Chris Trotter questions whether Stuff is about to prove the veracity of the right-wing meme: 'Go Woke, Go Broke'

Chris Trotter questions whether Stuff is about to prove the veracity of the right-wing meme: 'Go Woke, Go Broke'

By Chris Trotter* 

Haverford College is an elite liberal college situated in one of the more the picturesque parts of Pennsylvania. Annual tuition fees are an eye-watering $US54,000 – so, a refuge for the wretched refuse of America’s teeming cities it ain’t. What it most definitely is, however, is “woke”. Pretty much from top to bottom, Haverford College subscribes to the ever-more impenetrable statutes of “intersectionality” and identity politics.

As if to prove the point, the student body of Haverford decided in late October to go on strike. Against what, precisely, it is difficult to fathom. The strike movement grew out of the College authorities’ response to its students’ participation in a Black Lives Matter protest. This was not a case of reactionary racist administrators undermining students’ efforts to register their disgust at the police shooting of yet another Black American. Haverford is a strong supporter of BLM. No, the strike arose out of the College President’s call for students to be conscious of the risk of contracting Covid-19 at protest demonstrations and spreading it among their fellow Haverfordians.

For this insult the College was shut down and its administrators and academic staff subjected to the sort of “struggle sessions” made famous by Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. Students who failed to show sufficient enthusiasm for the strike were denounced on social media. The future employment of academic staff who refused to cancel their classes was threatened.

Throughout, the College’s administration made nothing but approving noises. Harangued by undergraduate twenty-somethings, distinguished professors and long-time anti-racist activists dutifully “confessed” to their manifold shortcomings and promised to do better. Virtually all of the student “strikers” demands (except the one requiring the College to hand back the land it was built on to its original indigenous owners) were met.

In spite of the “strikers” comprehensive political victory, however, nothing much at Haverford has changed. The people who were in charge before the strike are still in charge afterwards. The number of students owning-up to “conservative” beliefs is still less than 3.5%. The quantum of student tuition fees is, however, predicted to rise. Implementing the strikers’ anti-racist agenda will have to be paid for somehow!

The difference between Haverford College and the NZ media giant, Stuff, is, of course, that the staff, students and alumni of the College (as well, presumably, and the long-suffering parents footing the bill) are all perfectly at ease in their own very liberal skins. The same cannot be said of the subscribers and purchasers of Stuff’s newspapers. Whether the enthusiasm of the publisher for the anti-racist project of its journalistic staff is matched by the readers of Stuff’s newspapers remains to be seen.

Their biggest concern is likely to be that by aligning itself so closely with what is, after all, a decidedly radical race-based political agenda, Stuff will feel obligated to tailor its coverage of race-related stories to conform to the principles of its new “anti-racist” kaupapa.

Almost immediately, however, Stuff’s readers’ concern has been justified. Just days into Stuff’s new regime, two of its newspapers have elected to reject an already approved and paid for advertisement from local opponents of Maori wards. Embarrassingly, the ad in question is entitled: “It’s About Democracy”.

The editors of the Whangarei Leader and the Bay Chronicle, who according to Democracy Northland had previously accepted their ad, have subsequently reversed their position. Democracy Northland asserts that the decision, made by a three-person “editorial panel”, and communicated to them by a sales rep, was said to reflect “the core values that we are paying extra attention to at this given time. Particularly with our current value realignment, they believe the ad may not align with the message that the company is trying to push forward at this stage. While I appreciate that there should be a certain element of freedom of voice within all publications, it appears that at this time our editorial team is being extra cautious with what is going into our papers due to the sensitive nature of our current value realignment.”

Nothing could better illustrate the ethical, political and commercial pitfalls of the path Stuff has chosen to follow. Democracy Northland, if the results of previous referenda on Maori wards offer any guidance, may be articulating the concerns of a solid majority of local electors. No matter how “racist” those raising these concerns may be in the eyes of many of their fellow Northlanders, denying space to a legally unobjectionable ad which has, reportedly, passed muster with the Advertising Standards Authority, on the grounds that it “may not align with the message that the company is trying to push forward at this stage” – i.e. is incompatible with the political views of the publishers – is a very dangerous thing to do.

That danger has nothing to do with the right of the owner of a printing press to determine who may, and who may not, avail themselves of its communicative power. The danger arises out of the fact that those purchasing the paper and/or advertising space within its pages have an equally unassailable right to withdraw their support – and dollars. A boycott of the paper by individuals and groups representing only a tiny fraction of its readership may be shrugged-off with ease. But, should a significant fraction elect to “vote with its feet” and exit the market, then the commercial viability of the publication will be threatened. This is the point American conservatives are making when they share the meme: “Go Woke, Go Broke”.

It is to avoid this fate that the concept of newspapers having a responsibility to “hold the ring” for the free and open debate – even of the most controversial issues – within their pages became a staple of publishing ethics. The point, presumably, being to make the issue the focus of fierce public debate – not the newspaper.

How will the Whangarei Leader and the Bay Chronicle respond if the Local Government Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, responds positively to the arguably anti-democratic request of a Northland Regional Councillor, by imposing “a moratorium or the like on the ability to demand a poll”. To strip local electors of their right to gather sufficient signatures to secure a referendum on the creation of a Maori ward, is to make a bet that the resulting political damage will be repairable. Big bet.

Acquiescing to that regional councillor’s suggestion would tell New Zealanders two things. The first is that Nanaia Mahuta, the Labour Government, and the proprietors of Stuff newspapers are unwilling to entrust a majority of Pakeha New Zealanders with the power to determine the shape and purpose of their constitution. The second, which follows logically from the first, is that there is a layer of New Zealand society subscribing to convictions it believes to be morally superior to those of their fellow Kiwis, and that these convictions entitle them to strip those holding what are judged to be morally unacceptable views of their civil and political rights.

When the student strikers at Haverford College attempted to actualise these anti-democratic ideas they encountered an administration that was more than willing to entertain and even embrace their demands. New Zealand, however, is not Haverford College: push its people to far in this direction, and they are certain to push back.


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

118 Comments

23
up

Take a bow, Chris. Excellent piece

Trump like antics from the students, America reduced to petty squabbles

11
up

Nice work Chris.
News agencies should not be in the business of picking sides.
They have utmost freedom in writing columns with different perspectives, because we are all different.
Woke is a slippery slope and one we are on now, with our police force having to purchase carbon credits from their operating budget to offset their carbon emissions. To me that is absolute madness. Less cops, more crime but must be kind to each other. Nz will go broke with policies like this, our future looks terrible.

A good article by CT. He makes a very important point that media is there to report the issues - not BE the issue or in fact the arbiter of which issue is reported.
In the case of the Maori Wards in Northland (and elsewhere) there should be reasoned debate, examining the pro's and con's of their inclusion. Having a media entity influencing that debate actively is a dangerous step that should be roundly condemned imo. If the ad in question passed muster by the ASA it should have been run.
Unfortunately however Chris' assertion that re: "Pakeha majority and their ability to shape their constitution" is wide of the mark. Hence the requirement for Maori Wards imv. Maori are historically poorly engaged with LB elections so without legislated representation their views tend to get marginalised.

Following their open admission of racism, Stuff continues to be a racist publisher. Stuff perpetuates the soft bigotry of low expectations of Maori people.

Stuff would have gone broke anyway, this might accelerate things a bit.

Such a shame - they used to be the go-to for NZ news.

I have a lot of admiration and respect for Stuff taking the editorial stance they have. Trotters analogy is embarrassing - comparing snowflake students to to indigenous people fighting for representation due to them under Tiriti is crap journalism. Of course these idiots shouldn't get press space.

Not a single person who has raised their flag in public in support of conservative white policy is of any consequence or success whatsoever. The odd farmer and town handyman, nobodies.

TK - are you able to elaborate on that a bit? You respect Stuff refusing to run anything against Maori wards in Northland, yet you have been critical of councils in general a number of times that I have seen. Do you believe a Maori ward would be any less bureaucratic or more productive, or is it a matter of representation, or a simply a matter of adherence to the Treaty?

I don't recall being anti-council, maybe planning regulations contributing to house prices or Auckland Councils swap fiasco?

Maori have legislated representation at a parliamentary level, so I really don't understand why there is such resistance at a local body level which ultimately impacts our lives more on a day to day basis. What part of the Treaty and Maori representation at a local body level are you struggling with?

Cheers mate. I don't have a good grasp of this issue so I'm trying to hear some varied perspectives and learn a bit while I form an opinion. The bit I struggle with is that arguments both for and against seem to be rooted in emotion which I find hard to take seriously. Appreciate your response.

Te Kooti - would you prefer a society in which Maori are treated the same as those of other races, or a society in which Maori are progressively treated differently (through increased and enhanced representation for example)?

This isn't a loaded question, I'm genuinly interested in what the long term goals are for people that support these types of changes.

Rawiri Waititi made this analogy in his maiden speech.
"A shark and a kahawai met. The shark suggested to the kahawai they should form a partnership. The kahawai said, that sounds like a good idea, whereupon the shark ate the kahawai and said 'Now we are one'".
It occurred to me that if that does not give people who either can't or won't understand why it is necessary for there to always be a place for the Maori point of view, then I don't know of anything that will.
But, just try, anyway.

Thank you, it's really as simple as that.

10
up

I appreciate your response, that's an interesting way of putting it.

However, it's based on a flawed premise - that Maori people don't have a place for their point of view. They do, it's our democracy and our parliament. That's where other "kahawai", whether it's those of Asian, European or African descent are also able to share their point of view. Our democracy isn't a shark eating various demographics, it's a shoal of fish swimming together.

Bloody hell! I'll have another go then, shall I? Aoteroa NZ is the ONLY place in the world where Maori customs (tikanga, kaupapa) exist. Would you consider that other cultures etc should usurp the Indian culture in India, the Norwegian culture in Norway, the French one in France?
This is what people are steadfastly refusing to grasp, that the INDIGENOUS (and don't bother with the whole "we are all immigrants" because the Maori culture evolved HERE, nowhere else) culture here is being expected to be happily usurped or thrown into the mix of "others" in the only country it belongs in.
It took me much thinking and listening, because I am not Maori, but this is the story of indigenous cultures that have been displaced around the world.
Now, try again, please

I'm not suggesting Maori culture should be usurped. It doesn't need direct, unelected, representation in our government to be maintained.

Another thought - you're using similar arguments to the white nationalists in other countries, like the UK and USA. Food for thought.

npc, the Maori representation in Central Govt IS elected (via the Maori Party). That you refuse to accept the unconscious (or unfortunately conscious) bias prevailing in local and regional governance is indicative of the issue and the reason for the requirement for legislated places in our local councils. That you you equate the nationalist arguments in the US and UK with NZs situation is , frankly, both ill informed and tone deaf. It's also highly distasteful and ultimately short sighted

Te Kooti, Hook, Pocketaces -

Elected representation is a good thing. I'm not so keen on elections where the electors are discriminated based on race. I think it makes for a less inclusive system. I understand your positions and although I disagree with them, I apprecate you taking the time to explain your thinking.

Is it not similar to MMP at a local authority level though? Why should Maori, with their rights protected under Treaty, have to be represented by white NZ because simply because they're outnumbered. It's not inclusive and it doesn't feel right.

Perhaps it's because local authority has a far bigger role in our everyday lives than a few token MP's and that's a bridge too far for conservative white NZ?

Maori people are very well represented in Parliament. It's hardly token.

They can also be well represented in local governments, by electing people that have similar ideals. When I vote, I think about what that person represents, not about their race.

npc, the bottom line in NZ is that the "majority" voting in LG elections are often motivated minority interest groups or rather conservative :"status quo" box tickers. The reason why we need legistlatively enshrined positions is because, regardless of all the "woke" handwringing displayed, when it comes to actual anonymous votes, Maori always miss out. That's just how it is in NZ.

That is the lot of colonized people all around the world

No, that's not the bottom line. That's some opinion backed with no facts.

The facts are that Maori are under-represented as local authority representatives/councilors and always have been. I can tell you, it's not through trying. What are your facts?

On purely racial terms, I'm under-represented too.

However, I'm happy that my views are represented through the individuals I helped to elect. How do you know that Maori do not feel the same? Must they vote along racial lines only?

Assuming you are of European descent, you are NOT underrepresented, the ENTIRE system represents you!!!
You just seem completely unable to grasp this is NOT about having "x" number of pakeha or Maori in govt, but that Maori tikanga ALSO be represented in our governing. It is WHAT it represents, not especially who. All of the Maori MPs who are not in Maori seats are NOT there to represent anything other than the party or electorate they serve.
Picture me screaming into the void at your inability/unwillingness to understand this.

You want the concept of Maori Tikanga to be represented in local government, by Maori people. This should be represented regardless of the outcome of local elections. I understand.

I also disagree.

Yes, that is how it needs to be, for now, but in a future where there is better understanding and acceptance of this, I can see a time when it would not necessarily have to be a person of Maori descent in that position.

npc, is there any possible chance you'll admit that the current (and previous) governance structures have failed Maori? There is a huge potential in land. and labour waiting to be tapped - Ngai Tahu would be an example of how it's done. Tanui would be an example of how it's NOT done. When NZ gets over it's xenophobic and blinkered view of Maori it will lift it's productivity and living standards for all. Having said that - when Maori relinquish their grievance industry and look to partnerships, that will help

NPC, if you can't accept that Maori are not just another race in NZ, then we will never agree.

The only way we can break the cycle of poverty, social disfunction etc is to feel included in NZ society. How on earth Maori having representation on local authority councils is contentious is a mystery to me. It will enable us to develop leaders, feel more ownership of our communities. Good grief.

npc you really need to get out of the beltway or off your insulated farm and actually experience modern NZ. My opinion has been developed over many decades living in places as diametrically opposed as Remuera/Western Springs vs Kawerau/Te Teko. I know what I'm talking about and I've lived it, as opposed to "some" commentators.

You really aren't thinking about this are you, it actually DOES need representation in our government to have a say in it's only home.
It is as if you believe the system that has displaced Maori tikanga etc is the default setting for the human race. It isn't. What it is, is "my way or the highway".
We should not tolerate a system that can just vote Maori representation out.

It does have representation. Currently 20% of Parliament is Maori, with about New Zealand being 16.5% Maori.

Your last statement unfortunately sounds a lot like the nationalist dog-whistles we've heard elsewhere.

Good to see you've finally come out and confirmed you Hobson's Choice leanings. Your attitude merely reinforces why NZ needs legislative seats in LG - sorry to say

You seem determined not to get it, don't you?

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the time you've spent explaining it, I just think it's wrong.

And having come to some understanding I know that you are wrong

To give you a different perspective npc - how about you swap realities?. Might give you a different view of things.

As for white nationalist thing, that is just plain silly, they seek to dominate, Maori seek to have their place, nothing like it at all.
There is a country in Europe (I cannot remember which one) that reserves a certain amount of representation for a particular local group, someone may know what I refer to.

Just a small point of fact; currently Maori representation in Parliament on a percentage basis is higher than the Maori proportion of the population. This is across all parties as well as Government and Opposition.

Please tell us why do you think the Maori view is not being heard? This after all democracy.

I think you need to revisit your calcs murray. Not many "brown brothers" in the Nats, none in ACT. Taken overall there should be 18 elected reps in a Parliament of 120 - are we there yet?

Hook. Maori are currently over represented in population terms, in Parliament. See:

Māori constitute 16.5 percent of the total population but look likely to make up 20 percent of MPs in the House (it was 23 percent in 2017).

There have been a number of high profile Māori departures, most noticeably with NZ First not getting back and therefore no more Winston Peters, Shane Jones or Ron Mark. But the Māori Party looks to be back and there are a number of new Māori members. Both ACT and the Greens have three Māori each and Labour has 15 - while National has just two.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/428985/does-the-new-parliament-...

Seems like the percentage of representation is about right then. Hardly over represented. You seem to have a rather "colonial" view of NZ npc - I for one am glad you're a minority

I'm perfectly content with that level of representation and i'd be happy with more Maori people in parliament. My "over represented" comment was purely a factual statement, not an expression of opinion. I don't know what a "colonial" view means. I'm a pro-democracy, libertarian migrant.

As an immigrant, with all due respect. you have no right of jurisdiction nor sway on NZs internal decisions and your opinion is tolerated (at best). You chose to immigrate here - you get what you paid for. You are here at NZs pleasure and tolerance.

I’m a citizen and therefore I have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

Yes you have the same rights and responsibilities - part of those responsibilities is to recognise the founding document of your new country.

Ha, Hook, now you are being tone deaf.

So one group of immigrants deserve to be put on a pedestal and given special treatment but another group can take what they're given?

It's called the tyranny of the majority, please feel free to appraise yourself of the meaning.
The USA, has it's own system to avert this https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-...
It could do, but does not, go so far as to protect the position of native Americans

Actually what you did there is "white splain" another person's experiences. Not good.

White Splain Huh? Well anti white racism rears it's ugly head. I live in South East Asia but originally brought up in the social disadvantage area of Porirua (where racism does exist to whites, Tongans, Samoan too) . The bollocks about all these white oppressing people is nonsense, Whites, Maori men and women have fallen in love and had children, grand children, great grand children. Had familys, play and work together etc. Mixed marriage and children are so common and will naturally become the norm.

Here in SA buddy, people get positions from race, cops look the other way due to race, people don't help when wounded or hurt due to race/religion. I've unfortunately being caught up in mob violence, corrupt cops, I've helped when others wouldnt help due to race and religion. Have you had blood drip through your hands while bandaging someone who has been beaten to a pulp because of their race? Have you seen it in NZ? I've seen gang fights but not sectarian violence. Here the whitey aren't the ones oppressing others.
BTW 300 were murdered in human trafficking camps a while back. Once again the killers weren't white. I would say most of these commenters on here on how bad the whitey is, have never actually lived (lived does not mean staying at at a 5 star resort) in a non western country. You have no idea how good NZ is.

Yea we do. And that's exactly why we want to see the situation delt with. Exactly why standing back ignoring it is not an option.

How do you know npc is white, and is it OK to dismiss someone's view because of their race?

Whether he or she is white does not matter, you don't necessarily have to white to "white splain"

I feel like the kahawai and im not a Maori. The shark he was referring was that the council or the government ?

You are not the kahawai

Your growing on me PA!

One of the Treaty principles is "partnership", attempting to prevent Maori having a voice in local government by citing "democracy" when Maori were colonised, are you kidding me? Maori wards will be democratically elected and accountable to their constituents. Maori need more role models, more participation in society, more inclusion - we will all benefit.

" we will all benefit."
Amen

we are all Kahawai servants of our overlords the government and the banksters

NPC, one response to that is: do you prefer a system in which contracts are upheld, or one in which they are not? Because I think a fundamental fact that people tend to overlook is that the difference in treatment is not actually grounded in race - its grounded in a contract. If Group A signs a contract with Group B and not Group C, its not unfair for Group B to be treated differently. It's just the way contracts work: they create obligations between people and groups that the signers don't have to other people or groups.

I don't think that was the contract's intent, and in any case is that the kind of society we want, where one group is treated differently than another?

Different groups are treated differently all the time for all sorts of reasons. It isn't automatically unjust to treat one group differently from another - over 65s get all sorts of special benefits that other groups don't, for example. The question is whether it is justified - and when it comes to Maori, one justification for a difference in treatment is a contract with the crown.

Fair point re. the over 65's.

TK. It's a false equivalence to advocate that because we previously (and necessarily) legislated to introduce Maori seats imposition of the same on local body councils today is justified. The political context back then was hugely different . The resistance comes from unease in middle NZ about the subversion of democracy that Mahuta is proposing.

MM, legislated Maori seats on LB and RC councils is required for one reason and one reason only - embedded and unconscious racism displayed by the majority. It's an unfortunate but immutable fact of NZ society and if Mahuta is forced to rectify it then so be it.
Yes Maori are over represented in all our negative stats - keeping the "majority's" foot on their throats won't solve this. If there was a truly inclusive and "colour blind" society in NZ we wouldn't have a need for the Maori Party. Time middle NZ (and probably more so "upper NZ") started to realise the untapped potential available - land, labour and capital.

The example I use is that where I live is a small village of about 600 people. We are lumped in the South West ward of Taranaki. Dominated by Inglewood with about 3,500 people. I wouldn't even know the last time we had a local representative make it into council. To represent our localised issues. We get washed away every time by the candidates from Inglewood and their larger voter base.

When I explain this to people many of them start to understand why Maori Wards might actually be necessary to facilitate representation of their voice and thoughts at the council table. I really don't understand myself why so many people feel threatened by this.

"What part of the Treaty and Maori representation at a local body level are you struggling with?"

This isn't a fantastic argument given the Treaty pretty clearly gives them the same rights as British subjects; you could argue that means they should be part of the same governance mechanisms, not separate ones. But you could also make the case that old mate Hobbo and the Treaty itself were pretty clear on who retained ownership over land, fisheries and taonga and I'm not seeing a grass-roots movement from literalist zealots to cede almost every tree or piece of coastline outside 1830s settler township boundaries back to local iwi either; which, if you want to take the English version as absolute, you should really be all in favour of.

The town handyman, or farmer for that point, are probably hard-working, calloused hand type people who deserve more than elitist tone youre striking. Your initial point of the false comparison of snowflakes and some Maori was good, then you completely lost the plot with an embarrassing tirade against working-class people.

"It started as it had done so often, with a karakia

New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd hosting an event, 150 JP's in the room. I got down from the podium and about 5 men came up to me says Judd.

One does a mock haka poking his tongue out and says, aren't you the little Maori boy and the other says, that's right son, don't think you're coming back with all
this Maori s__t (Judd's promotion of a Maori ward in New Plymouth)"

Maybe he is trying to expose the difference between media reporting and commentary?

Winston Peters and Shane Jones aren't quite nobodies yet.

Funny thing is, in NZ we have ingrained separatism policies based on race.... it’s like Orwell’s Animal Farm where the fat cats take so called moral high-ground but end up being much worse than the so-called surpressor.
Those who drag up so-called grievances do so to grab power and money... they know the way to capture those who cannot find the moral fortitude of personal responsibility and need to blame others for their plight in life

The popular vote on Maori wards in electorates where they have been proposed, is overwhelmingly against. Mahuta is playing a dangerous game in over-riding of the will of NZs citizens. Chris labels the go woke/go broke as a right wing meme but middle NZ on both sides of the divide is clearly uneasy about the influence of the identity politics movement if the democratic vote against Maori wards is any indicator. Conventional media is in a spiral of declining influence with the heralds cross platform audience down by 2.2%, the Sunday ST 11.7% and the traditionally centre right ChCh press plummeting by 10.9% since its lurch to the left over recent years. YouTube is now more popular than TVNZ.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/300157256/unanimous-sou...

I guess the bulk of this council is out at the end of the term then if the majority of the popular vote is against them.

But! But! Nanaia wouldn't interfere with 'Democracy!?' She might in iwi treaty settlement negotiations? But never in a nation's 'Democracy?'
Lets see how long it takes before N Mahuta FM, Assoc Min Maori Development comes-a-cropper again?

I thought I had a fairly good understanding of issues raised by stuff and almost didn't read the article on Maori sport coverage. Turns out I learnt quite a bit more.
Sure they may, probably will, go broke. But better to go broke telling a few home truths than persisting with the same old bollocks.
As to the Maori wards. Why only Maori? Because as land large owners they have been singularly poorly served by LG. The nature of majority rules means that won't change much and as I've pointed out previously, a place like Tauranga surely couldnt be more disfunctional than currently.

You're arguing for increased, un-democratic representation for "land large owners". We've come full circle..

Full circle back to the treaty?

No, more similar to the old Parliament of Great Britain.

No. It's still democracy as it representatives elected by the people and with one vote each, what's undemocratic about it. And the votes certainly not determined by land size.
Not sure how you came to your conclusion.

11
up

Stuff appears to have confused activism with journalism. Their belief that they have a moral mandate and responsibility to shape the direction of the culture and society is not new.

In this latest woke virtue signal they have apologised for their journalists best effort to objectively report Maori related news as it may have helped lead to an "incorrect" outcome. If/when they do apply this editorial policy of modifying and selecting news to support their desired outcome in the future it becomes advocacy and not journalism. The public will notice the poor journalism but due to lack of obvious news alternatives the decline in revenue will be slow.

I don't think Stuff's current path is going to in anyway help race relations, that would require something more than superficial and selectively applied morality invented by some white people on the other side of the world.

Whatever Stuff are going to do going forwards, it's commendable that they are taking stock and acknowledging where they have at times pushed a narrative that is not supported by the data and facts.

Pushing a narrative is not journalism. It's advocacy or propaganda.

No one's accusing journalists of not making their best effort to truthfully report the facts. They were just the wrong ones under retroactively applied morality.

I think you have data and facts confused with the ethical and moral importance of data and facts. The editors and readership should maintain a common understanding of what's important (this was so much simpler a decade ago).

With all the blitherblabbering going on about CT's article and the merits ( or otherwise ) of his arguments, can anyone here actually tell me in a clear discourse why having more (or at least some) representation by Maori on LG and RC (legislated or not) is a bad thing?? Many of Maori tikanga values actually revolve around land and water protection - how can that be a bad thing??

If the NZ's natural resources are preserved and able to be enjoyed by everyone, it won't be. What I don't want to see is the rise of a separatist movement where we have Maori and the rest having separate rights and privileges.

Agreed Hook - I'm Pakeha but have studied up on Tikanga as I feel obligated as a Kiwi to. My uncle who I'd describe as having minor racist views in terms of Maori was complaining about the state of our waterways and fisheries. I told him the best thing to happen would be to have Tikanga more embedded in LG and RC. Katiakitanga and the sacred way in which traditional Maori views natural resource leaves a lot to be desired for what's currently going on around NZ.

"the sacred way in which traditional Maori views natural resource" didn't do the moa any good. Within 150 years of Maori arrival they were hunted into extinction.

One lazy example compared to the environmental devastation of Europeans and settlers over the years.

Point is Maori were not the crash hot environmental stewards some would make them out to be - they were no better or worse than Europeans.

Well if you want to get into point scoring then several species of deer, big rats, mice, mustelids, rabbits, hares, cats....it's a long list. And that's before we get to the invasive plants.

Stuff is becoming unreadable. I find myself just skipping past all their woke rubbish because I cant even be bothered to read it as its not news, its pure propaganda and virtue signalling for its radical left agenda. The journalists should just go write blog posts and stop even trying to pretend they are a news organisation.
In addition I find the random use of Maori words in everything, with no translation, means that I (and 96% of the population of NZ) cant even understand what they are writing about. I'm just about being forced to take out a subscription to the NZ Herald.

Please show me where every English word is translated into Maori, then you might have an argument. Learn Maori

How many Maori people are there that dont speak any English? None right? So that is an irrelevant comparison.

Well, there is only one reason for that, and that is that the dominating culture almost assigned Te Reo to the bin. Imagine living in Norway and your kids in school are not taught Norwegian.

Maybe you should take the opportunity to educate yourself K.W. - there's always Google Translate. Any use of random Maori words is generally understood by even the most cloistered of NZs - kai, tikanga, kaupapa, tangihanga, whenua, etc. Get with the programme son.

I dont want to learn Maori. Why should I have to? I simply want to read the news and understand what is written. And I don't object to the use of Maori language, I simply want the English word to be used as well. The English language has typographical marks like a slash and brackets for this purpose - so please use them. This trend towards creating a local version of pidgin English makes everything incomprehensible. I read the news to obtain information, not be lectured to about multiculturism.

So you refuse to even educate yourself?? - SAD. If you can't expand your horizons that merely reinforces the requirements for legislation. If you find the reported diatribe incomprehensible I honestly suggest you are the one behind the times. That you feel it's a forced lesson in multiculturalism is disappointing (and a bit concerning) if you're a representative of a large proportion of NZ - luckily I doubt you are

Fortunately I have the choice of reading the news from Australia, the US, UK or any number of other publications. None of which insert random words in a foreign language, so they achieve their aim of delivering the news to their readers. I can even read the Nikkei without them inserting random Japanese words. Go figure. Its just the radical left here that feel they have to inflict their agenda on every New Zealander.

27% of the New Zealand population are foreigners, who will also not understand Maori. So Stuff's policy is racist and exclusionary by assuming that everyone in the country understands Maori.

Nobody is assuming anything. That you continue to attempt to validate your opinion is your affair, however most thinking NZrs have moved on. Unfortunately I believe whilst you are in the vocal minority, I also believe you are a member of of the "silent" majority, hence why NZ has a long way to go

You are not complaining about foreign words being inserted, you are complaining about Te Reo being used in publications, I am quite sure you understand it is not a foreign language

1. These Maori words don't necessarily have a direct English equivalent. They often represent concepts that would take a separate paragraph to explain properly. Just learn what they mean. It will help you 'obtain information'.
2. You're being lazy.

I think you mean obtain alot of nonsense opinion. The narrative they push seems to be that anyone of European descent is born innately evil, supremacist, greedy, racist and their life goal is to destroy indigenous peoples'. Which is complete garbage these media outlets are peddling and i believe it is slowly fragmenting the cohesion of our society.

Amen. If you keep shoving things down peoples' throats, eventually they will gag.

Stuff have also taken an editorial decision, about two years ago, to accept man made global warning as a fact.
https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/andy-espersen-against-stuff
Similar to not publishing anti-Maori Wards reports or commentaries.

So that's two things they have gotten right, awesome.

WRONG!! - they should have published the pro's and con's. NOT decided to discount dissenting opinions. Stuff (as any media) is there to report opinions and facts - not filter them according to an owner or editorial bias. Anything published should have an overall balanced position. Failing that, they fall into the Fox News/ CNN mould - interesting but ultimately irrelevant

We've done pros and cons till the cows came home, we either accept the science and do something about it, or we chuck it to one side and do nothing. There is now no more time for arguing the toss about it, we could just keep doing that forever.
The overwhelming majority of active climate scientists agree and we are actually seeing effects, time for action.

Climate Science is a misnomer. It is not possible to publish a scientific paper or to get funding to perform research unless it demonstrates a climate catastrophy (I know people in that filed). As such, the community is devoid of a real discussion and true scientific debate on the subject. And so the "Overwhelming majority of climate scientists" really means "Overwhelming majority among a self-selected group of 'scientists' who all share a common belief"

"Andy Espersen complained that Stuff policy took no account of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a body of equally eminent scientists coming to somewhat different opinions from the IPCC."
So, just scientists, not actual climate scientists, and if not climate scientists, they hold no sway here.

This might have been asked/answered already but how dos nz comparr wit oz when it comes to looking after the bros becoz a lot of us bros move to oz and live the dream

Hmmm, glad you moved, because your english certainly hasn't improved and you've done the IQ of both countries immeasurable service.. You've cemented the average in Aussie and increased NZs overall average.

I have met and worked with a lot of happy and friendly Maori people in my time working in WA, It does them good to escape all this poison and negativity that is infecting our society now in NZ

Yes, I don't click on the Stuff site any more. Just a continuous screed of self-flagellation and demonization of all things European. It's ironic that many of the east and south Asians i know find the wet liberal pakeha mentality and attitude to their own complex history quite bemusing. In New Zealand, we are almost all mixed race.

On maori wards, they are a direct contravention of the "one person, one vote" core tenet of democracy.

Why? How many extra votes do Maori get?

It’s a crazy world we live in when the next 007, I’m told, is going to be a woman?!

Yes stuffs bias is way broader than what is written here.
Its down right anti-men as well.

Maybe its just the 'harvesting' season? Time to up the brown readership quotient? Maybe theyre wanting to be the place to go in competition with all the other mainstream media who also dont do a lot of Maori coverage, only mainly crime?
But, I get the libtard thing. That, is getting sooooo boring.