Download Some A+ 370 worksheets - The University of Auckland

[Type here]
Māori 370: Māori and the Media- Te Ao Paho
Collected Worksheets
Worksheets:
-
Week 2; Barry Barclay ♦
-
Week 3; Sue Abel ♦
-
Week 5; Leonie Pihama ♦
-
Week 7; Sue Abel
-
Week 9; Folker Hanusch
-
Additional Worksheet; Context ♦
Worksheets marked with a ‘♦’ are the four that I wish to submit as my final selection.
1
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET FOR WEEK 2 TUTORIAL
Barclay, Barry (1990). Talking In. Our Own Image. Auckland: Longman Paul. Pp. 74-80.
1) Put in your own words what Barry Barclay means by "a communications marae".
In his discussion of ‘talking in’ and ‘talking out’ Barry Barclay proposes that indigenous film
and television should take on aspects of marae protocol: Barclay terms this approach to the
production of media a “communications marae”.
The author goes on to explore the failings of certain approaches to producing Māori film and
television, using the example of the Tangata Whenua series. Barclay notes that the series
‘talked out’, and failed because of this. The crux of the issue was (and still is) that the
audience (i.e. the majority culture, who do not speak the language or understand the world of
the minority culture) are “like a sponge” (p. 76) in absorbing endless insider information, but
failing to truly grasp its nature or learn the importance of such information. All in all, the
‘talking out’ approach has merely repeatedly re-fed the majority culture information without
affecting substantive knowledge or understanding.
Balancing his argument, Barclay comments that the opposing policy of ‘talking in’ could
potentially “close off Māori culture to anybody who is not Māori” (p. 76). The remedy to
this, as the author proposes, would be forming a cognitive framework around producing
Māori media Barclay calls a “communications marae”. This imaginary marae would retain
many of the qualities a traditional marae might, and aid in retaining the authenticity of the
work. Furthermore, tikanga must be adhered to while outsiders (manuhiri) are within the
marae.
To Barclay, the concept of a communications marae is imbued with the rigidity of rules and
practices common to a physical marae. It would be worth considering whether Barclay’s
concept could be open to individual interpretation and evolution as other concepts of te ao
Māori are. For instance, we see terms like ‘tikanga’ (often translated in English as the right
way of doings things, or the authentic way) growing with the times and adapting to the
scenario they are fitting within. Distingushed Professor Anne Salmond proposes that tikanga
is often labelled as an ancestral way of doings things, but must also carry relevance into the
present and future to truly be an integral aspect of te ao Māori. Ensuring the livelihood of
tikanga simultaneously means opening it up, and using it in a way that perhaps does not fit
perfectly with its ancestral use.
In the same way tikanga is what is intrinsically right, and thereby an authentic action or
speech (or any other thing that stems from tikanga), ‘talking in’ can carry the same kind of
authenticity. Barclay surmises this as such:
I see it as asserting a cultural confidence so that, if we shape things our own
way, we shall come to make images that will be attractive to those humans on
the planet who wish to enjoy them… I am talking about a minority being
confident enough to talk with its own voice about whatever it chooses and as
it does so, having a feeling that the talk will be of interest to others who wish
to drop in (p. 78, emphasis added)
What is tika is not static, nor is a communications marae. The work Barclay offers is useful in
its insitence that effetive indigenous media must stem from a confidence in its Māoridom,
and in its right to work within protocols and custom found on a marae.
2
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET FOR WEEK 3 TUTORIAL
Abel, Sue. Māori Televison, its Pākehā audience and issues of colonisation. Studies in
Australian Cinemas 7 (2 & 3). Pp. 111-121.
1) Choose anything from my article ‘Māori Television, its Pakeha audience and issues of
decolonisation’ and discuss it briefly.
When I first pondered who and what the audience of Māori Television may look like, the
word ‘Pākehā’ did not immediately spring to mind. I have come to learn- by means of Māori
130 and 370- that the audience of the nation’s indigenous broadcaster is predominantly
Pākehā. As Abel’s article explores, the inclusion of Pākehā (and non-indigenous; I, like Abel,
use the term to mean white/Caucasian) among the audience of an indigenous broadcaster is
something that Māori Television needs to cater for and consider in its intentions.
Abel illuminates the way in which Pākehā are intended to be included in the opportunities to
experience te reo, tikanga, and other aspects of Māori culture provided by Māori Television’s
broadcasting within their statements of intent. Statements of Intent released by Māori
Television reveal the many dreams and desires of the broadcaster; one of these is to connect
non-Māori to aspects of te ao Māori (such as reo, tikanga, and culture in general). However,
Abel concludes her piece with the assessment that Māori Television does not achieve its goal
of cultural connection. It does, however, achieve another goal of great importance1: Māori
Television provides and strengthens a sense of national identity within New Zealanders that
mainstream media fails to ignite.
In considering how Pākehā are to be included within the audience of Māori Television, it is
worth considering what Māori Television offers Pākehā that other commercial television
channels (which are dominated by Pākehā world views) do not. To Abel, an element lacking
in mainstream media is a sense of national identity as New Zealanders. What do mainstream
media platforms (particularly dominant television channels, such as TV One, TV 2, TV 3,
FOUR, and Prime) provide in terms of content that will shape nationhood in some way? If we
consider that a large portion of content shown on these channels is imported- for example,
endless crime dramas from the U.S such as CSI and Law and Order, a handful of cooking
shows from Australia including Masterchef and My Kitchen Rules, and a variety of dramas
from the U.K. including Coronation Street- commercial media is achieving its most pertinent
goal: keeping ratings high, attracting advertisers, and bringing in profit.
Though I have yet to review the literature on representations Māori and Māori issues within
mainstream media, I feel confident enough in echoing Abel’s claim that it fails to educate the
audience on colonisation, the enduring effects it has (besides painting polarising pictures of
our tangātā whenua, and promoting stereotype and stigma), and the rationales behind
In typing this sentence, I initially wrote ‘of equal importance’, then paused to consider if that was really the
case. While contributing to New Zealand’s sense of nationhood is important, it is perhaps not as vital to the
enrichment and revitalisation of te ao Māori as the goal of connecting non- Māori to the Māori world.
Additionally, Abel’s article (and other works cited) demonstrates that Māori Television does contribute to a
sense of nationhood in the minds of Pākehā viewers. In light of this achievement, efforts should be directed to
connecting Pākehā with the world views and experiences pertaining to te ao Māori.
1
3
[Type here]
decolonialisation initiatives. In doing so, mainstream media is a passive agent in shaping a
nation who is ignorant to history as told by indigenous voices and indigenous issues.
4
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET FOR WEEK 5 TUTORIAL
Pihama, Leonie (2012). A Short Commentary on Boy. New Zealand Journal of Media
Studies. 13 (1). Pp 59-61.
2) If you have seen Taika Waititi’s film Boy: read Leonie Pihama’s ‘A Short
Commentary on Boy’. To what extent do you agree or disagree with her
commentary? Explain why.
My first viewing of Boy was at the tender age of 15: I laughed so heartily that I clutched at
the cinema walls, and my friends and I left the theatre full of joy. We all felt a sense of pride
stemming from our shared belief that this was the best piece of New Zealand produced film
that we had seen. My own review of the film was positive, and glowing with a sense of
nationhood. Upon first reading Pihama’s commentary on Boy, I was consumed by
disagreement. Surely, Boy was not a film ridden with damaging stereotypes, touches of
domestic violence or a harmful representation of Māori - or was it?
Though it was difficult to read critical commentary on one of my favourite films, Leonie
Pihama’s comments are deftly written and astute. A critical eye, and the author’s employment
of Kaupapa Māori film theory, reveals the film’s reproduction of stereotypical views of “what
it means to be Māori” (p. 59) and a failure to move beyond this form of representation.
Pihama asserts that Boy fulfils the conditions of being a ‘Māori movie’ (as it is written,
directed and produced by Māori), whilst failing to undertake the requirements of a ‘Kaupapa
Māori’ movies. Kaupapa Māori encapsulates many concepts and requirements; one of these
is an understanding of obligation and accountability to Māori. Under the responsibilities
carried by a Māori film maker, the need to offer the audience an alternative image and story
of Māori and tikanga is essential to Kaupapa Māori.
Here, the work of Angela Moewaka-Barnes (2011) is useful for weighing up Boy against
Kaupapa Māori film theory. Moewaka-Barnes observes that while the obligations under this
theory can lead to empowering media, they may also lumber the producer of these works.
The “burden of representation” is one that sits with indigenous filmmakers and compels them
to tell a story that will challenge and destroy stereotypes of the oppressed (p. 13).
In Boy, director and writer Taika Waititi does not live up to the expectations of Kaupapa
Māori. Indeed, Waititi expressed his desire to not be “boxed as the indigenous filmmaker
guy” (quoted in Moewaka-Barnes, p 14). Furthermore, Waititi articulated his motives of
representation in Boy as to present Māori in his film as “normal, awkward people- Indigenous
geeks” (Pihama, p. 60). Herein, we have the answer to Pihama’s quarrels with the film: Boy is
not a Kaupapa Māori film by any means, and does not have to answer to the call and critique
of Kaupapa Māori theorists. However, the sheer need for alternative depictions of Māori and
Māori lives, values, and te reo could be considered as something that should weigh on the
mind of a Māori film director.
Though I do believe that an adherence to Kaupapa Māori film theory would create media that
functions to challenge stereotypes and present the audience with a story that Māori would be
5
[Type here]
proud to tell, Waititi’s ethnicity does not (and should not) oblige him to produce such
content. I consider Pihama’s commentary to be one of those instances where being Māori is
misconstrued as a will and desire to speak for Māori, conform to dominant notions of Māori
authenticity, and consciously produce all content in a (Kaupapa) Māori way.
Works Cited:
Barnes, Angela Moewaka (2011). Kaupapa Māori Film Theory. Edited excerpt from Ngā Kai
Para I te Kahikātoa: Māori Filmmaking, Forging a Path. Unpublished PhD, University of
Auckland.
6
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET FOR WEEK 7 TUTORIAL
Abel, Sue (2013). Māori, Media and Politics. In Babak Bahador et al. (Eds.) Politics and
Media. Auckland: Pearson. Pp. 257-269.
1) ‘My chapter ‘Māori, Media and Politics’.
Choose one section of this chapter and explain why you think it is important or
interesting to you.’
‘Us and Them’
The notion that Māori are separate from ‘us’, and thereby fall into the category of ‘them’
saturates the construction and framing of mainstream news media. When we consider that the
mainstream operates from a Pākehā-centric position (or Eurocentric/settler-centric/non-Māori
point of view), it seems only natural that groups who fall outside of the Pākehā label are
named in their outsider-ness.
Labelling a group as ‘them’ is a deeply problematic flower which has a habit of unfurling into
issues of injustice and inequality, and further serves to contextualise ‘them’ as a problematic
group. Abel quotes news scholar Van Dijk, who asserts that minority groups are often victim
to this kind of labelling. As we may expect (and indeed, observe), categorising minorities as
‘them’ situates them in a very specific box as “problem peoples who either have problems or
create problems” (Henry and Tator, p.207- quoted p.261, Abel, 2013). This kind of casting is
not just prescribed to Māori, but also experienced by indigenous peoples around the globe.
The mainstream news broadcasting of Aotearoa consistently fails to provide a balanced,
holistic, and contextualised view of Māori. In considering this binary between the Pākehā
‘us’ and the Māori ‘them’, the coverage of treaty settlements and Māori activism is a space in
which the tensions of this opposition are aired. Mainstream news routinely covers treaty
settlements in a manner that frames them as conflict (which is concurrent with the news value
of conflict), and often focuses on:
1) The value of any financial compensation that has been offered, and how this is ‘tax
payer’s money’. This implies that the taxes paid by Pākehā are dripping into the
pockets of Māori who have done nothing to deserve the money, except whinge and
simply be Māori.
2) Any hikoi (protests) which took place prior to the settlement (any moments of
violence will certainly be screened) which have disturbed the peace and social order
otherwise enjoyed by Pākehā.
I find this particularly interesting as the negative elements which the mainstream seem to be
asserting as essential to te ao Māori- laziness, inability to handle finances, physical violence
etc.- are also elements of te ao Pākehā.
Consider, for example, the number of Pākehā who have taken to the streets in recent months
in protest of New Zealand signing the TPPA. A brief search of the word ‘TPPA’ on the One
News website (www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news) brings forth a variety of articles and videos that
7
[Type here]
cast protestors as “concerned New Zealanders” who are coming together to air their
apprehensions about New Zealand surrendering sovereignty and making changes to domestic
law. No mention of any violence is made (though I did personally witness a small number of
violent acts at the Queen Street protest), and the reasons for the protestor’s doings is
perpetually clarified.
On the other hand, coverage of recent Ngati Kahu activism at the Kaitaia airport zeroes in on
completely different aspects of the protest. Headlines proclaim that arrests have been made,
while the videos and articles explain that the protests are over a $100 million treaty
settlement being signed in parliament the next day. Journalist Helen Castles informs viewers
that the “notorious protestors” (otherwise known as “Hone Harawira’s nephews”) are there to
occupy the airport to “cause maximum disruption” by setting up a “shanty town”.
In each hikoi, we see concerned citizens airing their concerns around sovereignty, the mauri
of the nation, and utilizing protest as a means for expressing these views. The framing of
these protests, however, illuminates the boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The “Kiwis” who
march down Queen Street in protest of trade agreement signings are “Kiwis”- proud members
of the nation, and society. The Māori, on the other hand, who settle down at an airport in
protest of treaty settlement signings are distinctly Māori, and very much separate from the
rest of the nation (who, we assume, would simply like to have access to the airport and not be
8
[Type here]
troubled by issues which do not affect them). Thus, by simply being Māori whilst protesting,
Ngati Kahu is framed as ‘them’.
9
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET FOR WEEK 9 TUTORIAL
Hanusch, Folker (2014). Dimensions of Indigenous journalism culture: Exploring Māori
news-making in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journalism 15 (8), 951-967.
1) In Folker Hanusch’s ‘Dimensions of Māori journalism culture’ (p.225 of your
Reader), he quotes one Māori journalist: ‘There’s always a Māori point of view, and
there’s always a Māori way of telling it’. Choose any other two of the quotations
from Māori journalists in this article, and discuss them in relation to this quotation.
You can, if you wish, refer to any news items (in either Māori-produced news or
“mainstream” news) that you have seen/read/listened to as part of your discussion.
Hanusch’s article explores the ways in which Māori journalists make sense of their work, and
the common themes of their views. Among the experiences and views shared by Māori
journalists, a quote from a Radio Waatea journalist is of particular interest: “There’s always a
Māori point of view, and there’s always a Māori way of telling it”. This quote brings to the
fore what Hanusch terms “the Māori perspective”, namely; “a journalistic practise that
explicitly focuses on news in the context of what it means for Māori ” (p. 959). The words of
this journalist (hereon referred to as Quote A) emphasises the importance of a Māori
perspective on news, and that Māori news should thereby serve Māori society.
Another quote that illuminates the concept of a Māori perspective comes from a Māori TV
journalist: “In a lot of ways, it is much easier to tell stories in Māori because you can be a lot
more metaphoric and poetic. It conveys more emotion and beauty” (Quote B, p. 961). The
role te reo plays in Māori journalism is often painted as one of language revitalisation.
However, in light of Quote A, we can see the author of Quote B as someone who believes
that the language itself is a means by which the “Māori way of telling it” can be told.
Hanusch reports that other journalists have also felt that te reo can act as a means to connect
the spiritual realm and other aspects of te ao Māori to news stories. For example, we may
imagine that it is much easier for journalists to say ‘mana’ (without offering a translation)
instead of fumbling for the words in English that match the concept.
Finally, the notion of a Māori telling being disparate to a mainstream or Pākehā viewpoint (as
alluded to in Quote A) is presented in the following words of a Māori TV journalist: “I’ve
always perceived our role as balancing the inequity in the way that Māori issues were told
previous to things like Māori TV” (Quote C, p. 959). Quote C encapsulates Māori concerns
about the ways Māori events are issues are handled in mainstream media, and also delivers a
promise to offer viewers a different narrative to the one seen in the mainstream- which we
may term “the Māori way of telling it” (Quote A).
My own views on the matter are aligned with the Radio Waatea journalist; there is always a
way of telling a story that will best serve Māori, and a view of that story that deserves to be
heard. Within mainstream media, the Māori point of view is not plumped with privilege as
the Pākehā point of view is, and deserves to be heard.
10
[Type here]
MĀORI 370 WORKSHEET: EXTRA WORKSHEET
Take an idea from this course that:

Was new to you
And/or

You disagree with
And/or

You think is particularly important.
Throughout my journey in Māori 370, the idea of ‘context’ being critical to the construction
of news stories has taken my interest, and blossomed into a topic which I feel strongly about.
When media outlets fail to provide their audience with the historical and political context of
contemporary Māori issues, they fail to paint a comprehensive, detailed picture. Instead, what
is offered- more often than not- is a flimsy snapshot that neglects context altogether, and does
not provide the audience with a full understanding of the issue. By providing context, and
therefore understanding, the media has the capability to sculpt a nation who is:
-
Knowledgeable of the causes and roots of various issues.
Sympathetic to the indigenous struggle.
Sufficiently informed as to not take stereotypes and negative representations of Māori
at face value.
The need to contextualise Māori issues is hugely relevant to a variety of contemporary
problems; of these, the high incidence of child abuse and homicide in Māori communities is
worthy of addressing. As research by the Health and Research Council has shown (2007),
news items which feature Māori make up merely 1.59% of content. Of these items, 58% were
on child abuse. The frequent reporting of these stories has the capacity to sway a non-Māori
audience into believing that child abuse is the result of deficits in Māori culture, and that
violence towards children is simply to be expected from Māori. Indeed, these ideas are the
actual perceptions held by many.
Academic commentary on Māori child abuse has gone deeper than the snapshot presented by
the media. By exploring the history of violence towards children by Māori, the processes
which have contributed/do contribute to violence, and how the problem could be addressed,
context is brought forward. Rawiri Taonui writes on the issue in a way that deconstructs all
aspects of violence towards children, and offers great insight into what tikanga towards
tamariki truly is (2010). He concludes that “the current crisis derives from cumulative
intergenerational experiences of colonization, alienation and poverty”, and that the way
forward is through Māori culture being strengthened in whanau and programmes (p.199).
Upon reading Taonui’s work, my thoughts on Māori child abuse were surrounded in context
that I had not encountered previously. I certainly knew that the poor socio-economic figures
11
[Type here]
and woeful statistics that plague Māori did contribute to child abuse, but it had never
occurred to me that something so awful could be born from a whakapapa of colonisation,
alienation, and disempowerment. I believe that the article offered great insight into the issue
because of the way in which Taonui situated child abuse in a pre-colonial context, a postcolonial context, and in the context of how Māori child abuse compares to non-Māori child
abuse. By situating one issue amongst all of its possible contexts, the ‘big picture’ suddenly
become clear; it was an academic ‘ah!’ moment for me.
Much like Taonui’s work, Ngāi Tahu’s magazine Te Karaka excels in providing the reader
with context around important issues, in a way that allows them to comprehensively
understand the issue and see it from many angles. Since the magazine’s shift from writing for
a predominantly Ngāi Tahu readership to a readership that encompasses all of New Zealand
(from 2004 onwards), Te Karaka produces in-depth, 5000 word articles on issues of
significance such as criminal offending, climate change, health, and environmental issues
(Smith and Ruckstuhl, 2010). These articles are penned with the goal of “influencing the
minds” of all New Zealanders (Smith and Ruckstuhl, 2010, p.33), and thus offering a
nationwide audience the opportunity to gain insight into the complexities of issues (which are
so often glossed over or ignored altogether). In doing so, Ngāi Tahu is educating the wider
public. Through this knowledge and maramatanga, the iwi is sculpting an Aotearoa who can
see issues for what they really are.
In an ideal world, mainstream media would tell stories as Taonui and Te Karaka do; with
Māori realities told, Māori voices heard, traditional forms of knowledge honoured, the
genealogy of issues put forward, and context(s) offered. Unfortunately, this ideal and
culturally competent mass media does not currently exist. As Sue Abel (2013) and Stuart
Allan (2000) attest, the mainstream shapes stories from a white perspective, which is more
difficult to counter as it is not a conscious framing. Perhaps the white framing of Māori issues
could be improved by cultural competency training for journalists, or alterations to the rules
of the Broadcasting Standards Authority which could insist that Māori must be featured in a
balance of positive and negative stories. The un-contextualised stories that circulate at present
are responsible (at least, in part) for the mass ignorance, misunderstanding (or lack of
understanding altogether), and negative views towards Māori held by the wider public.
Works Cited:
Abel, Sue (2013). Māori, Media and Politics. In Babak Bahador et al. (Eds.) Politics and
Media. Auckland: Pearson. Pp. 257-269.
Allan, Stuart (2000). News Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Smith, Jo and Ruckstuhl Katharina (2010). The case of Te Karaka: Ngāi Tahu print before
and after settlement. AlterNative: an International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. 6(1), p. 2537.
12
[Type here]
Taonui, Rawiri (2010). Mana Tamariki: Cultural Alienation. AlterNative: an International
Journal of Indigenous Peoples. 6(3), p. 187-202.
13