For this, the sixth series of A View from Afar, political scientist and former Pentagon analyst Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep-dive into geopolitical issues and trends to unpick relevancy from a world experiencing rapid and significant change.

And, in this episode, the topic will be: How to Define A Way Forward When the World is in Chaos.

Since the re-election of the US President Donald Trump, Paul has been doing a lot of work… a lot of reading… and a huge amount of thinking.

Today we hear from Paul about:

1. The US Trump Administration’s “Authoritarianism at home, Imperialism abroad” currency.
2. How to deconstruct the entire “spheres of Influence” nonsense.
3. About United States fears of the rise of the Global South in a poly-centric world.
4. And Paul and I will lean-forward and consider; what to expect in the medium and longterm.

If listeners enjoy interaction in a LIVE recording environment, you can comment and question the hosts while they record this podcast. And, when you do so, the hosts can include your comments and questions in future programmes.

With this in mind, Paul and Selwyn especially encourage you to join them via YouTube, as on YouTube live interaction is especially efficient.

You can join the podcast here (and remember to subscribe and get notifications too by clicking the bell):

OK, let us know what you think about this discussion. Let the debate begin!

*******

SIGNIFICANT QUOTE PAUL G. BUCHANAN: “The sad fact, though, is that the US is the center of our earthly geopolitical universe, serving as the first rock to drop in the global pond whose ripple effects are extensive, negative, and washing up in unexpected and unforeseen ways. That rock, in fact, is a black hole sucking the remnants of the rule based order into oblivion, or if not oblivion, irrelevance in a new age of power politics (might makes right, etc.). It is a dark force from which things as they exist cannot return.”

You can follow this podcast via the following podcast platforms:

For example;

In Syria, opposition-baked forces have taken Aleppo city and other strategic centres in an attempt to remove Syria’s authoritarian leader Assad. Assad’s forces are resisting on the ground while Russian air forces attacked the opposition force’s positions. Israel announced it may strike Syria government munitions sites in a move to ensure opposition forces do not take possession of such weaponry.

Meanwhile, fighting has intensified on the Ukraine-Russia frontlines after:

• North Korea deployed a 10,000-strong assistance force to the Kursk region;
• Outgoing US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to fire ATTACM missiles deep into Russia;
• Ukraine indeed fired ATTACMs into the Russian motherland and has increased its drone attacks on military targets in cities once regarded as safe from attack.
• Also, and significantly, Russia fired into Dnipro City in Ukraine a hypersonic “experimental” Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missile – and followed up with the biggest barrage of drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure since the conflict began.

So-called “red-lines” have been crossed and all sides appear determined to take as much territory as possible before US President-Elect Donald Trump is sworn into office in January.

Paul and Selwyn assess what we can expect to witness in the next two months, how other state actors are being drawn into conflict, and what objectives are driving warring sides at flashpoints around the world.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of our podcasts, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this episode of A View From Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning analyse how the state of Israel has gone rogue, attacking United Nations peacekeepers in southern Lebanon. At this juncture it is clear this is an intentional attack.

Over the past week Israel Defense Force troops have repeatedly attacked UN peacekeepers who were authorised and deployed to the region by the United Nations Security Council.

Also last week; the Government of Israel issued a statement notifying the United Nations Secretary General that he was now banned from Israel and was persona non grata. Within a day of that statement, IDF troops had fired on UN peacekeeping positions in Southern Lebanon.

Since then, the IDF has continued operations that threaten the UN’s presence. And Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now issued a directive to the UN peacekeeping force to withdraw from the area north of its borders in Southern Lebanon.

Also, despite the United States Biden Administration cautioning Israel on its attacks on UN personnel, overnight New Zealand time, the United States has deployed 100 US troops on the ground in Israel to operate missile defence systems.

Paul and Selwyn consider:

• Why Israel has begun to attack United Nations peacekeepers in the region?
• Why has the United States deepened its involvement in Israel’s so-called defence?
• What of Hezbollah, Hamas; are their attacks on Israel a defence or an attacking offensive?
• What of Iran, what is its position and will it engage in a full-scale war with Israel and what are the consequences should it do so?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss: The Murky World of Israel’s Booby-Trapped Pagers and Walkie-Talkies.

Paul and Selwyn reveal Israel’s long-form planning that led to it sabotaging hand-held communication devices that Hezbollah used to communicate with.

This episode’s questions include:

• Who was behind the manufacturing of the booby-trapped devices?
• How long has Israel been planning last week’s attack – an attack that saw thousands injured and many killed in Lebanon after Israel remotely pulled the virtual-pin and exploded the devices indiscriminantly?
• And why now? Presumably the devices were also programmed to be tracked. So why did Israel decide to abandon tracking Hezbollah and to attack?
• Was it to cause chaos among its enemies in a preemptive move immediately prior to its widespread bombing and targeting of communities in Lebanon?
• And what of international law? Has Israel gone so far beyond the Rubicon with Gaza that it senses international law no longer applies to Israel?
• And, finally, has the United Nations abandoned its right to protect principles, its peacemaking and peacekeeping responsibilities in favour of aid, development and an overly bureaucratic institution?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Building upon recent episodes of A View from Afar, Political Scientist Paul G Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss The Politics of Desperation. This episode flows on from our discussions about long transitions and the moment of friction.

As the old status quo begins to crumble (under the weight of fraction), political leaders and elites invested in it get increasingly desperate, leading to more dangerous decisions, more acute moments, and, increased chances of mistake, miscalculation and unanticipated backlash.

The Politics of Desperation accentuates an ongoing downward spiral. And, the Politics of Desperation takes form in differing degrees. For some, the risk of losing is merely a dent in the leader’s ego, reputation, and an awakening that voters have moved on from their style of politics.

But for others, a loss will prove to be devastating, for example; should Donald Trump lose his bid to regain the United States presidency, he will face sentencing as a felon and perhaps even face jail time. For Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, a future loss or a collapse of his right-wing coalition would likely see him facing domestic charges and possibly charges laid by the International Criminal Court for his role in the disproportionate use of military might in Israel’s war on Gaza.

So, Paul and Selwyn discuss the examples of the Politics of Desperation from around the world and assess the risks as the world rests on the cusp of an unknown future.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss, debate, and assess whether deterrence is still a valid concept in international relations.

Paul and Selwyn assess whether deterrence has failed in Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and failed to stop an intensification of threat in the South China Sea.

And they consider the question:

Is nuclear deterrence dead in the water?

But, overnight, the New York Times released details of a secret new nuclear deterrence plan that has been advanced in secret by the Biden Administration. Biden’s Nuke Plan is designed to ensure the USA stays ahead of an arms race, and a supposed coordination of nuclear weapons technologies being developed by China, North Korea and Russia.

New questions arise.

Does a new-generation arms race, led by the United States, based on advanced nuclear weaponry, made more fearsome due to a rapid advance of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making and target-selection, mixed with hybrid warfare, cause aggressive nations to rethink the consequences should they preemptively initiate conflict?

• And what about the majority of the world, what about small states, small powers, that seek stability and security via multilateralism or a constellation of like-minded nations – how does deterrence impact on their decision-making?
• Do alliances, led by global powers, that rely on deterring adversaries through development of superior weaponry and technology, offer small states more risks than benefits?
• Specifically, is it preferable for many small states to focus on de-escalation and cooperative security rather than bind themselves to collective security agreements that are focused on deterring adversaries?
• And, the big question: How do we as member states in a world where bipolarity and conflict is intensifying, ensure de-escalation occurs without reaching a tipping-point that we cannot return from?
• Is cooperative security, and mutually agreed to weapons and technological controls, the way toward restoring an uneasy peace in the world?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The Trump Assassination Attempt, Security Failures, The Politics and What Happens Next? – Firstly, in this episode of A View from Afar, political scientist and former Pentagon analyst, Dr Paul Buchanan, provides us a preliminary assessment of the assassination attempt on former United States president Donald Trump. And then Paul and Selwyn assess what impact this crime will have on the US Presidential election campaign.

At this juncture, it’s important to be clear, to achieve a robust analysis of the crime that occurred while Trump was speaking at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, it will require a thorough assessment of eye witness accounts, details of the supposed gunman, his background, associations, potential motivations – and importantly a deep assessment of the role of the security agencies.

To determine a clear and probable account of what happened in Pennsylvania this weekend, we would need all of that information, and then to apply it against any variances and/or avoidances by those involved or associated with investigating the events. But clearly, much of that information is not yet available to us.

However, there is enough information for us to consider a preliminary assessment of how satisfactory, or otherwise, the security arrangements were for Trump at this rally.

So, with that said; today Paul and Selwyn examine:

• How could an assassin get inside a security parameter, and in to a position with direct line of sight to his target Donald Trump?
• And specifically, while the gunman was outside the immediate venue, it would appear the shooter’s location was within the security parameters, a position obvious to him as a prime area, with direct line of sight to his intended target.
• So why wouldn’t that fact be obvious to the US security services who were responsible for ensuring the parameters were safe and clear?
• And, importantly too, what are the political implications of this assassination attempt?
• For example; does this assassination attempt accentuate Trump’s mythology as an invincible born to rule leader? And as such, draw contrast to the incumbent US President Joe Biden’s frailty?

In this regard, Paul and Selwyn assess what is likely to happen next?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Post-pandemic economics and the rise of national populism – Wherever we look today, whether it be through a political, economic, or security lens, we can see the consequences of post-pandemic economic instability.

And politically, the rise of national populism is in evidence, as is an apparent anti-incumbent mood among voters.

In this podcast, Paul G Buchanan and Selwyn Manning assess the global Zeitgeist and what impact post-pandemic economics is having on geopolitics and geo-economics.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

And at a macro level, Paul and Selwyn assess how ‘Post-Colonial Blowback’ is a power giving rise to the Global South and its worldwide influence in global geopolitics.

INTERACTION:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In an analytical essay titled ‘A moment of friction’ political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan wrote how we are living within a decisive moment of world affairs.

Paul wrote of a decisive moment of transition for the world’s contrasting and conflicting powers, and stated that 2024 is significant; “… because it is the period where force has become the major arbiter of who rises and who falls in the systemic transitional shuffle.”

So in this podcast, the first episode of A View from Afar, Series 5, Paul and Selwyn focus on this writing, and take listeners on a journey through this example of strategic study, a discussion that will help us to place a context to the world, as we are currently experiencing it.

(Ref. https://www.kiwipolitico.com/2024/04/a-moment-of-friction/ )

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/ Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below: Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/ Facebook.com/selwyn.manning Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand children use a lot less Kiwi media than they used to. New research shows its Netflix, YouTube and TikTok engaging their eyeballs big time these days. If our kids screen out our local media, what does the future hold for them?

The news media seized on one startling stat in New Zealand on Air’s latest survey of how children use the media here.

Nearly 90 percent of the 1100 children aged between 10 and 14 surveyed had seen content that had upset them in the past year – such as animal torture and sexual material.

LISTEN: Kiwi kids screening out local TV media – Mediawatch

There is increasing concern they are seeing a lot more potentially upsetting content at an earlier age these days, thanks to the internet. But when it comes to the media kids choose to use, other survey findings were upsetting for homegrown media.

The five most popular networks kids could name were YouTube, Netflix, Disney Plus, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon – none of them local.

The survey found websites and apps were more popular than television. Children are watching much more video on overseas platforms such as YouTube and Netflix than the kids who were surveyed the same way six years ago.

TikTok did not exist in New Zealand back then – now its the most popular social media platform for kids (Tiktok is a video sharing mobile app created in China eight years ago, only launched outside China in 2017 on major mobile phone platforms and in the US in August 2018).

Real bad news
But the real bad news for New Zealand broadcasters is that it is only one of several global online platforms more popular than old fashioned TV with kids here today.

YouTube (51 percent) and Netflix (47 percent) have the highest daily reach and children spend the longest time watching content there. Of local options, TVNZ 1, with 16 percent daily reach and TVNZ 2 at 15 percent, have the highest reach – but two thirds of the children surveyed couldn’t name a favourite locally-made show.

That is also a dilemma for NZ On Air which spends more than $15 million of public money a year on locally-made programmes and content for New Zealand children.

Back in 2016 it launched a review of its spending when TV1, TV2 and TV3 began backing away from screening children’s shows – even when the taxpayer was picking up the tab for making them.

TV3 – as it was then – shunted its local kids shows onto a slot on its sister channel Four – and they disappeared altogether when MediaWorks canned that channel for the reality TV showcase Bravo.

These days it screens Keeping up with the Kardashians and Dance Mums UK in the after school slots.

The only free-to-air TV channel showing kids shows after school anymore is Māori TV. On Wednesdays for example, it airs youth shows Grid and Swagger, followed by its long running show in te reo: Pūkana.

‘None of us are shocked’
“None of us are shocked by what’s in this research,“ said Nicole Hoey, chief executive of Cinco Cine Film Productions. maker of Pūkana and many other local programmes.

“In terms of the research it’s already old once it’s published in terms of the world we now work and live in. The last time this research was done was six years ago. It’s great research but it’s too far apart,“ she said.

Two years ago, NZ On Air launched an online children’s programme platform  – HeiHei – now hosted by TVNZ on Demand, in the hope it would attract young digital natives to the local programmes alongside the international ones

But only 49 percent of children aged 6-14 are aware of HeiHei and only 17 percent said they had used it.

Janette Howe is chair of the NZ Children’s Screen Trust (Kidsonscreen), which has long advocated for a kid’s TV channel.

“I think it has to be remembered the children’s local content has basically disappeared from free to air platforms in New Zealand, so there’s no alternative basically,” she said.

“Those international platforms and global shows have a lot of money behind them. They are easy to find and you stick with them because there’s a lot of choice once you’re there. I think for HeiHei to thrive it needs more funding and to be more discoverable and there needs to be more choice of content once kids find it,“ she said.

‘Small seed in garden’
“It’s a very small seed in a very populated garden.”

“At Māori TV programmes are still at the forefront for television. HeiHei uptake isn’t too bad but the reality is it’s got to be aggressively marketed in the digital world,“ said Nicole Hoey, who’s also a former board member at NZ On Air.

“What’s important is the parents and kids in the survey are still saying that they value local content and I think that really we have to work out better how we deliver it to them,“ said Janette Howe.

So will today’s tamariki and rangatai have any interest in local media at all?

Howe said that around the world where there are dedicated children’s channels that are established they are holding their own against the rise of streaming services apps and websites.

“If you have kids in your whānau, you know they don’t watch television. Early in the morning you can see kids that have iPhones and from 12 or 14 months and they know how to touch the screen. They don’t even know how to use a remote control for television,” said Nicole Hoey.

“It’s about getting out in front of kids where ever they are,“ she said.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Described by a Guardian reviewer as “superb hate-reading”, writer and columnist Anand Giridharadas‘s latest book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World investigates the hypocrisy of billionaire “do-gooders”.

He questions how and why we have become reliant on the philanthropy of the super-rich to help solve our biggest global issues, and their role in eroding the public institutions that should be leading the way.

Giridharadas is an editor-at-large for Time magazine and was a foreign correspondent and columnist for The New York Times from 2005 to 2016. His two previous books are India Calling: An Intimate Portrait of a Nation’s Remaking and The True American: Murder and Mercy in Texas.

LISTEN: Kim Hill interviewing author Anand Giridharadas

He told Saturday Morning he once rubbed shoulders with the elite at Aspen Institute but had a revelation when seminar rooms there were named after some of the “worst actors in American and global life, David Koch for example and others”.

“We were discussing how to make the world better. And it occurred to me that some of these very people in the room had flown into Aspen from their jobs making the world worse.

“They worked for some of the Silicon Valley tech companies putting our democracy at risk, monopolising the economy and political power, they worked for food companies … lobbying against nutrition wavering, they worked for employers that fought against … raising minimum wages. And then they would fly to Aspen to talk about solving problems they were causing.”

Giridharadas said there was a spectrum of complicity – from the naive to the shrewd – among the richest and most powerful people in the world.

‘Shrewd’ financial crisis actions
He referred to the actions of Goldman Sachs in the global financial crisis of 2008 as shrewd.

“Tech is where the new money, the new power is.”

Tech elites like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, felt privileged because of their finances and that they had mastery over a specific set of tools which they could use to change the world, he said.

“This vision is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.”

He said neoliberalism was a notion that “you should always do what’s good for money because when you do what’s good for money, people benefit somehow”.

But the money never trickles down.

“This was a fraudulent ideology from the beginning.”

‘Reputation laundering’
At the heart of the argument of “winner takes all”, he said flamboyant do-gooding around the world increased one’s chokehold on wealth and power.

“You first get rich by cutting every possible social corner you can cut – you avoid taxes if you can avoid them, you use trusts and Cayman Islands accounts, you lobby for bottle service public policies that are good for you and your rich friends and bad for most people, you avoid paying people in creative ways by suppressing minimum wage, outsourcing to contractors.”

Bottle service, he explained, was like at a nightclub, where a patron commits to spending a large sum for it.

“You now have a lot of money, but you also have a lot of resentment if these connections are going to be made by people about what’s going on.

“Then what you do is you turn around and you start donating a fraction of that money to various forms of elite do-gooding – philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, for-profit social enterprises, maybe something involving Africa even if you’ve never been.”

He called this “reputation laundering”.

Do-gooding a smokscreen
Giridharadas said a person with money and a selfless demeanour could easily reach policymakers.

He said elite do-gooding was a smokescreen so the rich and powerful could continue to have their way.

There was a need for thought leaders to combat plutocracy, he said.

“A lot of these very wealthy business people are smart enough at business to make money and keep power, they’re not intellectuals, they’re not thinkers and they’re not necessarily gifted at spinning the web for justifications for their rule, so there is a need for quirk thinkers to supply the argumentation for an age of plutocracy.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The opposition National Party leader says he has written to the party’s board asking them to remove MP Hamish Walker from the party after it was revealed he leaked private health information to New Zealand media.

It was revealed yesterday that former National Party president Michelle Boag was responsible for leaking confidential covid-19 patients details to Hamish Walker, who then passed that information on to media.

Prior to that revelation, National Party leader Todd Muller described the leak as “loose, shabby and a reminder these guys can’t manage important things well”.

READ MORE: ‘Privacy breach has ‘ring of dirty politics’ – Hipkins
LISTEN: ‘It’s completely unacceptable” – Todd Muller

“The problem is when you’ve allowed a culture of sloppiness and clumsiness to take over and become pervasive, you know, really history suggests you need a new broom to be able to sort and set the tone from the top,” he said just a few days ago.

Minister of Health and State Services Chris Hipkins said he was disappointed about the leak and said it had “a ring of dirty politics about it”, but he did not want to prejudice the investigation.

Walker, who admitted the leak late yesterday afternoon, has already been stripped of his portfolios.

Muller told RNZ Morning Report there needed to be consequences and he has written to the party’s board asking it to remove Walker from the party.

“This behaviour is completely unacceptable,” Muller said.

Awaiting legal advice
“Muller said he became aware that Walker was responsible for the leak on Monday and was awaiting legal advice before passing that information on.

He said he had not spoken to Boag about the issue and he was not sure what the arrangement between her and Walker was.

“It doesn’t support the values I bring to the role, and it doesn’t support the values of the National Party I know.”

“I am personally, hugely angry. This is not the politics who reflects who I am as a person. It does not reflect the National Party.

The board will meet to discuss the matter today.

“Ultimately it’s a board decision, but he’s shown some serious lapses of judgement. It’s totally inappropriate.”

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards agreed it was an appalling lack of judgement.

‘Using unwell individuals as pawns’
“It’s really difficult to justify using unwell individuals as pawns in that kind of game.”

Edwards said MPs were exempt from privacy legislation so it falls to the National Party leader and board to administer discipline.

Boag, however, may have breached the Privacy Act, he said.

“I will be thinking about what, if any, response we make to that… those decisions are yet to be made.”

Edwards said he was a little surprised the Auckland Helicopter Trust had access to the details.

“It’s not immediately obvious to me as to why they would need information about people under quarantine.

“I’m very interested in understanding the breadth of that distribution of the information.”

Up to National to deal with
Quarantine Minister Megan Woods told Morning Report the matter was one for the National Party to deal with.

“We’ve been really clear, leaking of that information is really disappointing, these are New Zealanders who had returned home to be safe, they have a right to assume their data won’t be leaked to the media.”

Emergency services across the board are supplied the names of people who have covid-19, she said.

“That is because if emergency services need to come into contact with someone who has tested covid positive for whatever reason, be that an airlift or whatever, that they have that information and make sure their staff is protected.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When the New Zealand government wanted a campaign to keep kids safe online, naturally it turned to a couple of naked porn actors to get the message across.

Actually the government turned to video advertising agency Motion Sickness, which in turn created Sue and Derek, who turn up naked at a boy’s house to talk to him about real relationships.

The ad went viral. With more than 22 million views worldwide, it has been praised for its use of humour to address tough issues. Experts have hailed its contribution to the debate about online harm.

It’s just the latest example of a unique advertising culture that makes up for in creativity what it lacks in deep pockets.

There’s more where that came from.

The “Keep it real online” campaign is far from the first time Kiwi advertising has used humour to broach controversial subjects. Film director Taika Waititi’s “Blazed” employed his signature comedic approach to tackle drugged driving.

Read more: Social media platforms need to do more to stop junk food marketers targeting children

Elsewhere, the drink-driving campaign “Legend” gave New Zealand the now iconic line, “You know I can’t eat your ghost chips.”

The “Pre-testie Bestie” campaign used authentic millennial humour and language to combat fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It became YouTube’s most successful public awareness campaign in Australia and New Zealand.

Other examples include “Champions for Change”, which addresses unconscious bias, “Go Balls Out”, which confronts testicular cancer, “If It’s Not Gay, It’s Not Gay”, which addresses homophobia, and “Give Nothing to Racism”, which tackles human rights.

Small, tight, unique

What seems to set New Zealand apart is a combination of smaller budgets, tighter agency-client relationships and a unique sense of humour.

New Zealand advertising budgets are tiny compared to those in larger markets. This rules out epic shoots but puts more emphasis on creativity.

Celebrity endorsements are also rare since New Zealand doesn’t have many high-profile celebrities and advertisers can rarely afford international stars. The exception might be Prime Minister Jacinda Adern and her husband who made special appearances in a comic tourism pitch to “get NZ on the map”.

Rather than rely on endless repetition of an ad, New Zealand agencies would rather spend their smaller budgets on creating and crafting commercials that are engaging, memorable and shareable.

The “Keep it real” campaign is a great example of a good idea being shared organically and having a far larger reach than the modest media budget would have allowed on its own.

Getting intimate with clients

Like the budgets, New Zealand marketing teams are tiny compared to overseas. But, as with the budgets, this has benefits. Smaller teams mean fewer levels of approval and easier access to decision-makers.

Smaller, more intimate teams allow for more open discussions about concepts both within the client organisation and with advertising agencies. As “Keep it real” shows, small and agile teams can collaborate effectively and creatively to address controversial subject matter.

Read more: Brands may support Black Lives Matter, but advertising still needs to decolonise

That campaign – which includes billboards, posters, print ads, social media and its own website – took only four weeks to create. This is even more impressive given the client was the government and several of its agencies, including Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Education and the police.

Kiwi comedy

Another important but intangible ingredient is the New Zealand sense of humour and the way it informs local culture. Laconic, understated and self-deprecating, it’s perhaps best summed up in the deadpan laughs of The Flight of the Conchords and the films of Taika Waititi, such as Boy and his vampire comedy, What We Do In The Shadows.

As comedian James Nokise put it, “Kiwi humour sort of comes from late-night chats round a table, either in the kitchen, pub, or garage … we’re small enough that we’ve managed to take the kind of intimate family humour and apply it to the whole country.”

Read more: Children can be exposed to sexual predators online, so how can parents teach them to be safe?

This comic sensibility comes through in the country’s advertising. It’s ideal for discussing subjects some people find awkward or hard to tackle – such as talking to children about online pornography.

As the first comment under the “Keep it real” video on YouTube says, “Wow they never do anything like this in the United States lol.”

Creativity v COVID-19

The timing of the “Keep it real” campaign was also opportune. New Zealand had just entered strict lockdown and people were spending their days learning and working online. A little comic relief was very welcome.

Since then, advertising agencies have been finding creative ways to help local businesses – offering free media space, pay-what-you-want website design, strategic planning and even a way to sell bagels during a pandemic.

The country is now out of its COVID-19 lockdown and Kiwis are being encouraged to get out and support local businesses. Hopefully, this kind of nimble, ingenious and brave creativity will be an integral part of the economic recovery too.

– ref. Small budgets, big ideas — what a viral adult film awareness campaign tells us about New Zealand advertising – https://theconversation.com/small-budgets-big-ideas-what-a-viral-adult-film-awareness-campaign-tells-us-about-new-zealand-advertising-141529

New Zealand established its credentials as an independent small nation after the fatal bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in 1985, says an author and academic who spent weeks on the vessel shortly before it was attacked.

On 10 July 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was sunk at an Auckland wharf by two bombs planted on the hull of the ship by French secret agents.

The event is often referred to as the first act of terrorism in New Zealand.

LISTEN: The Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan Crime NZ interview with David Robie
WATCH: Eyes of Fire archival videos
READ: The Eyes of Fire book

Two French agents planted two explosives on the ship while it was berthed at Marsden wharf, the second explosion killing Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira.

Dr David Robie, who is an AUT professor of journalism and communication studies, as well as the director of the university’s Pacific Media Centre, had spent more than 10 weeks on the ship as a journalist covering its nuclear rescue mission in the Pacific.

He wrote about his experience in Eyes of Fire, a book about the last voyage of the first Rainbow Warrior – two other Rainbow Warrior ships have followed.

In 1985, Rongelap atoll villagers in the Marshall Islands asked Greenpeace to help them relocate to a new home at Mejato atoll. Their island had been contaminated by radioactive fallout from US atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

Environmental journalism
“At the time I was very involved in environmental issues around the Pacific and in those days Greenpeace was very small, a fledgling organisation,” he tells Jesse Mulligan.

“They had a little office in downtown Auckland and Elaine Shaw was the coordinator and she was quite worried that this was going to be a threshold voyage.

“It was probably the first campaign by Greenpeace that was humanitarian, it wasn’t just environmental – to rescue basically the people who had been suffering from nuclear radiation.”

Shaw, he says, was looking for media publicity on the issue and several journalists from Europe and the US had been invited on board as the Greenpeace crew carried out their mission.

“There were about six journalists who went onboard but I ended up being the only one from the Southern Hemisphere.

“It was a big commitment at the time because I was a freelance journalist and it meant joining the Rainbow Warrior in Hawai’i and being onboard until 10-to-11 weeks, right up until the time of the bombing.”

He says the 49m ex-fishing trawler, originally named the Sir William Hardy, built in Aberdeen, Scotland, had been comfortable enough at sea, having been refitted as an environmental sailing ship as well as engines. “It had a lot of character… I guess all of us onboard grew to love it incredibly.”

Moruroa protest planned
The US had carried out 67 nuclear tests at the Marshall Islands. France was also carrying out 193 tests in the Pacific and Greenpeace had planned on confronting that situation at Moruroa Atoll after its Marshall Islands rescue effort.

New Zealand had already voiced disapproval of the testing in the region, with then Prime Minister David Lange in 1984 rebuking the French for “arrogantly” continuing the programme in the country’s backyard.

Dr Robie left the ship when it docked in Auckland after the Marshall Islands stage of the mission. Three days after the ship had docked, a birthday celebration was held for  Greenpeace campaign organiser Steve Sawyer onboard. The attack happened after the party.

Just before midnight on the evening of 10 July 1985, two explosions ripped through the hull as the ship.

Portuguese crew member Fernando Pereira was killed after returning on board after the first explosion.

“I think it was an incredible miracle that only one person lost his life,” Dr Robie says. He was not at the party at the time and joined the crew early it the morning when he heard the news.

He objects to the prominent media angle at the time, which he says focused on suggestions it was not the perpetrator’s intention to kill anyone.

‘Outrageous act of terrorism’
“It was an outrageous act of terrorism and the bombers knew very well, as they were getting information all the time, that there was a large crowd onboard the Rainbow Warrior that night and the chances were very high that there could have been a loss of life.”

Two of the cabin crew were situated immediately above the engine room when the first bomb planted there went off. The second bomb was planted near the propeller to ensure the ship was hobbled.

Dr Robie had been able to visit the ship later after it had been towed to Devonport naval base.

“I was quiet staggered – my old [cabin] floor had sort of erupted, Fernando had a cabin right close to that and he probably got trapped there.”

Thirteen foreign agents were involved, operating in three teams. The first team brought in the explosives, the second team would plant these and the third was on stand-by in case anything went wrong with the first two teams.

“A commanding officer kept an overview of the whole operation. I think there was an element of arrogance, the same arrogance as with the testing itself. There was a huge amount of arrogance about taking on an operation like this in a peaceful country – we were allies of France at the time – and it is extraordinary that they assumed they could get away with this outrageous act.”

Two of the spies were caught. Two General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) officers, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, were arrested on July 24. Both were charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Repression of independence movements
“You have to see it within the context of the period of the time,” Dr Robie says.

He says that the French policy of repression against independence movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti, with assassinations of Kanak leaders like Eloi Machoro, needed to be understood to put the Rainbow Warrior attack in perspective. France was bitterly defending its nuclear force de frappe.

“New Zealand was unpopular with the major nuclear powers and there was certainly no sympathy for New Zealand’s position about nuclear testing. So, there wasn’t really any co-operation, even from our closest neighbour, Australia.

“Had we had more cooperation… we probably would have got agents who were on board the Ouvea, the yacht that carried the explosives, in Norfolk Island. But it is extraordinary we got two [agents] anyway.

“But we did not benefit in any way from [state] intelligence… so I think we were very much let down by our intelligence community.”

The case was a source of considerable embarrassment to the French government.

“They did pay compensation after arbitration that went on with the New Zealand government and Greenpeace. But justice was never really served… the 10 years were never served, both Prieur and Mafart were part of the negotiations with French government.

NZ was held ‘over a barrel’
“Basically, France had New Zealand over a barrel over trade and the European Union, so compromises were reached and Prieur and Mafart were handed over to France for three years. Essentially house arrest at Hao atoll, the rear base of the French nuclear operations in Polynesia.”

Dr Robie said the rear base was widely regarded as a military “Club Med”.

He says they didn’t even spend three years there, but left for France within the time period.

While the attack was on an international organisation rather than New Zealand itself, most New Zealanders saw it as an attack on the sovereignty of the nation

Dr Robie says it left a long-lasting impression on New Zealanders.

“It was a baptism of fire. It was a loss of innocence when that happened. And in that context, we had stood up as a small nation on being nuclear-free. Something we should have been absolutely proud of, which we were, with all those who campaigned for that at the time. I think that really established our independence, if you like, as a small nation.

“I think we have a lot to contribute to the world in terms of peace-making and we shouldn’t lose track of that. The courage that was shown by this country, standing up to a major nuclear power. We should follow through on that kind of independence of thought.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz