Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
[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