Category Archives: New Zealand society, culture, politics

Rachel Smalley and the dangerous waters of female opinion

Posted on April 5, 2014 by Sparrowhawk/Kārearea

As a former broadcaster in a previous life I still, occasionally, suffer the broadcaster’s recurring ‘dead air’ dream. The one where the song has finished playing, and a yawning chasm of silence has descended on the studio, waiting for me to back-announce, or jibber-jabber some other reassuring words to you, Dear Listener. And I can’t do it because I am hammering on the locked studio door, from the outside. Yet through the glass panel I can still see the record spinning, pointlessly, and soundlessly. (Well, like I said, my broadcasting days are a few years ago now!). Ms Smalley will probably have a similar dream about the comments she inadvertently made on-air naming New Zealand women over a certain weight as ‘heifers’ and ‘lardos’. Only her dream will likely remain a waking nightmare for years to come perhaps until she reconciles herself with what she said and what she thought at the time she said it. If she ever does.

My dream (and other professions will have similar dreams, no doubt) is, and was, an anxiety dream. In my dream, I am supposed to perform, and I fail. It doesn’t matter what the reason are for the failure, there it is, my inadequacy exposed for all to hear. I don’t actually remember if I ever did leave ‘dead air’ out there for any lengthy period of time; the imagery of my dream has overtaken the humdrum reality of a pretty ordinary job.

In no way is this blogpost intended to be an examination of Rachel Smalley, or her professionalism, or even of her ethics. Those are her private matters, and I wish her well. My interest is really in that exposure that broadcasters experience in a way that few other professions really do, and how broadcasters must reconcile their inner lives with their public personas. As I type now, I can cast and recast my sentences to make me seem better than I am; I can choose to delete my annoying adverbs, I can pull my punches so as not to offend, or, for that matter, generate any interest. Broadcasters, like other public performers don’t have that luxury, and are usually trained so as to minimise the risk of on-air stuff ups. Of course, we all want just a few on air stuff ups, as they can become the stuff of legend. A couple of my favourites include Wendy Petrie’s fist-pump, outside the courthouse when the Bain verdict was to be released, and Jim Hickey’s notorious invention of the word ‘come-burger’ as a companion to the more usual ‘gone-burger’ during a weather bulletin in 2007. “Heifers and Lardos” will probably find their way into the same pantheon, and life will carry on, eventually. But the broadcasters who commit such little faux pas may likely chew on them far longer than the public will, because of what they fear those moments reveal about them personally. I recall the ultimate exoneration of Petrie’s ‘fist-pump’ came about as people realised her action was not about agreeing with the verdict, but about the elation of doing a good live cross. The alternative scenario was unthinkable; that Petrie was a journalist expressing an opinion, ‘editorialising’ the news, especially with what was (by then becoming) an unpopular opinion. I don’t know if Jim Hickey ever realised what he added to New Zealand’s obscenity lexicon, but Rachel Smalley’s apology indicates that she was mortified at being thought of as having held an opinion like the one she apparently expressed: “It was stupid, it was judgmental and offensive. It was not made as a statement of fact and it was in no way representative of any opinion I have ever held, ever. And I’m sorry, I truly am.” (http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/rachel-smalley-s-tearful-air-apology-after-calling-kiwi-women-lardos-5883829.

It interests me that a broadcaster such as Smalley denies the possibility that she holds the opinion she expressed. Even more, it interests me that she is currently being excoriated on social media (on my Twitter and FB feeds for example) for having (or presumably having) such opinions in the first place, thus not being a ‘good enough role model’ for our young and not so young women. Oh for crying out loud. Putting aside my deep misgivings about anybody being a ‘role model’, it makes me uneasy at how ferocious we can be at high profile women when they express opinions, especially about other women. As one of my own FB friends put it, neatly reflecting the general tenor of much of what I have seen on social media: “F*** you and your tears, Rachel Smalley. In the same vein of your comments to other women: you are just a weak whiny b*** who is crying because you got snapped out not because what you said was awful. Women have enough issues without other women attacking them for weight issues.” [**** added, for extra delicacy]. In this, and other angry expressions, Smalley has become a mirror for other people’s (women’s) insecurities and fears about themselves and their own lives. Comment negatively about women’s weight as a feature of the New Zealand populace and one likely becomes, as Smalley has discovered, a ‘fat-shamer’ a hater of women’s bodies, a purveyor of patriarchy. It matters not that the comments were meant to be private, or whether she said them loudly, proudly and intentionally. The result, I think, would have been the same. Simply put, a high-profile female broadcaster just oughtn’t think like that. Apparently.

I wonder if this response to Smalley provides us with a reason as to why we have relatively few female broadcasters that might be accused of having known political beliefs or actual opinions. We have some fantastic female broadcasters, but only a few would be able to come out of this kind of attention unscathed. Kim Hill, Linda Clarke, Mihingarangi Forbes, Carol Hirschfeld, Pauline Gillespie, all strong women who do hold opinions, have all probably got their own ‘dead-air’ nightmares they could tell you about, but all of them are probably long enough in the tooth (except perhaps Forbes) to come through such an episode without inciting perhaps so much of a Twitter hate-storm. None of them is known for outrageous opinions, all of them are intelligent, articulate, and eminently professional. Perhaps a good exception to the trend might be Pam Corkery, who was certainly known as an unapologetic ‘personality’ in broadcasting. In comparison, the list of male broadcasters that could, and actually do, get away with pungent views is far longer: Paul Holmes, Paul Henry, Willie Jackson, Mark Richardson, Kevin Black, Michael Laws, Duncan Garner, John Campbell, Derek Fox, Marcus Lush, Sean Plunket, just to name a few. In short, and based on my pretty unscientific analysis, we prefer our male broadcasters to have a degree of personality; to be seen to be bucking current conventional thinking perhaps, and even those that attract the most vituperation (Henry, Holmes, etc) have appropriately large followings that insulate them (so it seems). We are less able, it appears, to allow our female broadcasters quite the same latitude in having and expressing opinions that might rankle with some. While there are exceptions to this observation, obviously, it still is a shame, to my view, that a high profile broadcaster feels the need to apologise for what people thought she thought, rather than for what she did. A nightmare, indeed.

Why RNZ’s ‘The Panel’ annoys me, but I keep listening anyway.

Posted on April 1, 2014 by Sparrowhawk/Kārearea

In the wake of the understandable fuss and nostalgia accompanying Geoff Robinson’s retirement from Morning Report, I have been thinking a little bit about RNZ’s sleepier and gentler Afternoons show, shortly to be revamped itself with the addition of Simon Mercep. I’m hoping a little bit of substantial change might be coming, I really am. Not, I hasten to add, that I entirely dislike the current offering.

Jim Mora’s Afternoon’s show over the past few years on Radio New Zealand National has often provided the backdrop for my working afternoons. From ‘The Best Song Ever Written’ to the Feature Album of the day, to the New Zealand reading, Jim’s affable manner and the range of non-famous and non-expert voices on his show provides enough of a background murmur that I leave the radio on, rather than switch to something more urgent, or demanding of my attention. I actually like hearing people I know nothing about talking about things of interest to them and describing events of their local area, or topics of local interest. I prefer this groundedness, and can find such voices quietly compelling, if I actually focus.

My blood temperature usually rises, after 3.45, however, as Jim introduces the members of the Panel for the next hour, and the rise of the end theme leading into the 5pm news will sometimes see me in a bit of a lather. The strangled ejaculations that might be heard coming from my office usually reveal a theme. “For crying out loud, what the hell does he know about it? The man’s never met a real live Māori in his life!’ ‘Why the hell don’t they have people on that bloody show who know something about the topic!’ and the evergreen ‘Oh for F***’s sake! That’s it, I’m never listening to that crap ever again.’ Now to be fair, I need to make a disclosure or two. I have asked Jim (unsuccessfully) by email a couple of times over the last few years to be interviewed on the show about some of the work I’ve been doing (well, hey, easier than driving round the city with a loudhailer, right?) so I could be accused of sour grapes of the ‘I-would-be-so-much-better-than-that-total-ignoramus’ variety. Maybe that’s all there is to it. But I am a listener too, and although the aforementioned apoplexy is not a common occurrence (maybe once a week or a fortnight) it happens often enough, and I see enough Twitter commentary to ask myself: “why do I have a problem with the Panel, and why the hell do I keep it on?”.

There are a couple of main reasons for my allergic reaction to the Panel. One is the obvious and persistent lack of cultural variety. Another is the lack of voices from varying socio-economic perspectives. Yes, those two points are certainly related. Looking back over all episodes of The Panel this year only one consistent Māori voice has appeared (twice) -Chris Wikaira’s. Only very rarely are other Māori commentators or experts drafted in to the show for their views on presenting issues. Diversity, of course, does not just require Māori voices, but those of other cultures, other perspectives, even. I had a quick look over all the Panels held so far this year, and there are well over 50 individual panellists, with a few of those having or or three appearances since the beginning of the year. There are some pretty recognisable names among them; Jane Clifton, Mike Williams, Sir Bruce Slane, Bernard Hickey, Garry Moore, Mark Inglis, Josie Pagani, David Slack, Peter Elliot, Tim Watkin, Rosemary McLeod, Finlay McDonald, Jeremy Ellwood, Michelle Boag, Brian Edwards, Gary McCormick, Mai Chen. Some commentators are not as well known to me, but still have significant public profiles due to the work or activities they carry out. Ali Jones. Megan-Nicol Reed, Fa’amatuainu Tino Pereira, Sapna Samant, Most of these names are affixed to people I enjoy listening to, or paying attention to, in their ‘other lives’ as commentators, journalists, writers, television personalities, politicos. All of them have interesting lives, interesting backstories, interesting things to say. I have no axe to grind with any of them. It’s just that the parade is so unleavened by difference or perspectives from outside New Zealand’s cultural and middle class mainstream. Completely acknowledging that I may inadvertently be excluding someone here out of ignorance, it seems to me that the burden of representing (for example) the cultural differences of Asia, Pasifika and Māori are carried by Chris, Tino Pereira, Sapna Samant, and Mai Chen. A heck of a burden that, to ‘represent’ such a broad and heterogenous range of people.

Of course, a counter argument that one might raise (in the absence of knowing how the Panel is actually chosen) is that the Panel members are surely chosen for their listenability (if that’s a word..), for their engagement, for their lively interest in matters New Zealand. Why saddle such individuals with the burden of representing an entire culture? Yep. I totally get that, and the idea that one person can ever be the Pasifika Voice or the Māori Voice, or the Poor Person’s Voice is cringeworthy indeed. I have experienced moments, when, in a room full of nice Pākehā (no, not an ironic nice) I’m asked asked for my opinion because apparently I represent ‘How Māori Think’. I’m not fond of the sight of heads swivelling in my direction just on the basis of my putative cultural credentials. So I’m reluctant to impose that kind of expectation on anyone. But to use that reasoning as a basis upon which NOT to seek out people from all kinds of backgrounds seems, to me, short-sighted.

Of course, I’m not privy to the conversations engaged in between the producers and Jim about the composition of the Panel.

Actually, I quite admire what seems to me to be the thinking behind the creation of the Panel. Bring together a different couple of engaging and thoughtful people every day to throw around some issues of the day and see what happens. Panel members are not usually ‘qualified experts’ in anything, although they may have public profile and have reached dizzying heights in their individual professions. They are reasonably intelligent people with life experience, and something to say. The Panel, it seems to me, tries to strike a functional balance between excluding one kind of risk posed in talkback radio (relatively unmediated public input that can tip over into small-minded prejudice all too often) and the risk posed by modern thirst for expert commentators. The world has quite enough blimmin’ experts, and it is one of Jim Mora’s strengths (and Afternoons’) that they are committed, it seems to giving a platform to ordinary voices, thereby charting a middle path between the two extremes mentioned above.

It’s not that laudable apparent intent I take issue with. It’s the irredeemably narrow definition of ‘ordinary’ that gets to me. The Panel, by and large (and not exclusively), is comprised of middle class people who are either salary earners or self employed. Most of the people on the Panel do not ordinarily hang out at a local marae, or footy club. They don’t (most of them) speak more than one language (so therefore are unlikely to bring to the job some of that freshness that comes from understanding the world through a different vocabulary), they don’t punch time-cards, they are not at risk from the downturn in the manufacturing sector. I’d be surprised if more than a few are religious. I don’t think the Panel is elitist, and I’m sure they would be horrified at such a charge (so just as well I don’t make it). They are what they are, and that’s all they can bring to the table when issues of culture, race, or something else beyond their ken arises. That’s all anyone can bring, and they have just as much right to opinions about those things as anyone else. I have no problem with men talking or writing about women’s experiences. Nor do I have problems with Pākehā or Chinese talking about Māori culture. I just prefer some familiarity or effort put into understanding those things which we were not raised with before we pronounce upon them. The image in my mind’s eye that explains the gap between the Panel’s expressed perspectives and those of the other swathes of ordinary people that don’t get a look in is that of a small gathering of people in a corporate box peering down on a sportsfield. The group is interpreting the action for the like-minded people around them. Except sometimes the game they are talking about is rugby union when what’s actually being played is soccer; they just don’t know it. I hope the changes at RNZ sets the scene for a broader definition of ordinariness. I’m not, however, holding my breath. And yes, I still listen to Afternoons.

2 Comments

Posted in New Zealand society, culture, politics and tagged Jim Mora, Radio New Zealand National. Bookmark the permalink.

Derek Fox, and the mystery of the public dollar

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Sparrowhawk/Kārearea

It takes a special kind of bellicosity to both dissemble and attack Geoff Robinson on Morning Report in response to innocuous questions such as ‘Are there any life members on the Kōhanga Reo Trust?’, but Derek manages that kind of uncomfortable and unhelpful combination with unfortunate aplomb. My personal distaste for Derek’s style aside though, his question (and one also discussed on Paul Henry’s show last night, albeity briefly) of ‘when does a public dollar stop being a public dollar’ merits attention. But I’m not sure why it does. Probably because of its superficial (and deceptive) simplicity. Derek challenged Geoff by saying (and I paraphrase): ‘When you go to the grocery store and pay for your groceries are you then spending public dollars?’ Geoff responded, “well of course not, that’s my money, I can do with it what I like’. ”Well, same diff!’ crowed Fox. (well, in more words than that, but you get my drift). Sorry Derek, that is just plain wrong, and worse, it is disingenuous. Let’s look at what Te Pātaka Ōhanga does. From some comments like Derek’s, you’d think they were purely contract service providers themselves, and so, you might be forgiven for thinking they are paid a contract price for their services, and just like an insurance company would receive payment for insurance taken out by some publicly funded agency, and then what they do with that money is their business and not open to public scrutiny. The lines are nowhere near as clearly drawn here. Look at the opening sentence on the TPO website: Te Pataka Ohanga Limited (TPO) is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Te Kohanga Reo National Trust and was formed to help manage the growth of Te Kohanga Reo and maximize the bargaining power through strategic partnerships with providers, allowing quality services and products at discounted rates. While the entity might be owned by Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust, clearly TPO does things for and behalf of Te Kohanga Reo. That impression is strengthened in the next sentence: Te Pataka Ohanga Ltd also manages a range of services, on behalf of Kohanga like insurance, mokopuna oranga pumau, scholarships, computers (Dell), Internet service providers (ICONZ), Fuel Cards and many more listed on this web site. According to Māori TV’s Maiki Sherman:

‘However, according to Te Pātaka Ohanga’s constitution, it was established solely to manage the economic activities of the National Trust. Also, all profits not reinvested in the company are transferred to Te Kōhanga Reo or an approved charity.

Is Fox trying to argue that these functions are entirely private ones, not in any way connected with the public nature of the funding received by TPO in the first place? TPO is not analagous to the insurance company, nor is it analogous to the salaried public radio broadcaster buying his milk and bread with that salary. Geoff, in buying his milk and bread is carrying out a private function, and his salary was tagged for that purpose, and reported as such in the relevant financial reporting documents. Geoff is at the end of that process, and when the money is in his possession, there is no accountability back to his employer. TPO, by contrast, is intimately involved, and indeed responsible for the economic activities of the parent trust. TPO is not at end of the funding chain, and what they do with the money reflects on Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust, and don’t forget, the leftovers of that money goes back to TKRNT (or another nominated charity). I’ll bet Geoff doesn’t give his leftovers back to Radio New Zealand.

Fox’s defensiveness doesn’t help Te Kōhanga Reo, although I understand entirely his desire to protect and defend what the Trust does. He should understand that he is helping to achieve the opposite. Kāore taea e te tipu e rea, mēnā kua ngaro a Tamanuiterā.

It’s the Māori economy, stupid.

Posted on March 19, 2014 by Sparrowhawk/Kārearea

Listening to Māori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell is kind of depressing right now, as he speaks with Kathryn Ryan on Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon. The Māori Party wishes to be a kingmaker, so Te Ururoa says. OK, fair enough. The Māori Party wishes to provide an independent voice for Māoridom. That’s fine too, notwithstanding all the problems relationships with larger parties present. I get that relationships in politics matter, and the Māori Party have had the traction that they have managed so far under this government by their pursuit of positive relationships with National in general, and John Key in particular. So far, so good. But as a voter enrolled on the Māori Roll I am waiting to hear from the Māori Party what their vision of the New Zealand economy is, and what the Māori economy should look like under the next government. I know the Māori party cares about the Māori economy and about improving Māori economic participation, because they have a strategy on it: http://maoriparty.org/maori-economic-strategy/. THIS is where the Māori Party needs to pitch for Māori votes because, just like Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential nomination campaign, the biggest issue for Māori, Pākehā and all other groups in this country is “the economy, stupid!’ Whānau Ora is a great, as yet inchoate, achievement, the messages of empowerment are important, but I want to hear about regional development for jobs for my whanaunga in Kaitaia and Whakatāne. Why the heck isn’t the Māori Party reporting back on the achievements and work undertaken by the Māori Economic Taskforce? The goals of the Strategy? Future directions of a post-settlement economy? Principles of economic development? As a thinking human being I am very interested in constitutional reform, and the in debating Māori rights and status. As a Māori voter I need to know nuts and bolts and where the hell the Māori Party will seek to take Māori economic development. 20 minutes of interview so far and not a sausage, not even a porkbone on this one.