apparently a lawsuit about this pending against the Tavistock, with a report that there will be over a thousand plaintiffs.
I hate to say it, but I’m almost glad.
Having worked in the MoH in Wellington, I can tell you that there are people in senior management with influence on policy makers there who have ideas that are so removed from reality it’s astonishing.
I, too, have performed some analysis of health and wellbeing here in New Zealand and I believe you one hundred percent. I have also worked in education as a statistician and researcher. About some of the decision-makers and managers in education? The less I say – the better!
David Lillis
I’m not surprised at the paucity of reporting on these topics. Fear of reprisal is a strong deterrent. If your career can be destroyed by reporting on a topic, why not just report on a different topic and keep your career intact? Unless a reporter believes strongly that Maori ways of knowing is an existential threat to society and that the matter *must* be reported to save the country, why would a reporter go there and why would an editor put the media outlet at risk?
Liz Cheney took on the Republican establishment—at great risk to her career and to her personal safety—because she views Donald Trump as an existential threat. The same probably applies here. Most people—reporters and otherwise—will shy away from Maori ways of knowing and affirmative care… until they perceive an existential threat. I have little in common with Liz Cheney in terms of policy, but she is one brave woman.
“These topics”? Seriously? You think that it’s okay not to report on the potential damage from puberty blockers when people’s health and well-being is at stake. Besides, there has been some reporting on all these issues, but not much. The solution is to not penalize people for reporting things that are important or of interest, not to tell reporters to lay off stories.
I don’t think it’s okay, but my guess is that the climate is so fraught that reporters and their editors are not willing to undertake the risk. Your coverage makes clear the chilling impact of “wokeness” in academia and elsewhere. Mightn’t that chill affect reportage as well? It would be interesting to know if there are any cases where reporters have in fact been silenced, or if it’s the fear of being silenced that lies behind the lack of coverage, or if it’s something else. I’d like better to understand why reporters are not covering Maori ways of knowing, the risks of puberty blockers, and all the rest. I’m not condoning their inaction.
A bit of background on The Platform can be found here https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/20-08-2022/two-hours-with-the-secretive-rich-lister-bankrolling-sean-plunkets-the-platform.
Yes – one should be very careful of ‘The Platform’ as it involves both a dubious funding source and Sean Plunket, who is a controversial idiot. It’s claims of being “unbiased” are a joke!
The issue to consider is not the leanings of the magazine (this article wasn’t written by Sean Plunket), but whether what the author of THIS piece says is true. What is surely true is that there is a climate of journalistic and general fear in NZ at offending the government or the Maori, so criticisms are stifled.
If you’re denying the allegations of Graham Adams rather than criticizing the venue as a whole, I’d suggest you be more specific about the errors he’s making.
Unfortunately, we do have a problem in New Zealand. Frankly, I like the person, Jacinda Ardern, I think I see in the media and believe that she is well meaning.
However, the current drive to empower traditional knowledge and push an indigenous language on society is not sensible in the 21’st century, especially as New Zealand’s academic standards may be declining relative to those of other nations. See:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/404762/nz-teenagers-hit-new-lows-in-reading-maths-and-science-tests
Recently, I attended an online meeting of researchers. Possibly, a dozen attended but not a single Maori or colored person. Nevertheless, the Chair read out a short Maori speech as a welcome, some of the attendees introduced themselves in Maori, even those from the UK and other nations of origin, and the chair finished the session by reading out a Maori song in Maori language. Actually, I have no issue with any of this and think it’s somewhat cute and rather nice (!). It’s all very respectful to Maori people, and that’s OK by me, but I wonder why so many felt that they had to engage in the meeting in this manner. Do they feel under a degree of duress? I do not know. Perhaps they want to engage in this manner and for them it’s purely a matter of choice. For the record, I spoke in English, my first language, and I intend to do so in the future.
While nobody has ever attempted to force me to speak any language other than English, I would resist any such attempt if it were made. Actually, I don’t think it will ever happen but I do admit to a slight degree of discomfort about the current situation. Here in New Zealand a person can lose his or her job very easily – too easily, in fact. On several occasions in Professor Coyne’s forum I have noted workplace bullying here and it is just possible that some people feel that they have to go along with this woke stuff or else . . .
Further, increasingly we see the name “Aotearoa” substituting for “New Zealand”, as the name of our country. Why does our media and so many people use this name these days? If one day a referendum were to result in the New Zealand public voting for the proposed renaming of our country, then even dissenters would have to accept it eventually and I would accept it too.
But many are perfectly content with “New Zealand”. As a teenager who lived overseas, but born of a New Zealand mother, I emigrated to a country called “New Zealand”, and I remain happy with its present name.
David Lillis
“…not a single Maori or colored person.”
As a Kiwi, maybe you can correct me on this, but I get the impression that most people who identify as “Maori” are actually pretty white.
Jamie.
You are correct and so who gains from elevation of traditional knowledge and language?!
At 30 June 2021 New Zealand’s estimated Māori ethnic population was 17.1 percent of the national population. See:
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/maori-population-estimates-at-30-june-2021
The view within Māori communities is that, in order to be considered Māori, an individual must identify as a Māori and be descended from a Māori.
For example, see:
https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj23/23problem-of-defining-an-ethnic-group-for-public-policy-who-is-maori-and-why-does-it-matter-p86-108.html#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20view%20within%20M%C4%81ori,Karetu%201990%2C%20Walker%201990).
David
In the latest census about 46% of people identifying as Māori also listed a second ethnicity (cf 13% of the European group) and 7% three ethnicities.
It is worth noting that Māori is an official language in NZ and many of us would open a talk with greetings in both Māori and English to acknowledge this among other things- I am much more comfotable with this than the “we stole you land” type of introduction. (what do Canadians do with French?)
>What do Canadians do with French?
Grimace nervously and change the subject.
Official bilingualism has always been divisive because driven by elites, shoved down the throats of the rest of us. To avoid unpleasantness we try to pretend the other language doesn’t exist. We use the Two Solitudes model in everyday coexistence, still.
Official bilingualism was never intended here to foster a cosmetic bilingual bonhomie between ordinary French- and English- speakers. Rather, its goal was just to undermine one of the perennial grievances of Quebec separatism by making it possible for unilingual francophones to communicate with their federal government in French where numbers warranted. In a city like Toronto, where almost no one speaks only French, it is quaint to see the signs indicating which of the customs agents at the airport can interrogate you in French. It would make the lines go faster if they could speak Arabic or Punjabi. No doubt some can, but there are no signs so indicating.
Scientific meetings even at the national level are never opened with even a few platitudes in French. Organizers are well aware that many educated Canadians know not a single word of French. Audiences would fret, “Oh no, have I wandered into a French session by mistake?” Meetings will often feature an abstract or poster or two delivered entirely in French—no English platitudes—to a small audience of Quebeckers, but plenary sessions and keynote addresses are always in English. Mind you, Canadian meetings are pretty parochial anyway. The big news happens at American or international meetings where the language of communication is unabashedly English.
National politics is weird. The leaders have to speak partly in French even when campaigning in 100% English regions, and take questions in French, simply because the national TV cameras are rolling and any stumbles will be pounced on as evidence of unfitness to govern. This means that for practical purposes, the Prime Minister has to be a Quebec francophone—since the 1960s all but two elected have been—in order to have the politically necessary but otherwise irrelevant fluency. New Zealanders might want to ponder where this leads for them.
I prefer ‘Keyaurastan’ to Aotearoa, David. And ‘Keyaurastanis’ sounds more accurate nowadays than ‘Kiwis’.
I would say that since New Zealand is one of the few English speaking countries where the media is not dominated by the Murdoch Newscorp empire it’s not surprising that they don’t waste too much time running after typical Murdoch-style anti-left beat ups and crusades.
I would respectfully suggest that all three issues, particularly the second (nepotism in the government and the use of puberty blockers) are not at all “typical Murdoch-style anti-left beat ups. Or do you think that there should be no press coverage of these issues.
Are you okay with the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s stand on puberty blockers, which contradicts that of the NHS, NOT being covered by reporters?
I’d say it’s more that there’s a huge element of groupthink in NZ, and it’s sometimes hard for the “wrong” views to get aired – Newsroom being something of an exception. Re “The Platform”, they also host the likes of Chris Trotter and Martyn Bradbury, who would have been considered fairly left wing a while back. They are out of favour these days, I would say because they think and write clearly even when I don’t agree with them, others might say because they are “stranded swimming the wrong way when the tide of history went out, still debating yesterday’s issues using framing and language from another time” and so can just be sneered at or ignored.
In any case, the issue is surely not where Mr Adams’ article appeared, but whether he is right or wrong. I am extremely grateful that I have no need to form an opinion on puberty blockers, and have no idea whether the NHS is right or not, but surely those who do need to know should be as well-informed as possible.
In much of the free world, a key role of the media is to hold the government and institutions to account. Unfortunately in New Zealand they are absolutely failing in that duty and are often acting as a uncritical mouthpiece for the woke-ish end of the establishment.
The situation is exacerbated by the NZ government directly channeling tens of millions of dollars into our media organisations under the guise of “Public Interest Journalism.” These payments come with many strings attached — for instance, contractually dictating what may be said about Maori co-governance, among other things. In other countries, government keeping the media tame with buckets of cash this would be an outrage; here in NZ it passes almost without comment.
https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/how-government-funding-is-used-to-muzzle-mainstream-media
Don’t feel too bad. We do it in Canada, too. But in the Canadian way of subterfuge, the strings aren’t publicly acknowledged. You can sort of tell, though, by who gets money and who doesn’t. What is obvious is that the pejorative expression, “Mainstream media”, is no longer a crackpot, conspiracy-theory-buff throwaway.
I recall a TV advert I saw when I first arrived in New Zealand in 2002. I can’t remember who or what the advert was about, but it started out by saying something like, “Saying something was politically correct (an early synonym for woke) was being intellectually lazy.” The narrator of the advert went on to say that, unless you could make the case for an issue on its’ own terms, it was not really worth talking about. For example, instead of saying that promoting alternative ways of knowing was woke, ask whether promoting the perspectives of people who see things differently was worth considering. I was impressed with the argument and have since tried to remove unnecessary adjectives when addressing issues. I think Kiwis tend to be more open minded than others, so I’m going to say that they are not, by and large, pressured from speaking their minds on issues. It would be nice if the media reduced the amount of emotional rhetoric it presents to its’ viewers and readers, but I think the media sees it as an opportunity to increase their readership size.