Not enough mobilisation is happening in the Pacific and Palestinian rights protestors need to be firmly anti-imperialist as the US squares up to China, esteemed Indian writer tells Auckland meeting.
Can I also add, if writers like you, Mick, and your network start a media portal for NZ writers, I'm there for the mahi. I got the degrees, the decades' experience, the writing, but no one establishment would ever pay for my perspective. Totally shut out, and I can't go writing "in the wind", it's pointless. None of us can. I'd do all I could for free to get NZ's anti-imperialist front up on the front foot. Just need the project.
Many of our real journalists can be found on substack. That is good, but it is not an adequate solution. The "great paywall of democracy" makes the western political system the preserve of the wealthy (who boast that it has a "small yard behind a high fence") and on top of that wall stand the smaller paywalls of substack which limit public engagement with some of our best and most honest thinkers. Could an Aotearoa substack collective be opened up giving wider access to more thinkers for a single low subscription fee? So if I subscribe to Mick Hall I get Bernard Hickey and vice versa? And maybe a few of the better international commentators such as Tarik Cyril Amar as well?
"New Zealanders need to mobilise much more to confront Israel’s genocide in Gaza and avoid the nation being used in a war against China by emboldened imperialist madmen, Indian writer and historian Vijay Prashad says."
A bit of moral pressure there. He is right of course. We could be doing more, particularly given that "our" government (which is really King Charles' New Zealand government) is complicit in the genocide. The question Prashad does not ask, let alone answer, is how we are to do that. For decades we have opposed the most vile actions of New Zealand governments. Their support for French colonial rule in IndoChina, the subsequent savagery of the US invasion of Vietnam, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the illegal war on Iraq, the brutal invasion of Afghanistan, the unnecessary and hugely destructive war in Ukraine and now the genocide in Gaza.
Our protests have come at personal cost for many but have been effective up to a point. I say up to a point because no sooner have we seen the end of one abomination than the New Zealand government and their handmaidens in the media present us with another. So people become tired. They ask themselves whether there is any point to making a stand for humanity in the face of a relentlessly awful imperial system.
The answer is that there are compelling moral reasons for us to take a stand on the Gaza genocide, but there are also practical issues we have to address, the foremost being that so long as we are under colonialist rule we will have governments that commit, condone or are complicit in unspeakable atrocities. We will be constantly reacting to one issue after another at a cost to ourselves and without giving much real succour to the victims of the regime and its traditional allies (which include Australia and Britain, the only two nations in the world which have ever sent an invasion force against our people). The only way we can help the people of Palestine and the world and ourselves is to get rid of the colonialist regime once and forever. It is time to resume nga pakanga o te atetenga.
Vijay Prashads thoughts on our media landscape are illuminating. It’s not a good prognosis for society in Aotearoa if something resembling real journalism can’t be kick started pronto. Zionist apologists need not apply.
If a media structure can be forged that gives space for radical or simply intelligent thought then initially it would naturally be a collaboration between "like-minded" people but the goal should be to include a wider range of views, right up to Zionists, colonialists, monarchists and all.
Why is that important? Because an ideological collective can go in one of two ways. It can descend into sectarianism and factional splits, or it can become progressively more inclusive and confident in its ability to counter false narratives. Sectarianism has been the bane of radical movements and we need to be rid of it. Our ability to get to the truth does not depend on having a restricted range of opinion. It depends on a tikanga which supports the elucidation of the facts and an objective view of the world. An essential part of that tikanga is transparency. All contributors (columnists, editors and commenters) should have a real and verifiable identity. Editorial policies and moderation should be declared clearly and unambiguously, and should not be arbitrary and there should be democratic processes to review editorial decisions. Thus I am suggesting that the tikanga should take priority over doctrine, as it does on marae. We know that we have nothing to fear from the doctrines of colonialism so long as we are able to engage with them on equal terms. The same can be said of Zionism and every other doctrine which is logically flawed or morally defective or both.
Yes, Pluralism is desirable, but I'm not sure a place for Imperialists and zionists is needed, or possible. They dominate the world already. We need the mirror held up to them and their actions by showing/being a better way.
One of the things the "Establishment" does in media is it speaks for other people. So they put their point of view across, then speak for their official enemy. That they are allowed to do this is now pro forma journalism, basically what Mick was correcting mildly and got attacked for (especially in retrospect - the RNZ audit was like a time capsule showing how the level of tolerance for non-approved viewpoints has declined since even 2018).
As soon as you host actual Zionists, for instance, you get pulled back into debating their narrative, which is fragmentary because you have to unwind so many lies and assertions it takes up energy. That's how hasbara works.
Now, as I think you are suggesting, they don't get published if they don't pass an editorial standard. But if the standard is right, no real Zionist post would pass because it would have to start with acknowledgment of what colonisation and decolonisation is. And that is the fundamental denial that has let Imperial-fuelled Zionism become the genocidal force it is today.
So there is no "happy playground of everyone", in my view. What the kaupapa and mission of a new portal would be is important. Agreeing to key values and messages would be necessary. Reporting honestly and with integrity, abhorring violence with the goal of no more dead, democratic commitment to all choices at lowest level possible, "do no harm" (over intervention & "move fast and break things); critiquing power and the forces seeking to control and dominate, boost conciliation and adaptation. Agreeing where the front line is, and what fights can be won and which have to be deferred. I think getting on that common ground would be the first thing, because you'll need unity, but not necessarily consensus.
And yes it is a "fight", because not omitting inconvenient truths has been made the mark of an enemy in the discourse. We're now dealing with a system that is bent on full spectrum control and domination. It's in decline and there is no negotiating anymore as it sets about reorganising for its and its benefactors survival.
But it is an asymmetric struggle if done right - there are many strands to it. Don't have to confront the Empire of lies head on antagonistically, just speak truth, compare and contrast actively, and demonstrate the change we want through our words and actions. The counter-community will form.
The proposal from Vijay Prashad as reported by Mick Hall was for "New Zealand writers to organise and create a news website to address the problem .." adding "You need a front-facing portal because your media is really crap." The way I read that is that Prashad is urging writers (I am thinking he means people like Mick Hall, Gordon Campbell, Martyn Bradbury, Bernard Hickey, Bryan Bruce, David Robie, Max Harris and so on) to get together and construct a news site to which the New Zealand public have ready access. All these writers are currently doing their own thing, basically expressing their political opinions through their own personal blogs, on substack or elsewhere. Bradbury, Campbell and Hickey employ a number of guest columnists and collaborators. Getting these disparate individuals to come together in a common endeavor might be like the proverbial herding of cats. I assume that this is what Prashad had in mind. He also seems to be thinking in terms of an actual news service rather than just an assemblage of political commentary. That would be a major challenge given the fact that the establishment news outlets are shrinking and in danger of disappearing altogether, or just becoming fronts for news agencies from the major Five Eyes states. How would it be done? Presumably such a news outlet would need to have foreign partners of its own, such as RT, Al Jazeera and so on.
The "writers" themselves will have to decide whether to pick up and run with Prashad's proposal, and if they do what will be the scope and structure of the enterprise.
Such a portal would have to offer a higher level of information and commentary than the established media. (That would not be setting a high bar).
There are a number of websites already active which provide a range of commentary. From my viewpoint, some of the good things about these existing sites are: TDB and Scoop have no paywall and offer a range of opinion from columnists. TDB hosts vigorous debates among its readers. The various substack sites also make good provision for reader comment.
Some of the bad things: Scoop makes no provision for subscriber comments. TDB carries a lot of advertising, allows anonymous/pseudonymous comments and has somewhat arbitrary moderation standards and, unfortunately, though for reasons that are quite understandable, the substack sites often sit behind a paywall.
Key issues for a new portal will be who gets to supply content (I favour an approach based on quality of content rather than political affiliation), how the public interact (I favour freedom to comment on condition of a real and verifiable identity, and perhaps on condition of being a subscriber, so long as the subscription fee is modest) and how it is to be funded (I favour koha, failing that a modest subscription fee or minimal advertising). In other words I would prefer to see any such portal function under the principles of rangatiratanga and I would be keen to see it positioned to fully replace the colonialist regime's media rather than being stuck on the periphery as a "left wing" news and opinion portal. Those are high hopes, I know.
Yeah, I can see you're drawing different assumptions of what Prashad thought of the current situation and of what was needed. There is indeed a spectrum of options and possibilities in approach - including from pointless to incisive. Just depends what people perceive as the problem they want to address. The broader the base, the more acute the approach to the fundamental issues of power, the more effective. We'll see what people want to do, if anything.
A "proper media service" will need top down funding, I can not see that happening. Except as controlled opposition or undisclosed agenda.
Ka pai Geoff, I can see the sense in that. I’m enraged at what’s happening in Gaza as well as historical atrocities and under reporting. I must admit I was bemused when you mentioned a collaboration with the Kaka in an earlier comment. I was an avid listener to the Hoon despite a disparaging comment about Robert Fisk pre October 7th, but post Oct 7th found that live stream to nauseating to bear. However I agree with your point about exposing a wide spectrum of views transparently.
The problem with NZ is if it doesn't effect us then we just carry on with our lives. The last time people gave a crap was in 1981 against the spring box when we saw over 150,000 people united and over 200 demonstrations. Since then we have seen nothing remotely like it, I also want to point out the only reason we protested against the spring box was because it directly affected Kiwis.
We don't even boycott business that break international laws, we don't boycott business that support those who breach human rights. How many people use google products, Google has project nimbus and their tech is tested on Palestinians.
This article is so bang on so many levels, and it's going to be harder with a government that is willing to kiss the arse of the Americans and it's imperialism
On November 4 RNZ ran a story "Iranian woman 'violently arrested' after removing clothes at Tehran University" illustrated with a photograph showing a young woman in her underwear.
Such a severe departure from social norms (even at Auckland University it would arouse concern among the authorities) could result from either political dissent or a mental disorder. In this case there is nothing to suggest that it was an act of political dissent. There were no signs, statements, or supporters present. Therefore the only safe assumption is that the disrobing was an outcome of a mental disorder as the Iranian authorities claim.
Showing this photograph in any circumstances would be questionable. Given that this young woman is said to be suffering from "a mental disorder" she should not be pictured at all in a manner that allows her to be identified, and it is disgraceful of RNZ to show her unclothed. I see no compelling reason why the text of the article, while controversial and prejudicial, should not have been published, but the photograph crosses a red line which every responsible media outlet should respect.
The photograph's effect is to titillate RNZ's male audience without any concern at all for the woman's welfare or mental health.
Would the photograph have been published if Mick Hall was still editing overseas content re-published by RNZ? I doubt it. I am sure that Mick would have questioned the necessity and propriety of publishing such an image, and would have considered the impact on the mental health of the woman in question.
Exploiting a sexualized image of a vulnerable woman marks a new low for RNZ
Thank you for this excellent piece.
Every word he said is correct.
Can I also add, if writers like you, Mick, and your network start a media portal for NZ writers, I'm there for the mahi. I got the degrees, the decades' experience, the writing, but no one establishment would ever pay for my perspective. Totally shut out, and I can't go writing "in the wind", it's pointless. None of us can. I'd do all I could for free to get NZ's anti-imperialist front up on the front foot. Just need the project.
Many of our real journalists can be found on substack. That is good, but it is not an adequate solution. The "great paywall of democracy" makes the western political system the preserve of the wealthy (who boast that it has a "small yard behind a high fence") and on top of that wall stand the smaller paywalls of substack which limit public engagement with some of our best and most honest thinkers. Could an Aotearoa substack collective be opened up giving wider access to more thinkers for a single low subscription fee? So if I subscribe to Mick Hall I get Bernard Hickey and vice versa? And maybe a few of the better international commentators such as Tarik Cyril Amar as well?
"New Zealanders need to mobilise much more to confront Israel’s genocide in Gaza and avoid the nation being used in a war against China by emboldened imperialist madmen, Indian writer and historian Vijay Prashad says."
A bit of moral pressure there. He is right of course. We could be doing more, particularly given that "our" government (which is really King Charles' New Zealand government) is complicit in the genocide. The question Prashad does not ask, let alone answer, is how we are to do that. For decades we have opposed the most vile actions of New Zealand governments. Their support for French colonial rule in IndoChina, the subsequent savagery of the US invasion of Vietnam, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the illegal war on Iraq, the brutal invasion of Afghanistan, the unnecessary and hugely destructive war in Ukraine and now the genocide in Gaza.
Our protests have come at personal cost for many but have been effective up to a point. I say up to a point because no sooner have we seen the end of one abomination than the New Zealand government and their handmaidens in the media present us with another. So people become tired. They ask themselves whether there is any point to making a stand for humanity in the face of a relentlessly awful imperial system.
The answer is that there are compelling moral reasons for us to take a stand on the Gaza genocide, but there are also practical issues we have to address, the foremost being that so long as we are under colonialist rule we will have governments that commit, condone or are complicit in unspeakable atrocities. We will be constantly reacting to one issue after another at a cost to ourselves and without giving much real succour to the victims of the regime and its traditional allies (which include Australia and Britain, the only two nations in the world which have ever sent an invasion force against our people). The only way we can help the people of Palestine and the world and ourselves is to get rid of the colonialist regime once and forever. It is time to resume nga pakanga o te atetenga.
“He urged New Zealand writers to organise and create a news website to address the problem and offered his help to set it up.” Yes.
Vijay Prashads thoughts on our media landscape are illuminating. It’s not a good prognosis for society in Aotearoa if something resembling real journalism can’t be kick started pronto. Zionist apologists need not apply.
If a media structure can be forged that gives space for radical or simply intelligent thought then initially it would naturally be a collaboration between "like-minded" people but the goal should be to include a wider range of views, right up to Zionists, colonialists, monarchists and all.
Why is that important? Because an ideological collective can go in one of two ways. It can descend into sectarianism and factional splits, or it can become progressively more inclusive and confident in its ability to counter false narratives. Sectarianism has been the bane of radical movements and we need to be rid of it. Our ability to get to the truth does not depend on having a restricted range of opinion. It depends on a tikanga which supports the elucidation of the facts and an objective view of the world. An essential part of that tikanga is transparency. All contributors (columnists, editors and commenters) should have a real and verifiable identity. Editorial policies and moderation should be declared clearly and unambiguously, and should not be arbitrary and there should be democratic processes to review editorial decisions. Thus I am suggesting that the tikanga should take priority over doctrine, as it does on marae. We know that we have nothing to fear from the doctrines of colonialism so long as we are able to engage with them on equal terms. The same can be said of Zionism and every other doctrine which is logically flawed or morally defective or both.
Yes, Pluralism is desirable, but I'm not sure a place for Imperialists and zionists is needed, or possible. They dominate the world already. We need the mirror held up to them and their actions by showing/being a better way.
One of the things the "Establishment" does in media is it speaks for other people. So they put their point of view across, then speak for their official enemy. That they are allowed to do this is now pro forma journalism, basically what Mick was correcting mildly and got attacked for (especially in retrospect - the RNZ audit was like a time capsule showing how the level of tolerance for non-approved viewpoints has declined since even 2018).
As soon as you host actual Zionists, for instance, you get pulled back into debating their narrative, which is fragmentary because you have to unwind so many lies and assertions it takes up energy. That's how hasbara works.
Now, as I think you are suggesting, they don't get published if they don't pass an editorial standard. But if the standard is right, no real Zionist post would pass because it would have to start with acknowledgment of what colonisation and decolonisation is. And that is the fundamental denial that has let Imperial-fuelled Zionism become the genocidal force it is today.
So there is no "happy playground of everyone", in my view. What the kaupapa and mission of a new portal would be is important. Agreeing to key values and messages would be necessary. Reporting honestly and with integrity, abhorring violence with the goal of no more dead, democratic commitment to all choices at lowest level possible, "do no harm" (over intervention & "move fast and break things); critiquing power and the forces seeking to control and dominate, boost conciliation and adaptation. Agreeing where the front line is, and what fights can be won and which have to be deferred. I think getting on that common ground would be the first thing, because you'll need unity, but not necessarily consensus.
And yes it is a "fight", because not omitting inconvenient truths has been made the mark of an enemy in the discourse. We're now dealing with a system that is bent on full spectrum control and domination. It's in decline and there is no negotiating anymore as it sets about reorganising for its and its benefactors survival.
But it is an asymmetric struggle if done right - there are many strands to it. Don't have to confront the Empire of lies head on antagonistically, just speak truth, compare and contrast actively, and demonstrate the change we want through our words and actions. The counter-community will form.
YMMV
The proposal from Vijay Prashad as reported by Mick Hall was for "New Zealand writers to organise and create a news website to address the problem .." adding "You need a front-facing portal because your media is really crap." The way I read that is that Prashad is urging writers (I am thinking he means people like Mick Hall, Gordon Campbell, Martyn Bradbury, Bernard Hickey, Bryan Bruce, David Robie, Max Harris and so on) to get together and construct a news site to which the New Zealand public have ready access. All these writers are currently doing their own thing, basically expressing their political opinions through their own personal blogs, on substack or elsewhere. Bradbury, Campbell and Hickey employ a number of guest columnists and collaborators. Getting these disparate individuals to come together in a common endeavor might be like the proverbial herding of cats. I assume that this is what Prashad had in mind. He also seems to be thinking in terms of an actual news service rather than just an assemblage of political commentary. That would be a major challenge given the fact that the establishment news outlets are shrinking and in danger of disappearing altogether, or just becoming fronts for news agencies from the major Five Eyes states. How would it be done? Presumably such a news outlet would need to have foreign partners of its own, such as RT, Al Jazeera and so on.
The "writers" themselves will have to decide whether to pick up and run with Prashad's proposal, and if they do what will be the scope and structure of the enterprise.
Such a portal would have to offer a higher level of information and commentary than the established media. (That would not be setting a high bar).
There are a number of websites already active which provide a range of commentary. From my viewpoint, some of the good things about these existing sites are: TDB and Scoop have no paywall and offer a range of opinion from columnists. TDB hosts vigorous debates among its readers. The various substack sites also make good provision for reader comment.
Some of the bad things: Scoop makes no provision for subscriber comments. TDB carries a lot of advertising, allows anonymous/pseudonymous comments and has somewhat arbitrary moderation standards and, unfortunately, though for reasons that are quite understandable, the substack sites often sit behind a paywall.
Key issues for a new portal will be who gets to supply content (I favour an approach based on quality of content rather than political affiliation), how the public interact (I favour freedom to comment on condition of a real and verifiable identity, and perhaps on condition of being a subscriber, so long as the subscription fee is modest) and how it is to be funded (I favour koha, failing that a modest subscription fee or minimal advertising). In other words I would prefer to see any such portal function under the principles of rangatiratanga and I would be keen to see it positioned to fully replace the colonialist regime's media rather than being stuck on the periphery as a "left wing" news and opinion portal. Those are high hopes, I know.
Yeah, I can see you're drawing different assumptions of what Prashad thought of the current situation and of what was needed. There is indeed a spectrum of options and possibilities in approach - including from pointless to incisive. Just depends what people perceive as the problem they want to address. The broader the base, the more acute the approach to the fundamental issues of power, the more effective. We'll see what people want to do, if anything.
A "proper media service" will need top down funding, I can not see that happening. Except as controlled opposition or undisclosed agenda.
Ka pai Geoff, I can see the sense in that. I’m enraged at what’s happening in Gaza as well as historical atrocities and under reporting. I must admit I was bemused when you mentioned a collaboration with the Kaka in an earlier comment. I was an avid listener to the Hoon despite a disparaging comment about Robert Fisk pre October 7th, but post Oct 7th found that live stream to nauseating to bear. However I agree with your point about exposing a wide spectrum of views transparently.
The problem with NZ is if it doesn't effect us then we just carry on with our lives. The last time people gave a crap was in 1981 against the spring box when we saw over 150,000 people united and over 200 demonstrations. Since then we have seen nothing remotely like it, I also want to point out the only reason we protested against the spring box was because it directly affected Kiwis.
We don't even boycott business that break international laws, we don't boycott business that support those who breach human rights. How many people use google products, Google has project nimbus and their tech is tested on Palestinians.
This article is so bang on so many levels, and it's going to be harder with a government that is willing to kiss the arse of the Americans and it's imperialism
On November 4 RNZ ran a story "Iranian woman 'violently arrested' after removing clothes at Tehran University" illustrated with a photograph showing a young woman in her underwear.
Such a severe departure from social norms (even at Auckland University it would arouse concern among the authorities) could result from either political dissent or a mental disorder. In this case there is nothing to suggest that it was an act of political dissent. There were no signs, statements, or supporters present. Therefore the only safe assumption is that the disrobing was an outcome of a mental disorder as the Iranian authorities claim.
Showing this photograph in any circumstances would be questionable. Given that this young woman is said to be suffering from "a mental disorder" she should not be pictured at all in a manner that allows her to be identified, and it is disgraceful of RNZ to show her unclothed. I see no compelling reason why the text of the article, while controversial and prejudicial, should not have been published, but the photograph crosses a red line which every responsible media outlet should respect.
The photograph's effect is to titillate RNZ's male audience without any concern at all for the woman's welfare or mental health.
Would the photograph have been published if Mick Hall was still editing overseas content re-published by RNZ? I doubt it. I am sure that Mick would have questioned the necessity and propriety of publishing such an image, and would have considered the impact on the mental health of the woman in question.
Exploiting a sexualized image of a vulnerable woman marks a new low for RNZ
We love you prashad, come on kiwis set up an independent media to take on the media stoogges
Great stuff