Once our masters’ voice, we need to be voice of society
Nau mai haere mai, welcome, dear reader. I promise, this experience will be the same for all newsrooms across Aotearoa New Zealand and in other first-world, democratic countries with a history of colonisation.
Follow me as we walk through the card-swiped access doors into the newsroom.
What do you see? People walking about, a bit of hum and chatter. A loud burst of laughter, heads turning our way momentarily before refocusing strained eyeballs to the screen.
Move in further, past the rows of desks where reporters chat quietly on phone calls, fingers tapping away at keyboards, scrolling through social media feeds.
Stand aside as one man leaps to his feet, grabs a notebook and bag, pairs off with another man carrying a camera on his shoulder. They stop long enough to agree to a plan of action with one of the editors.
Watch as the editor returns to a cluster of desks, separate from the reporters. Who are they? There is a strange phenomenon here – can you see it?
Yes, they’re mainly all from the same ethnicity, Pa¯keha¯ of European descent. A mix of male and female.
These people are the news leaders, who decide what is news and what is not. How a story will be told, who is in it, who is not. They decide who will be a reporter and who will not.
Often they are senior journalists, experienced in newsroom practices based on the Western adversarial model, the if-itbleeds-it-leads, sensationalist brand of news.
What is their worldview? Who do they represent? What is their bias?
Like all humans, we have bias based on our upbringing and experiences. If they have only interacted mainly with people of their kind, how can they provide a space for voices different from their own in every story they publish and in the identity of their newsroom.
All of our papers were started by white settler males with some financial wealth. Pa¯keha¯ men dominated management positions until recently, when more, mainly Pa¯keha¯, women started to take up leadership roles. There are very few editors of colour in Stuff’s editorial team today; most are Pa¯keha¯.
In the Our Truth, Ta¯ Ma¯tou Pono project launched on Monday, a group of Stuff journalists were tasked with trawling through the history of Stuff and its newspapers. We learned much about the news leaders, the editors, of our newsrooms from the past.
Some of the most troubling articles are the editorials, opinion pieces written by the editors, or on behalf of them, to represent the perspective of the newsroom or paper.
The Evening Star, the predecessor to the Auckland Star, began in 1870 and ended in 1991. But it has continued in our Sunday Star-Times.
In the Star’s early editions there are few Ma¯ori stories other than bizarre, eurocentric observations by the editor and the hunt across the Bay of Plenty for the fugitive Ringatu¯ prophet Te Kooti.
Under the headline ‘‘Maori Incendiaries’’ in March 1870, the paper said: ‘‘Opotiki is now completely invested by the Hau Hau forces. Hemmed in by almost inaccessible mountains, approachable from the interior
. . . known only to the canibal [sic] inhabitants of the mountains, its position will always be exposed till the mountainers [sic] are exterminated’’.
Many of the editors of those early papers declared they would hold the Crown to account, but it’s been clear in our investigation that they did so only to serve and protect the interests of settlers, not Ma¯ori.
From the first editions to now, when the Crown and Ma¯ori, or settlers and Ma¯ori, were experiencing conflict, the papers and their editors would often take a stance against, or heavily criticise, Ma¯ori.
Journalism arrived on New Zealand’s shores after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between Ma¯ori and the Crown, during a period of unfettered mass migration and the process of colonisation. It became a tool to help colonise Ma¯ori.
Objectivity was a journalism practice in the 19th century, but it appears our early papers preferred a partisan view.
When The Dominion began in September 1907, its first editorial said: ‘‘The Colony has passed into a Dominion under the protection of that Empire which has given us birth – perhaps the greatest in moral grandeur which the world has ever seen. We should strive in loyalty to our great parent to be worthy of our race and lineage.’’
The settler agenda, written plainly in black and white. The
William Seffern, editor of The Taranaki Herald from 1867-95, when it backed the campaign against the people of Parihaka.
superiority of European, mainly British, migrants, and the inferiority of Ma¯ori was repeated by our editors and newspapers. It was racist.
In 1882, the Taranaki Herald published government propaganda and backed its campaign against the peaceful people of Parihaka, one of the darkest, bloodiest stains on New Zealand’s history.
‘‘If they don’t do this, they alone will be responsible for the passing away from them for ever of the lands, which are still being proffered by the Government, and for the great evil which must fall on them.’’
The dark era of our modern news
It was in the mid-90s to mid2000s when our newsrooms would abandon objectivity to return to the partisan roots displayed a century earlier.
Again, we defended the position of the status quo, backing the government against Ma¯ori. The views and voices of Ma¯ori had increased in our papers from 100 years ago, but they were framed within a monocultural lens.
The
September 1995, with its headline ‘‘Hotheads dictate Maoridom’s agenda’’, tried to divide Ma¯ori from Ma¯ori after a leadership hui in Tu¯rangi. Treaty settlements were seen as a gesture of goodwill rather than deserved redress.
‘‘Maoridom nationally now needs to ask itself whether it will allow the radical element to dictate its agenda,’’ it said.
‘‘The danger is that political goodwill toward Treaty claimants will be jeopardised and the whole process of grievance resolution grind to a halt, to the detriment of the entire country. That may suit the hotheads, but it is surely not in the interests of the vast majority of Maori.’’
There are many more examples of the divide-and-rule slant taken by Stuff’s papers. It helped create disunity by pitting Ma¯ori against each other. The papers would take the side of moderate, compliant groups or leaders, rather than others who challenged the systems for a better deal. At other times, we showed our racism.
A Waikato Times editorial in August 1997 ran the headline, ‘‘Warrior MPs can help ease racial tension’’. It referred to Tau Henare as ‘‘a pale Polynesian’’ after he spoke to and connected with indigenous Australians.
‘‘So, Tau Henare is black. And beautiful. Next he will take X as his surname, grow dreadlocks in what’s left of his hair and start moonlighting as a male model,’’ the editorial said.
‘‘Too many Maori are poor, sick, ill-educated, criminally inclined, welfare-dependent and despairing of a future. The Maori MPs will be judged on whether or not they live up to their hype and help solve these problems.’’
The Press in August 1999 said: ‘‘Because of their undoubted influence, Maori leaders have a particular responsibility to keep violent Maori crime to a minimum.’’
Perpetuating social stigma
In July 2000, the Sunday StarTimes editor wrote: ‘‘It’s the problem that almost dares not speak its name, but we must if the slaughter and shocking abuse of Maori children is to be halted.’’
Earlier this week, Stuff journalist Charlie Mitchell analysed our coverage of child abuse, where we rightly reported on it but also failed miserably in how we did it. The pile-on from our papers’ leaders contributed to social stigma against Ma¯ori.
After the infamous and divisive speech by former National leader Don Brash at Orewa in January 2004, editors tried to find balance in their opinions, but it is apparent they could not.
Just after the speech, the Taranaki Daily News said: ‘‘National Party leader Don Brash’s milestone speech on race relations is too important to be dismissed as racist politicking or, even more predictably, Maori-bashing ... He argues, and many will agree, that laws with a Maori bias – despite being written in the well-meaning philosophies of affirmative action – are worse than unhelpful; they are dangerous.’’
It was a sentiment shared widely, and set up how our papers would cover the ensuing, and highly divisive, seabed and foreshore ownership saga. In Our Truth, Ta¯ Ma¯tou Pono, our reporters found we inflamed race tensions during that time.
Although editorials are opinions, a valuable and important freedom of speech right, they are still the voice of the paper. It could be argued they are an indicator of what the paper also stands for, and how it will choose and shape its news.
When the 2007 anti-terror raids occurred across the country, the focal point became Ru¯a¯toki in Te Urewera. AUT associate professor Dr Vijay Devadas studied how the news media covered the events. He says it was without a doubt racist, and on a par with colonising behaviour in its oppression of Ma¯ori and other minority communities.
The Dominion Post editor at the time would later admit the paper should have focused on the heavy-handed police action against the people of Nga¯i Tu¯hoe.
‘‘As we’ve subsequently seen, the police action was over the top and heavy-handed,’’ the editor said. ‘‘It’s clear they did intimidate families and people.’’
It’s an example of where we failed to stand up to the state, as is our role.
Editors, the leaders of our newsrooms, from our first publications until now, have failed to act on behalf of Ma¯ori against the state. Where we apply objectivity and independence it has always been on the side of the Pa¯keha¯ status quo.
We have vastly improved over the years, but we still have a lot more to do. The introduction of trust as our measure of success, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and equity into our charter and editorial code, are positive steps.
The late emeritus professor Ranginui Walker, of Whakato¯hea and Lebanese descent, said: ‘‘I have no time for privileged people who take advantage of their privileged position to attack the weakest people in our society.’’
News bosses are privileged; they hold positions of power that help to inform and shape the opinions of the communities they belong to. Equally, they’re also supposed to reflect the views of the public, not just themselves.
Sunday Star-Times news director Warwick Rasmussen thought about his own journalism these past 20 years. He says: ‘‘I know there are a lot of things we could have done better, and should have done better, rather than fall into lazy patterns of racism in our representation and portrayal of Ma¯ori.
‘‘The coverage this week will hopefully trigger something in all the decision-makers within the company, who hold tremendous power in the words and images that they allow to be published.’’
It’s up to all news leaders to understand who they are, including myself, and how we acknowledge and manage our own individual bias to ensure we uphold the highest standards of journalism to include the perspectives of all.
Newsroom of the future
Thank you, dear reader, for joining my tour of the newsroom. The next time you visit, we hope you will notice a difference in our personnel, particularly in the cluster of leaders.
As you can see on the wall, our apology to Ma¯ori has been enlarged and framed for all our visitors to consider, a reminder of who we were and what we now stand for.
To finish the visit, I have an ode of sorts to share. A reflection of our bicultural heritage and words to help guide our future. From the first edition of The Dominion, in September 1907:
Hero shall a Press the People’s case maintain, Unawed by Influence and unbribed by Gain.
The second, a whakataukı¯:
Mahia te mahi hei painga mo te iwi, We work for the good of the people.
Haere ra¯ e kare ma¯, and remember you are welcome to visit any time.
Our Truth, Ta¯ Ma¯tou Pono is a Stuff project investigating the history of racism. In 2021, part two of the series will focus on Aotearoa and how our racist past has made us who we are today.