Only four days have passed since his election to the papacy, and Pope Leo XIV has made it a point to hold an audience with the men and women who were in Rome to report on the death of Pope Francis, the conclave, and the first days of his own ministry.

He met media professionals in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall yesterday, and thanked reporters in Italian for their tireless work over these intense few weeks.

The newly-elected Pope began his remarks with a call for communication to foster peace by caring for how people and events are presented.

He invited media professionals to promote a different kind of communication, one that “does not seek consensus at all costs, does not use aggressive words, does not follow the culture of competition, and never separates the search for truth from the love with which we must humbly seek it.”

“The way we communicate is of fundamental importance,” he said. “We must say ‘no’ to the war of words and images; we must reject the paradigm of war.”

Solidarity with persecuted journalists
The Pope went on to reaffirm the Church’s solidarity with journalists who have been imprisoned for reporting the truth, and he called for their release.

He said their suffering reminded the world of the importance of the freedom of expression and the press, adding that “only informed individuals can make free choices”.

Service to the truth
Pope Leo XIV then thanked reporters for their service to the truth, especially their work to present the Church in the “beauty of Christ’s love” during the recent interregnum period.

He commended their work to put aside stereotypes and clichés, in order to share with the world “the essence of who we are”.

Pope Leo XIV calls for release of journalists imprisoned for ‘seeking truth’   Video: France 24

Our times, he continued, present many issues that were difficult to recount and navigate, noting that they called each of us to overcome mediocrity.

Facing the challenges of our times
“The Church must face the challenges posed by the times,” he said. “In the same way, communication and journalism do not exist outside of time and history.

“Saint Augustine reminds of this when he said, ‘Let us live well, and the times will be good. We are the times’.”

Pope Leo XIV said the modern world could leave people lost in a “confusion of loveless languages that are often ideological or partisan.”

The media, he said, must take up the challenge to lead the world out of such a “Tower of Babel,” through the words we use and the style we adopt.

“Communication is not only the transmission of information,” he said, “but it is also the creation of a culture, of human and digital environments that become spaces for dialogue and discussion.”

AI demands responsibility and discernment
Pointing to the spread of artificial intelligence, the Pope said AI’s “immense potential” required “responsibility and discernment in order to ensure that it can be used for the good of all, so that it can benefit all of humanity”.

Pope Leo XIV also repeated Pope Francis’ message for the 2025 World Day of Social Communication.

“Let us disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred,” he said. “Let us disarm words, and we will help disarm the world.”

The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) welcomed the Pope’s commitment and has issued five concrete recommendations to the new head of the Catholic Church and Vatican City.

As censorship, misinformation and violence against journalists are on the rise worldwide, RSF has called on the Holy See to maintain a strong, committed voice for press freedom and the protection of journalists everywhere.

“The fact that one of Pope Leo XIV’s first speeches addressed press freedom and the protection of journalists sends a strong signal to news professionals around the world. RSF salutes Pope Leo XIV’s commitment to press freedom and calls on him to build on his declaration with concrete actions to promote the right to information,” said RSF director-generalThibaut Bruttin.

In his first Sunday noon blessing, Pope Leo XIV called for genuine peace in Ukraine and an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“No more war,” the pontiff said, adding a warning against “the dramatic scenario of a third world war being fought piecemeal.”

Devin Watkins writes for Vatican News. Republished under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

After a successful beta-launch this month, PodTalk.live has now called for people to register as foundation members — it’s free to join the post and podcast social platform.

The foundation membership soft-launch is a great opportunity for founders to help shape a brand new, vibrant, algorithm-free, info discussion and debate social platform.

“PodTalk.live has been put to test by selected individuals and we’re pleased to report that it has performed fabulously,” said the the platform developer Selwyn Manning.

Manning is founder and managing director of the company that custom-developed PodTalk.live — Multimedia Investments Ltd.

MIL is based in Aotearoa New Zealand, where PodTalk.live was developed and is served from.

And now, PodTalk.live has emerged from its beta stage and is ready for foundation members to shape the next phase of its development.

An alternative platform
PodTalk.live was designed to be an alternative platform to other social media platforms.

PodTalk has all the functions that most social media platforms have but has placed the user-experience at the centre of its backend design and engineering.

PodTalk.live has been custom-designed, created and is served from New Zealand.

“We ourselves became annoyed at how social media giants use algorithms to drive what content their users see and experience,” Manning said.

“And, we also were appalled at how some social media companies trade user data, and were unresponsive to user-concerns.

“So we decided to create a platform that focuses on ‘discussion and debate’ communities, and we have engineered PodTalk to ensure the content that users see is what they choose — rather than some obscure algorithm making that decision for them.

“PodTalk.live is independent from other social media platforms, and at best will become an alternative choice for people who seek a community where they are the centre of a platform’s core purpose.

Sign-up invitation
““And today, we invite people to sign up now and become foundation members of this new and ethically-based social community platform,” Manning said.

What PodTalk.live provides includes:

• user profiles with full interactivities with other users and friends;
• user created groups, posts, video, images, polls, and file sharing;
• private and secure one-on-one (and group) messages;
• availability of all the above for entry users with a free membership;
• premium membership for podcasters and event publishers requiring easy to use podcast publication and syndication services; and next-level community engagement tools that users have all on the one platform.

Manning said PodTalk.live was founded on the belief that for social, political and economical progress to occur people needed to discuss issues in a safe environment and embark on robust debate.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Victoria Fielding

I once heard someone say that when the Left and the Right became polarised — when they divorced from each other — the Left got all the institutions of truth including science, education, justice and democratic government.

The Right got the institution of manipulation: the media. This statement hit me for six at the time because it seemed so clearly true.

What was also immediately clear is that there was an obvious reason why the Left sided with the institutions of truth and the Right resorted to manipulation. It is because truth does not suit right-wing arguments.

The existence of climate change does not suit fossil fuel billionaires. Evidence that wealth does not trickle down does not suit the capitalist class. The idea that diversity, equity and inclusion (yes, I put those words in that order on purpose) is better for everyone, rather than a discriminatory, hateful, destructive, divided unequal world is dangerous for the Right to admit.

The Right’s embrace of the media institution also makes sense when you consider that the institutions of truth are difficult to buy, whereas billionaires can easily own manipulative media.

Just ask Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and turned it into a political manipulation machine. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who is currently engaged in a bitter family war to stop three of his children opposing him and his son Lachlan from using their “news” organisations as a form of political manipulation for right-wing interests.

Right-wingers also know that truthful institutions only have one way of communicating their truths to the public: via the media. Once the media environment is manipulated, we enter a post-truth world.

Experts derided as untrustworthy ‘elitists’
This is the world where billionaire fossil fuel interests undermine climate action. It is where scientists create vaccines to save lives but the manipulated public refuses to take them. Where experts are derided as untrustworthy “elitists”.

And it is where the whole idea of democratic government in the US has been overthrown to install an autocratic billionaire-enriching oligarchy led by an incompetent fool who calls himself the King.

Once you recognise this manipulated media environment, you also understand that there is not — and never has been — such as thing as a rational public debate. Those engaged in the institutions of the Left — in science, education, justice and democratic government — seem mostly unwilling to accept this fact.

Instead, they continue to believe if they just keep telling people the truth and communicating what they see as entirely rational arguments, the public will accept what they have to say.

I think part of the reason that the Left refuses to accept that public debate is not rational and rather, is a manipulated bin fire of misleading information, including mis/disinformation and propaganda, is because they are not equipped to compete in this reality. What do those on the Left do with “post-truth”?

They seem to just want to ignore it and hope it goes away.

A perfect example of this misunderstanding of the post-truth world and the manipulated media environment’s impact on the public is this paper, by political science professors at the Australian National University Ian McAllister and Nicholas Biddle.

Stunningly absolutist claim
Their research sought to understand why polling at the start of the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum showed widespread public support for the Voice but over the course of the campaign, this support dropped to the point where the Voice was defeated with 60 per cent voting “No” and 40 per cent, “Yes”.

In presenting their study’s findings, the authors make the stunningly absolutist claim that:

‘…the public’s exposure to all forms of mass media – as we have measured it here – had no impact on the result’.

A note is then attached to this finding with the caveat:

‘As noted earlier, given the data at hand we are unable to test the possibility that the content of the media being consumed resulted in a reinforcement of existing beliefs and partisanship rather than a conversion.’

This caveat leaves a gaping hole in the finding by failing to account for how media reinforcing existing beliefs is an important media effect – as argued by Neil Gavin here. Since it was not measured, how can they possibly say there was no effect?

Furthermore, the very premise of the author’s sweeping statement that media exposure had no impact on the result of the Referendum is based on two naive assumptions:

• that voters were rational in their deliberations over the Referendum question; and
• that the information environment voters were presented with was rational.

Dual assumption of rationality
This dual assumption of rationality – one that the authors interestingly admit is an assumption – is evidenced in their hypothesis which states:

‘Voters who did not follow the campaign in the mass media were more likely to move from a yes to a no vote compared to voters who did follow the campaign in the mass media.’

This hypothesis, the authors explain, is premised on the assumption ‘that those with less information are more likely to opt for the status quo and cast a no vote’, and therefore that less exposure to media would change a vote from “Yes” to “No”. What this hypothesis assumes is that if a voter received more rational information in the media about the Referendum, that information would rationally drive their vote in the “Yes” direction. When their data disproved this hypothesis, the authors used this finding to claim that the media had no effect.

To understand the reality of what happened in the Referendum debate, the word “rational” needs to be taken out of the equation and the word “manipulated” put in.

We know, of course, that the Referendum was awash with manipulative information, which all supported the “No” campaign. For example, my study of News Corp’s Voice coverage — Australia’s largest and most influential news organisation — found that News Corp actively campaigned for the “No” proposition in concert with the “No” campaign, presenting content more like a political campaign than traditional journalism and commentary.

A study by Queensland University of Technology’s Tim Graham analysed how the Voice Referendum was discussed on social media platform, X. Far from a rational debate, Graham identified that the “No” campaign and its supporters engaged in a participatory disinformation propaganda campaign, which became a “truth market” about the Voice.

The ‘truth market’
This “truth market” was described as drawing “Yes” campaigners into a debate about the truth of the Voice, sidetracking them from promoting their own cause.

What such studies showed was that, far from McAllister and Biddle’s assumed rational information environment, the Voice Referendum public debate was awash with manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering.

The “No” campaign that delivered this manipulation perfectly demonstrates how the Right uses media to undermine institutions of truth, to undermine facts and to undermine the rationality of democratic debates.

The completely unfounded assumption that the more information a voter received about the Voice, the more likely they would vote “Yes”, reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of a manipulated public debate environment present across all types of media, from mainstream news to social media.

It also wrongly treats voters like rational deliberative computers by assuming that the more information that goes in, the more they accept that information. This is far from the reality of how mediated communication affects the public.

The reason the influence of media on individuals and collectives is, in reality, so difficult to measure and should never be bluntly described as having total effect or no effect, is that people are not rational when they consume media, and every individual processes information in their own unique and unconscious ways.

One person can watch a manipulated piece of communication and accept it wholeheartedly, others can accept part of it and others reject it outright.

Manipulation unknown
No one piece of information determines how people vote and not every piece of information people consume does either. That’s the point of a manipulated media environment. People who are being manipulated do not know they are being manipulated.

Importantly, when you ask individuals how their media consumption impacted on them, they of course do not know. The decisions people make based on the information they have ephemerally consumed — whether from the media, conversations, or a wide range of other information sources, are incredibly complex and irrational.

Surely the re-election of Donald Trump for a second time, despite all the rational arguments against him, is proof that the manipulated media environment is an incredibly powerful weapon — a weapon the Right, globally, is clearly proficient at wielding.

It is time those on the Left caught up and at least understood the reality they are working in.

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. This article was first published by the Independent Australia and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A community-based Asia-Pacific network of academics, journalists and activists has now gone online with an umbrella website for its publications, current affairs and research.

The nonprofit Asia Pacific Media Network, publishers of Pacific Journalism Review research journal, has until now relied on its Facebook page.

“The APMN is addressing a gap in the region for independent media commentary and providing a network for journalists and academics,” said director Dr Heather Devere.

“Our network aims to protect the free dissemination of information that might challenge political elites, exposing discrimination and corruption, as well as analysing more traditional media outlets.”

Pacific Journalism Review editor Dr Philip Cass said: “For 30 years, PJR has been the only journal focusing exclusively on media and journalism in the Pacific region.”

APMN has members in Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Indonesia and the Philippines and has links to the Manila-based AMIC, Asia-Pacific’s largest communication research centre.

Deputy director and founding editor of PJR, Dr David Robie, was awarded the 2015 AMIC Asia Communication Award for his services to education, research, institution building and journalism.

Conference partner
The new website publishes news, newsletters, submissions, and research, and the network is a partner in the forthcoming international Pacific Media Conference being hosted by the University of the South Pacific on July 4-6.

APMN is also a partner with Auckland’s Mount Roskill-based Whānau Community Centre and Hub.

Many of the team involved were a core group in AUT’s Pacific Media Centre which closed at the end of 2020.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Māori Party co-leader says the opposition National Party should go back to school if it thinks including te reo Māori on road signs is confusing.

In a transport meeting yesterday in Bay of Plenty, National’s spokesperson Simeon Brown said introducing the language to road signs would make them “more confusing” and they “should all be English”.

On Monday, Waka Kotahi said its He Tohu Huarahi Māori Bilingual Traffic Signs programme was going out for public consultation.

If successful, the programme would include te reo Māori in motorway and expressway signs, destination signs, public and active transport signs, walking and cycling signs, general advisory and warning signs.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said having the language included on road signs will help those in the process of learning te reo.

“This is an environment where there’s more non-Māori learning reo than we ever had in the history of Aotearoa. It’s important that we embrace our nation hood, including our indigenous people and our language.”

“We spent a long time trying to make sure we don’t lose our language, so having our culture in our roads is not just about helping those who are fluent Māori speakers, but so those who are in our education system learning reo can see it reflected around our environment.”

‘Make an effort’
She said Brown should go back to school if he thought te reo Māori on road signs was confusing.

“It’s never too hard to understand the official languages of Aotearoa. Whether it will be making an effort to understand te reo or sign language, for example.

“These are all a critical part of our nation and if he [Simeon Brown] needs to go back to school or take some time off Parliament to be able to understand our language so be it.”

There had been Māori traffic signs, Māori names, in this nation for a very long time, Ngarewa-Packer said.

“I’m not so sure why he [Simeon Brown] is so confused now.”

The Te Pāti Māori co-leader said Brown’s comments were separatist.

“I think it’s a real ignorant alarmist way to be politicking.”

“Twenty percent of our population is Māori. If we see a large [political] party basically trying to ignore 20 percent of this population, then can we expect them to do that to the rest of our multiculture, diversity and languages that we see coming forward in Aotearoa?”

She said most New Zealanders would enjoy seeing multilingual road signs.

“I think we are a mature and sophisticated country and generally, most of us, actually really enjoy not only seeing our indigenous language but also other languages.

“[Not having bilingual signs] It’s an attempt to take us backwards that I don’t think many are going to tolerate.”

‘They should be filling pot holes’ – National
National’s transport spokesman Simeon Brown said Waka Kotahi should be filling pot holes instead of looking into including te reo Māori in road signage around the country.

“NZTA should be focusing primarally in fixing the pot holes on our roads and they shouldn’t be distracted by changing signage up and down our country.”

“Most New Zealanders want to see our roads fixed, it’s their number one priority.”

Brown said the National Party was open to bilingual information, but only when it came to place names signage.

“When it comes to critically important safety information the signage needs to be clear and understandable for people in our road, most of whom who speak English.”

“It’s important to keep the balance right between place names, which we are very open for bilingual signage, and critical safety signs where is really important people understand what the sign is saying,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The discussions on Papua New Guinea’s new draft media development policy will come to the fore today when the media industry presents its response to the government.

It is expected the PNG Media Council, which we are a member of, will present the position of the industry in response to the draft policy and members of the media fraternity, and other concerned institutions will also present their views to the Department of Information that is handling this exercise.

The policy paper outlines the government’s strategies to use the media as a tool for development, however the consultation progresses amidst a growing fear in the industry that legislation is ready to go before Parliament and the consultation process is only an academic exercise.

Included in the proposed policy is the proposal to legislate the PNG Media Council and laws to impose penalties against journalists and media houses that are accused [of] bad reporting.

The industry is of the view that the proposed changes will erode the independence of the media and the journalists and ultimately the freedoms relating to free speech that are enshrined in the national constitution.

One cannot blame the industry and its practitioners for their concern considering the latest version to the policy document 2.1 contains 31 mentions of the word “regulation” in various instances among other things.

In the entire document its transparency on penalties also goes as far as 6 words alone without any more being uttered in its delivery mechanisms.

The PNG Media Council, for the record, is not a journalist organisation. It is an industry body and it functions to protect the interest of the industry.

Today the council is in existence, with its executive members operating from their homes, while the media industry is operating with its newsroom managers dealing daily with challenges like the growing concerns of a country with many issues on top of the self-regulation of unethical journalism, poor presentation and story selections and accountability, among many that are a daily task at hand.

On the other side, the government and its agencies are working in isolation, with no clear, honest and transparent media and communication strategies and allocate a budget to work with the mainstream media.

At Independence, PNG inherited an information and communication apparatus that comprised the Office of Information, the National Broadcasting Commission, the Public Library, the National Archives and the National Museum, all with networks spread throughout the provinces.

These institutions coordinate and disseminate government information to the masses, most of them illiterate at that time.

Today a new generation of people live in PNG, the Department of Communication replaces the Office of Information, the NBC had moved into television, competing with more radio and TV networks, but the public libraries, archives and museums are either run down or closed.

And the communication landscape has changed drastically with the advancement in information technology, including social media.

All state agencies have media and communication units that are operating on ad hoc basis, sending invitations out only for groundbreaking ceremonies, report presentations and a few random press releases, hoping that the mainstream media will “educate, inform and communicate” to the masses and mobilise their support behind the state.

Communication and stakeholder engagement is the least funded activity in government. This is a fact, and yet the government expects the mainstream media to be proactive and promote its work.

How can the media, as an independent industry do that when its role is not encompassed into the entire government planning?

The media is an important pillar of our democracy and is a useful tool for development. We just have to build an honest, transparent and workable partnership for the mutual benefit of everyone. This must happen.

But it cannot work with a stick, sword, or even a gun to the head of any pillar of our governance and society.

We look forward to the discussions today with the proponents of this policy document, and we hope to see more transparency on what is the end game that is mutually beneficial where we have to plot a new course in media-government relationship.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Media Industry Development Act will soon be reviewed over the next few weeks.

Speaking to The Fiji Times in Lautoka on Monday, Minister for Communications Manoa Kamikamica said the review was one of the main objectives of the coalition government when it came to freedom of the press.

“The Media Decree is going to be reviewed,” he said.

“It is no secret that it is one of the priorities of the coalition government, so hopefully in the next few weeks we will be making some progress on that.”

He said that since the change in government media freedom had been felt among the industry.

“You can see there is already freedom of the press that you can feel when there is a change in leadership.

“So that is a positive for the media industry and I can assure you that the Media Decree review is happening and it will be happening over the coming weeks.”

More communication plans
He added that there were more plans to develop Fiji’s communication sector.

“There are a lot of things to do in communication,” he said.

“There are still a lot of people that have not been reached yet in terms of service delivery so that is a priority of government as well.

“There are also a lot of technological industries that are starting to come to Fiji for example the BPO (business process outsourcing) sector.

“This is one so need to make sure that the government supports and there are a few things we are going to be doing there.

“So there’s a lot to do and we have a plan and we will take it forward.”

Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is unlikely that the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, took any lessons from the city’s devastating floods but the rest of us — and journalists in particular — could learn a thing or two.

Brown’s demeanour will not be improved by a petition calling for his resignation or media columnists effectively seeking the same. He will certainly not be moved by New Zealand Herald columnist Simon Wilson, now a predictable and trenchant critic of the mayor, who correctly observed in the Herald on Sunday: “In a crisis, political leaders are supposed to soak up people’s fears…to help us believe that empathy and compassion and hope will continue to bind us together.”

Wilson’s lofty words may be wasted on the mayor, but they point to another factor that binds us together in times of crisis. It is communication, and it was as wanting as civic leadership on Friday night and into the weekend.

Media coverage on Friday night was limited to local evacuation events, grabs from smartphone videos and interviews with officials that were light on detail. The on-the-scene news crews performed well in worsening conditions, particularly in West Auckland.

However, there was a dearth of official information and, crucially, no report that drew together the disparate parts to give us an over-arching picture of what was happening across the city.

I waited for someone to appear, pointing to a map of greater Auckland and saying: “These areas are experiencing heavy flooding . . . State Highway 1 is closed here, here and here as are these arterial routes here, here, and here across the city . . . cliff faces have collapsed in these suburbs . . . power is out in these suburbs . . . evacuation centres have been set up here, here, and here . . . :

That way I would have been in a better position to understand my situation compared to other Aucklanders, and to assess how my family and friends would be faring. I wanted to know how badly my city as a whole was affected.

I didn’t get it from television on Friday night nor did I see it in my newspaper on Saturday. My edition of the Weekend Herald, devoting only its picture-dominated front page and some of page 2 to the flooding, was clearly hampered by early deadlines. The Dominion Post devoted half its front page to the storm and, with a later deadline, scooped Auckland’s hometown paper by announcing Brown had declared a state of emergency.

So, too, did the Otago Daily Times on an inside page. The page 2 story in The Press confirmed the first death in the floods.

I turned to television on Saturday morning expecting special news programmes from both free-to-air networks. Zilch . . . nothing. Later in the day TV1 and Newshub did rise to the occasion with specials on the prime minister’s press conference, but it seems a small concession for such a major event.

Radio fared better but only because regular hosts such as NewstalkZB’s All Sport Breakfast host D’Arcy Waldegrave and Today FM sports journalist Nigel Yalden rejigged their Saturday morning shows to also cover the floods.

RNZ National’s Kim Hill was on familiar ground and her interview with Wayne Brown was more than a little challenging for the mayor. RNZ mounted a “Midday Report Special” with Corin Dann that also tried to break through the murk, but I was left wondering why it had not been a Morning Report Special starting at 6 am.

Over the course of the weekend the amount of information provided by news media slowly built up. Both Sundays devoted six or seven pages to the floods but it was remiss of the Herald on Sunday not to carry an editorial, as did the Sunday Star Times.

It was also good to see Newsroom and The Spinoff — digital services not usually tied to breaking news of this kind — providing coverage.

“Live” updates on websites and news apps added local detail but there was no coherence, just a string of isolated events stretching back in time.

Overall, the amount of information I received as a citizen of the City of Sails was inadequate. Why?

Herein lie the lessons.

News media under-estimated the impact of the event. Although there were fewer deaths than in the Christchurch earthquake or the Whakaari White Island eruption, the scale of damage in economic and social terms will be considerable. The natural disaster warranted news media pulling out all the stops and, as they did on those occasions, move into schedule-changing mode (and that includes newspaper press deadlines).

Lesson #1: Do not allow natural disasters to occur on the eve of a long holiday weekend.

Media were, however, hampered by a lack of coherent information from official sources and emergency services. Brown’s visceral dislike of journalists was part of the problem but that was not the root cause. That fell into two parts.

The first was institutional disconnects in an overly complex emergency response structure which is undertaken locally, coordinated regionally and supported from the national level. This complexity was highlighted after another Auckland weather event in 2018 that saw widespread power outages.

The report on the response was resurrected in front page leads in the Dominion Post and The Press yesterday. It found uncoordinated efforts that did not use the models that had been developed for such eventualities, disagreements over what information should be included in situation reports, and under-estimation of effects.

Massey University director of disaster management Professor David Johnston told Stuff he believed the report would be exactly the same if it was recommissioned now because Auckland’s emergency management system was not fit for purpose — rather it was proving to be a good example of what not to do

Lesson #2: Learn the lessons of the past.

The 2018 report did, however, give a pass mark to the communication effort and noted that those involved thought they worked well with media and in communicating with the public through social media.

Can the same be said of the current disaster response when there “wasn’t time” to inform a number of news organisations (including Stuff) about Wayne Brown’s late Friday media conference, and when Whaka Kotahi staff responsible for providing updates clocked-off at 7.30 pm on Friday?

Is it timely for Auckland Transport to still display an 11.45 am Sunday “latest update” on its website 24 hours later? Is it relevant for a list of road closures accessed at noon yesterday to have actually been compiled at 7.35 pm the previous night? Why should a decision to keep Auckland schools closed until February 7 cause confusion in the sector simply because it was “last minute”?

Lesson #3: Ensure communications staff know the definition of emergency: A serious, unexpected, and potentially dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

There certainly was confusion over the failure to transmit a flood warning to all mobile phones in the city on Friday. The system worked perfectly on Sunday when MetService issued an orange Heavy Rain Warning.

It appears that emergency personnel believed posts on Facebook on Friday afternoon and evening were an effective way of communicating directly with the public. That is alarming because social media use is so fragmented that it is dangerous to make assumptions on how many people are being reached.

A study in 2020 of United States local authority communication about the covid pandemic showed a wide range of platforms being used and the recipients were far from attentive. The author of the study, Eric Zeemering, found not only were city communications fragmented across departments, but the public audience selectively fragmented itself through individual choices to follow some city social media accounts but not others.

In fact, more people were passing information about the flood to each other via Twitter than on Facebook and young people in particular were using TikTok for that purpose. Media organisations were reusing these posts almost as much as the official information that from some quarters was in short supply.

Lesson #4: When you need to communicate with the masses, use mass communication (otherwise known as news media).

Mistakes will always be made in fast changing emergencies but, having made a mistake, it is usual to go the extra yards to make amends. It beggars belief that Whaka Kotahi staff would fail to keep their website up to date on the Auckland situation when it is quite clear they received an enormous kick up the rear end from Transport Minister Michael Wood for clocking off when the heavens opened.

Or that Auckland Transport could be far behind the eight ball after turning travel arrangements for the (cancelled) Elton John concert into a fiasco.

After spending Friday evening holed up in his high-rise office away from nuisances like reporters attempting to inform the public, Mayor Brown justified his position with a strange definition of leadership then blamed others.

Sideswipe’s Anna Samways collected a number of tweets for her Monday Herald column. Among them was this: “Just saw one of the Wayne Brown press conferences. He sounded like a man coming home 4 hours late from the pub and trying to bull**** his Mrs about where he’d been.”

Lesson #5: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown is under fire for calling New Zealand journalists “drongos”, blaming them for having to cancel a round of tennis with friends on Sunday as the city dealt with the aftermath of record rainfall and flooding that left four dead.

It comes after widespread criticism of his handling of the disaster, including being slow to declare a state of emergency on Friday night and a combative, testy media conference on Saturday.

A producer for MediaWorks news station Today FM on Saturday said Brown turned down an interview on Friday morning because he wanted to play tennis instead.

WhatsApp messages leaked to The New Zealand Herald showed rain got in the way, with Brown telling friends on Saturday morning it was “pissing down so no tennis”. Despite being freed up, the interview did not go ahead.

And on Saturday night, Brown told the WhatsApp group — known as ‘The Grumpy Old Men’ — he couldn’t play on Sunday either because “I’ve got to deal with media drongos over the flooding”.

Brown asked the Herald not to write a story about the messages, calling them a “private conversation aimed at giving a reason to miss tennis”.

“There is no need to exacerbate a situation which is not about me but about getting things right for the public and especially those in need and in danger.”

He also turned down Morning Report‘s request to appear on the show on Tuesday morning. His deputy, Desley Simpson, did call in — saying she was “happy to talk to you at any time”.

“My understanding is the mayor is on the ground, and has been over the weekend,” she said, not directly addressing criticism he wasn’t communicating effectively.

“I think as his deputy I am more than happy to do that role. I’m talking to you now, I’ll talk to you at any time. That’s my commitment to you and to Auckland.”

Asked if it was acceptable to call journalists “drongos”, Simpson again avoided the question.

“Media play an important part, in my opinion, in helping get our message out. I really appreciate talking to you this morning so that we can inform Aucklanders what they need to do to be prepared for the storm . . .

“My focus, and I think all local boards and other councillors — and the mayor — our focus is making sure that Auckland is prepared for this afternoon and this evening. It’s going to be a rough 24 hours, and I really appreciate you helping us get this message out.”

She then said she had not seen Brown’s texts, she had been busy “getting myself ready this morning with emergency services and stuff for this afternoon”.

The region north of Auckland’s Orewa is under an unprecedented “red” rain warning, while the rest of the city to the south is at orange.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Appreciated the chance to speak with @abcnews about the resilience and generosity of so many in the community supporting whanau during these distressing times. The local leadership on show has been magnificent. pic.twitter.com/PJ4hItwjxx

— Efeso Collins (@efesocollins) January 30, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Anusha Bradley, RNZ News investigative reporter

Within hours of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation announcement in Napier, a small crowd gathered outside the city’s conference centre.

Unlike the steady stream of shocked Labour MPs still coming to terms with the news, these folks were celebrating.

“Ding dong the witch is gone,” a placard read.

Online, there have been similar sentiments to be found among groups bitterly opposed to Ardern. The Freedom and Rights Coalition even takes credit for Ardern’s departure in a post on Facebook: “We can now celebrate the departure of this leader of division. We did it!”

The comments on the post are unfit to repeat here.

Entering what would have been her sixth year, Ardern is the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister after Peter Fraser and Helen Clark. But in an emotional speech to her caucus in Napier she revealed she “no longer had enough in the tank” to do the job.

“It’s time,” she said.

“As much as I have taken great joy in this job, I would be giving a disservice to this country and to the Labour Party if I continued, knowing that I just don’t have enough in the tank for another four years.”

Violent abuse
While it wasn’t explicitly stated, it’s hard to imagine the increasingly violent abuse directed at her was not part of the reason.

“It is no surprise to me at all … she could not, not be affected by this,” says Disinformation Project director Kate Hannah.

Ardern probably tops the list for the amount of vitriol endured by any political leader in this country, Hannah believes.

“In the earlier parts of her first term we got sort of commentary about her looks and her lack of perceived experience. The fact that sort of she was, you know, well spoken, and really good at communicating complex issues was kind of a slur against her.”

But in the last two years the misogyny and violence directed towards Ardern has not only increased in volume, but also become more dangerous, says Hannah, who studies online hate speech and disinformation.

“The language and imagery used to talk about the Prime Minister has become more violent, more vulgar, more crude and repetitive.”

According to a recent study, published just before Christmas, which charts the rise of misogynistic language towards female leaders and women in the public sphere, the most prevalent word used to describe the Prime Minister in these circles is “the C word, and the most prevalent visual image is of witchcraft”.

“And this is old data. This is data from the middle of last year. So it’s actually got worse.”

Grim factoid
Another grim factoid from the paper shows the word “Neve” – referring to Ardern’s pre-school daughter — is also on the most prevalent list.

In June, it was revealed the number of threats towards Ardern has almost tripled in the past three years.

Hannah, who herself has been subjected to similar abuse — including death threats — says she presented the paper’s findings to Ardern and a range of MPs late last year.

How did Ardern react?

“As we all do . . . trying to laugh it off and saying the job is more important . . . and you just have to get on with the job,” says Hannah.

But this is no laughing matter, she says. This new virulent brand of misogyny is on the rise and it affects all women.

“The international disinformation, far right, pro-Putin community is incredibly misogynistic.

‘Incredibly abusive’
“It is incredibly abusive and derogatory, and what it does is attempts to reduce a person to their basic self, and in doing so signals to every other person who shares characteristics with that individual who has been targeted that they are equally worthless, equally base, equally loathed.

“So has this purpose of both targeting individually her as a woman, her role as prime minister, and then all women or all people who share some of those characteristics with her,” says Hannah.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s biggest moments.    Video: RNZ News

Massey University senior lecturer Dr Suze Wilson, who studies leadership and has examined the vitriol aimed at Ardern, says even the coining of “Jacindamania”, referring to her meteoric rise in popularity as leader served as an early warning of what was to come.

“As if somehow people were losing their heads to be excited by the prospect of a potential Prime Minister, who was young and female and articulate, through to the last couple of years where it’s become increasingly violent, the kind of abuse to which she’s been subjected.”

While the pandemic has been a factor, research also shows that generally it is becoming more challenging for women to be taken seriously, says Wilson.

“Particularly if they are younger and particularly if they don’t cleave to a masculine style, which Ardern does not.”

Worryingly, misogynistic sentiment is also on the rise globally. The latest Reykjavik Index for leadership tracks views about whether a man or woman would be more suitable to a certain position.

Backwards trend
“The most recent data came out just before Christmas, and it is showing that in some countries for the first time that there was actually some backwards moving trends,” says Wilson.

“It was showing, alarmingly, that it’s particularly among younger men, and those are the ones that are being exposed to the likes of Jordan Petersons and Andrew Tates of the world who are learning from them a really just disrespectful and antagonistic view towards women.”

Wilson says she first started noticing a shift in sentiment towards Ardern during the first 2020 lockdown. But it didn’t come from the dark corners of the anti-vax movement, but on the mainstream business social networking site LinkedIn.

‘”I started seeing people, you know like business leaders, using words like tyrant and dictator to describe the prime minister, and I was kind of quite disturbed by that.

“The fact that they can make those kinds of statements and think that somehow that would be a credible statement, tells you kind of something about the shifting norms of what’s considered an OK way to talk about our prime minister.”

Dr Wilson believes this must have taken its toll on Ardern.

“It’s hard to believe that it wouldn’t affect you, right? I mean, it would affect anybody . . . Having people talk about wanting to hang her, wanting to harm her child, the persistent rumours about her partner. She’s human, of course it’s going to take quite a toll.”

‘Look in the mirror’
Ardern herself has rarely acknowledged the abuse publicly. Wilson can understand why.

“I can understand why she doesn’t want to highlight it, because it would be, perhaps for those that are engaged in that behaviour, some kind of reinforcement that what they’re doing is having an effect.

“But really, they should just look in the mirror and be deeply ashamed of their conduct.”

Hannah says it’s also worrying the violent rhetoric towards the prime minister is now considered the “new normal”.

“This type of language and abuse is now so normalised that it’s very hard to pull back from. When people have become accustomed to using the C word, as the most commonly used word to describe the prime minister, then, you know, I just don’t know how we come back from that in any kind of quick way.”

For some, the issue was so pervasive it defined the way they viewed the announcement of her resignation. A number of public figures referred to it in posts on Twitter:

#PrimeMinister @jacindaardern resigned today. I am not surprised nor do I blame her. Her treatment, the pile on, in the last few months has been disgraceful and embarrassing. All the bullies, the misogynists, the aggrieved. She deserved so much better. A great leader. Thanks PM! pic.twitter.com/7b1AhjBXrW

— Sam Neill (@TwoPaddocks) January 19, 2023

History will judge Jacinda Ardern as a remarkable leader.

She is genuinely kind and has an incredible intellect, she’s made more of a contribution than she will ever appreciate.

I can’t help but feel like we need to find better ways to support women and mothers in politics.

— Fleur Fitzsimons (@FleurFitzsimons) January 19, 2023

Apart from wartime, no New Zealand Prime Minister has faced the challenges Jacinda Ardern has handled. And certainly none has had to govern through the kind of deranged abuse and threat to which she has been subject in the past two years.

— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) January 19, 2023

No matter what you thought of her politics, the sustained personal attacks and hatred levelled at Jacinda was unlike anything I’d seen- from critiques of her motherhood to hysteria and conspiracy theories to threats of violence.

It’s not safe to be a woman in public light

— Mohamed Hassan (@mohamedwashere) January 19, 2023

And on the streets of Auckland, kilometres away from the dwindling crowd outside Napier’s conference centre, an emotional Tessa Williams from Taupō, perhaps summed up the view of those most disturbed by the vitriol Ardern received.

“She’s put up with a lot of really tough stuff. I mean, I was surprised that she has hung in kind of as long as she did,” Williams said.

“It was pretty rough how she’s been treated. Yeah, I think it’s a good decision. It was so hard for her. She did a really good job.

“It’s sad that people were so mean to her.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva

Qorvis Communications and Vatis — the two controversial public relation companies employed by the FijiFirst government to manage its public relations work — have been terminated.

This was confirmed by Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka outside Suvavou House yesterday during an interview with journalists.

Rabuka said the two companies would be investigated without disclosing more details.

FBC News reports that Rabuka said: “I gave instructions earlier for their termination, the cessation of any appointment with them, and investigations on how the funds have been used and how much.”

He said the Ministry of Information would carry out work for the government.

Corvis has been highly controversial over its handling of Fiji public relations.

Heated debate over Qorvis budget
In 2017, there was heated debate over a motion to decrease the budget allocation for Qorvis Communications was moved by the opposition, now the government.

A budget of $1 million had been allocated for services from Qorvis Communications which was described as an “international public relations, advertising, media relations and crisis communications firm”.

National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad, then in opposition but now co-Deputy Prime Minister said the government did not need Qorvis Communications.

However, then Economy Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum interjected and told the NFP leader to “stick to the motion” and not “make speculation”.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Fiji-based academic challenged the Pacific region’s media and policymakers today over climate crisis coverage, asking whether the discriminatory style of reporting was a case of climate injustice.

Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific, said climate press conferences and meetings were too focused on providing coverage of “privileged elite viewpoints”.

“Elites have their say, but communities facing the brunt of climate change have their voices muted,” he told the Look at the Evidence: Climate Journalism and Open Science webinar panel exploring the role of journalism in raising climate awareness in the week-long Open Access Australasia virtual conference.

Dr Singh, who is also on the editorial board of Pacific Journalism Review and was speaking for the recently formed Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), threw open several questions to the participants about what appeared to be “discriminatory reporting”.

“Is slanted media coverage marginalising grassroots voices? Is this a form of climate injustice?” he asked.

“Are news media unknowingly perpetuating climate injustice?”

He cited many of the hurdles impacting on the ability of Pacific news media to cover the climate crisis effectively, such as lack of resources in small media organisations and lack of reporting expertise.

‘Jack-of-all-trades’
“We are unable to have specialist climate reporters as in some other countries; our journalists tend to be a jack-of-all-trades, and master of none,” he said.

He did not mean this in a “disparaging manner”, saying “it’s just our reality” given limited resources.

Key Pacific media handicaps included:

• The smallness of Pacific media systems;
• Limited revenue and small profit margins;
• A high attrition rate among journalists (mostly due to uncompetitive salaries);
• Pacific journalists “don’t have the luxury” of specialising in one area; and
• No media economies of scale.

“Our journalists don’t build sufficient knowledge in any one topic for consistent or in-depth reporting,” he said. “And this is more deeply felt in areas such as climate reporting.”

He cited recent research on Pacific climate reporting by Samoan climate change journalist Lagipoiva Dr Cherelle Jackson, saying such Pacific media research was “scarce”.

‘Staying afloat in Paradise’
A research fellow with the Reuters Institute and Oxford University, Dr Jackson carried out research on how media in her homeland and six other Pacific countries were covering climate change. The report was titled Staying Afloat in Paradise: Reporting Climate Change in the Pacific.

Pacific journalists and editors “have a responsibility to inform readers on how climatic changes can affect them, she argued. But this did not translate into the pages of their newspapers.

“Climate change is simply not as high a priority for Pacific newsrooms as issues such as health, education and politics which all take precedence over even general environment reporting,” Dr Jackson wrote.

“For a region mainly classified by the United Nations as ‘least developed’ and ‘developing’ countries, it is apparent that there are more pressing issues than climate change.

“But the fact that the islands of the Pacific are already at the bottom end of the scale in regards to wealth and infrastructure, and the fact that climate change is also threatening the mere existence of some islands, should make it a big story. But it isn’t.”

The Open Access Australasia media panel today also included Newsroom’s Marc Daalder, The Conversation’s New Zealand science editor Veronica Meduna, and Guardian columnist Dr Jeff Sparrow of the University of Melbourne.

Critical of paywalls
Daalder spoke about how open access to scientific papers was vitally important for journalists who needed to read complete papers, not just abstracts. He was critical of the paywalls on many scientific research papers.

Open access enabled journalists to do their job better and this was clearly shown during the covid-19 pandemic — “and we need this to happen for climate reporting”.

Meduna said it took far too long for research, such as on climate change, to filter through into public debate. Open access helped to reduce that gap.

She also said the success of The Conversation model showed that there was a growing demand for scientists communicating directly with the public with the help of journalists.

Dr Sparrow called for a social movement for meaningful action on the climate crisis and more scientific literacy was needed to enable this.

Highly critical of the “dysfunctional” academic publishing industry, he said open access would contribute to “radically accessible” science for the public.

The panel was organised by Tuwhera digital and open access publishing team at Auckland University of Technology.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police say misinformation and a “range of different causes and motivations” are making it difficult to resolve the situation with protesters at New Zealand’s Parliament.

In a statement this afternoon, Wellington District Commander Superintendent Corrie Parnell said police were continuing to monitor the protest activity at Parliament grounds as new community cases of covid-19 in the current omicron outbreak reached a record 446.

“Police have identified a range of different causes and motivations among the protesters, making it difficult to open clear and meaningful lines of communication.

“Misinformation, particularly on social media, has been identified as an issue.”

Superintendent Parnell said some of the protesters were “actively promoting false advice” about people’s rights and the powers that police have.

“For example, the use of a particular word or phrase by an individual will not impact the arrest of anyone involved in unlawful activity,” he said.

“Under the Policing Act 2008, anyone arrested and taken into police custody is required to provide their name, age, date of birth and address. They must also let police take their photograph and fingerprints.

“It is an offence not to comply with these requests.”

Superintendent Parnell did note that several officers were seen carrying batons earlier today, but that was not in line with the current approach and they have now been removed.

“Police continue to explore options to resolve the disruption to local businesses and allow free and safe movement around the city.”

RNZ Checkpoint reports

Police detail response to the protest outside Parliament. Video: RNZ News

10 million covid-19 vaccinations in NZ
The government is celebrating a milestone of 10 million covid-19 vaccines administered.

In a statement this afternoon, Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said the uptake of vaccines had been helped by a surge in boosters, and a healthy uptake of paediatric doses in 5- to 11-year-olds.

He said the 10 millionth vaccine had been reached about 2pm today.

“It’s the people of New Zealand who have embraced the science and put their trust in the health system who deserve the biggest accolade. They should take a bow, and then take a breath and continue to encourage others to get vaccinated,” he said.

“A strong booster uptake in all our communities is our best defence against the omicron variant. Being fully vaccinated is great, being boosted is even better.”

The record 446 new cases of covid-19 recorded in the community today followed another record of 306 the previous day.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Langi Fatanitavake’s wife and son live on one of the islands flanking Tonga’s Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai undersea volcano, but his repeated calls home since the violent eruption and tsunami have gone unanswered.

The South Island seasonal worker last spoke to his family on Ha’apai on Saturday afternoon, shortly before destructive waves crashed into the island nation.

Fatanitavake is growing increasingly concerned for their safety.

“Last night and today, nothing. I called, no answer. My feeling is not good about my family,” he said.

Fatanitavake is also worried about his sister who lives on Atata Island, about 50 km from the volcano that has covered Tonga in a layer of ash.

“I want to know what happened to my sister,” he said.

Fatanitavake said the 17 other Tongans he was working with on an Alexandra orchard had not heard from their families either and were anxious to receive a simple message or phone call to say they were safe.

Repatriation flight postponed
A repatriation flight scheduled for Thursday for workers who came to New Zealand as part of the Recognised Seasonal Employers (RSE) scheme has been postponed.

Tongans in New Zealand have been praying for their Pacific Island families, as they endure an agonising wait for news from relatives cut off from the world.

Timaru’s Sina Latu last heard from her sister when she broadcast her family’s escape from the tsunami live on Facebook, as ash rained down on the island of ‘Eua.

“It was very scary, we could see the waves coming in,” she said.

While Latu believed they were safe, she said the lack of communication was upsetting.

“It’s painful, you just feel hopeless and very anxious,” she said.

“I’m so worried, I haven’t really slept well. I just want one phone call, or one message, that will do me, just to say we’re fine, we’re safe.”

Latu said she was also worried about her 80-year-old father who lives on Tongatapu, but was reassured by no official reports of injuries or deaths so far.

Aerial reconnaissance, water supplies
A New Zealand Defence Force plane flew to Tonga today to assess the damage, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said aerial reconnaissance depended on the conditions, including the amount of suspended volcanic ash.

Another plane took essential supplies like water late today.

Communication links were still down, because the undersea cable that connects Tonga to the wider world appears to have been damaged.

Invercargill’s Ofa Boyle is yet to hear from her brother and sister who live near the capital Nuku’alofa.

She is also worried about the situation on the Ha’apai group of islands.

“I have some extended family living around that area, in Ha’apai. It’s a big worry,” she said.

“On the main island, the waves coming inland are not those big giant ones. That gives a bit of relief, but I’m also anxious about what it’s like in other areas like Ha’apai, near where the volcano erupted.”

Boyle said Tongan families relied heavily on relatives overseas, who would rally around to help them.

GNS Science said there could be more small-scale eruptions for some weeks, but they would be unlikely to trigger another big tsunami.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

PART 2: WS storytelling in more detail

In part one of my article on White Supremacy (WS), I articulated some of the features of the WS network in Aotearoa and positioned this framework along a spectrum. I attempted to introduce readers to a WS spectrum so people could better understand and then respond to the phenomenon of supremacy in Aotearoa.

In the first article, I argued that one of the features of the emergent WS framework in Aotearoa involved the development of narratives. This second article seeks to explore the question of WS storytelling in more detail.

Moreover, this article seeks to situate WS narratives within a storytelling framework to enable different communities to read supremacist messages as stories, contextualise them, and respond to them — from within the various standing places different communities occupy in time and space in Aotearoa.

White Supremacists (WS) have been very effective in articulating their narratives in a variety of ways during the covid-19 lockdown period. WS narratives are being disseminated across a range of media simultaneously.

The stories have been deployed in alternative media broadcasts; emails; Facebook comments, links, memes, posts, stories, video of live events; internet sites; political party press statements, political party policy documents, and even non-mainstream television shows to disseminate their stories on a wide array of issues.

Whether short or long, serious, or humorous, visual, or written, WS advocates are telling their stories and teaching their “lessons”. Such stories are being affirmed and disseminated in freedom marches and anti-vax protests — as videos of such gatherings attest.

WS messaging is occurring across multiple platforms as tracked by Hannah, Hattotuwa, and Taylor of The Disinformation Project.

Disseminating narratives
WS individuals, groups, and organisations are disseminating narratives to push their agendas. These stories include ones that illuminate:

• contempt for Te Tiriti;
• rejection of power sharing between Pakeha and Māori as articulated in Te Tiriti;
• antagonism towards Māori communities historical experience of colonialism;
• privileging of a mythology of peaceful and just race relations between Māori and Pakeha- thereby simultaneously erasing the racism experienced by Asians, Africans, Pacific peoples, and others in this land;
• desire by political parties in policies to end “race”-based privileges for Māori in health, law, or at the United Nations;
• vilification of the NZ Labour Party as “socialistic”;
• attacks on Māori activist, community, political, and scholarly leaders — and attempts to separate leaders from their peoples;
• attacks on the United Nations and governments as “cabals of evil”;
• contempt for migrants and migrant rights;
• lauding of former US President Donald Trump, Republicans, or QAnon leader, “Q”; and
• intolerance and bigotry expressed towards Māori, Jews, Muslims, and other communities.

I have identified only 11 narratives that privilege WS in the list above. There are many other stories contributing to what is a diverse WS movement.

I cannot articulate a framework illuminating how WS advocates are using video, meme, comments, or policy documents aesthetics to tell their stories because I do not have the space or time here. But what I can offer is an analysis of WS storytelling to empower communities to “close read” the stories WS supporters are telling in their deployment of different media.

We need to develop frameworks to intercept, assess, and respond to these narratives, so communities have the means of defending their lives, mana, and the sanctity of their communal stories in the face of a barrage of WS storytelling.

African, Arab, Asian, Jewish, Māori, Pacific, Palestinian, and Pakeha communities are grounded in (1) rich cultures; (2) values; (3) community spirit; (4) interpretive traditions; (5) reading traditions; (6) oral and communal storytelling traditions; and (7) wisdom and insight.

Deploy learning
I invite readers from different cultures to deploy their learning when considering the following issues concerning WS.

The first narrative I identified regarding WS frameworks above is the story of the contempt for Te Tiriti. We could ask:

• is the story of contempt for Te Tiriti based upon fact?
• is this story true?
• what beliefs about Māori and Te Tiriti must people hold to accept this story as “true?”
• who are the authors of the story of contempt for Te Tiriti?
• where do the stories come from?
• has this story been told in Aotearoa before covid 19-lockdowns in 2021?
• where is this story circulating?
• is this story being used to organise opposition to Māori communities?
• does this story uphold the mana of Māori communities?
• what values underpin this story?
• is this story connected to WS narratives coming from the US, Europe, Australia, or other foreign countries?
• is this story connected to other WS narratives circulating in contemporary Aotearoa today?
• is this story one being used to attack Māori community rights?
• what is the plot of the story of contempt for Te Tiriti?
• are there variations to the plot of this story?
• who are the key characters of this story?
• who are the heroes and who the villains in this story?
• what lessons does the story teach us?
• does this story resonate with the community beliefs, cultures, and values of many different Aotearoa communities?
• does this story attempt to erase the narratives of Māori communities?
• does this story attempt to distort the experience of Māori communities?
• does this story prevent the emergence of Māori community narratives?
• does this story foster better relationships between Māori and other communities in Aotearoa? and
• is this story good for communities, Aotearoa, and the Pacific?

I hope different communities will develop their own reading strategies in response to these problems. Similarly, it is to be hoped that communities will also develop their own questions in response to WS narratives — and the “truths” embedded these stories.

Remembering Said’s words
The words of the Palestinian-American activist, commentator, scholar, and writer Edward Said are apt here. The late Professor Said once wrote in his famed essay, “Permission to Narrate”, that, “Facts do not at all speak for themselves, but require a socially acceptable narrative to absorb, sustain and circulate them. Such a narrative has to have a beginning and end…”

We should remember Said’s words as we defend the narratives of Māori and all other communities against the stories of WS.

Covid-19 lockdowns have brought hardship to the door of many folks in Aotearoa. Nonetheless, stories of community service, kindness, unselfishness, and care abound in Aotearoa today.

Narratives of community concern, fellowship, generosity, service, respect, and tolerance underpin the labour of many — particularly those working in the health sector. These narratives are being written by all the peoples of Aotearoa together.

Māori narratives of community service have been particularly inspiring during this difficult lockdown period. People should reflect upon whether the WS narratives uphold the dignity of Kiwis of all cultures — or whether these narratives uphold the most antagonistic features of settler colonialism in Aotearoa.

In conclusion, I have ancestry from different parts of the Moana (Pacific) as well as ancestors from Europe. I am as proud of my Highland Clan Stewart heritage today as I am of my other ancestors.

I did not know my Pakeha family well and felt ashamed and antagonistic towards this ancestry when I was younger. These feelings changed when I spent time with Pakeha family in the South Island.

I admire the staunch pride of my Scottish ancestors, especially those clan members who fought against English invaders. I believe there is much to respect in Pakeha culture.

I also believe Pakeha can be proud of their ancestors and still live beyond the ideology that says their culture is superior and should rule over Tangata Whenua in this land. Pakeha culture need not be white supremacist culture.

Pakeha and Māori can respect one another and move forwards as partners under Te Tiriti. This is a narrative worth supporting moving into the future.

Tony Fala wishes to acknowledge the lives and work of Amiri Baraka, Bantu Stephen Biko, Frantz Fanon, and Edward Said as the inspiration for this article. Finally, Fala wishes to acknowledge his good friend Emeritus Professor Roger Horrocks. Horrocks was a superlative anti-Vietnam War student protest leader, scholar, and teacher. He taught Fala, alongside generations of other students, how to close read works of culture, film, history, media, literature, and television with commitment, dedication, and alofa. Horrocks is also one of the humblest people the author knows. Fala holds a PhD from the University of Auckland in Media, Film and Television.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz