Bravo Mick. Such an important analysis of an utterly appalling interview. It was unprecedented use of TVNZ to promote Zionist hasbara.
No wonder people do not trust mainstream media when we have so much historical and current knowledge from other sources.
It's outrageous to treat the audience with such contempt, allowing the ambassador to offer (mostly) unchallenged propaganda as people worldwide observe Palestinians being exterminated in Gaza by Israel with US, UK and EU weaponry.
Thanks for this Mick . Typical TVNZ / RNZ line - whitewash US and US allies and blackwash their “enemies” or “adversaries “ . I have submitted quite exhaustive and authoritative rebuttals to RNZ on some of their absurdly derivative and speculative commentary on China / Hong Kong / Xinjiang etc . Not a single acknowledgment! A lot of Rnz / Tvnz coverage on geopolitical matters cartoon like propaganda it is so simplistic and myopic. You would have more insight than others into the why - but NZ the poorer for it.
Thank you for highlighting how disgusting and complicit the New Zealand mainstream media is in this genocide. Do they believe that New Zealanders are ignorant of what is going on despite our access to unfiltered information with a small amount of effort? I am ashamed to be from Aotearoa.
I did not see the Yaakoby-Tame interview, and after reading Mick's critique I have no desire to watch it. With TVNZ's facile propaganda posing as journalism it is not surprising that so many New Zealanders have lost respect for the mainstream news media at the same time as they are losing trust in New Zealand politicians.
It is now half a century since New Zealand, the US and their various allies suffered a humiliating defeat in the Vietnam war, and just three years since they suffered further humiliation at the hands of the Afghan Taliban. Despite the mendacity of their press and broadcast media, despite the criminal brutality of their war machine, and despite the mass slaughter of civilians in an attempt to gain victory through the instrument of terror, neither New Zealand nor the US have been able to prevail in any of their recent military campaigns.
The current conflicts in which New Zealand is engaged - the Gaza genocide and the Ukraine war - are unlikely to be exceptions, for the reason that in these conflicts the Realm of New Zealand is allied with morally repugnant powers, the US, UK and State of Israel, while facing morally superior adversaries in the shape of the the Islamic Resistance Movement in Gaza, the Ansar Allah forces of Yemen, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Russian Federation respectively. While these adversaries can not claim absolute moral superiority over the Realm of New Zealand, they enjoy one great advantage in that they are able to speak the truth of their respective situations, something that the New Zealand government does not do and cannot do.
This will not end well for the Realm of New Zealand.
That is obviously a matter of opinion which in my case is based on seventy years of life in New Zealand, a few months working on secondment in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a close analysis of the long standing foreign policy positions of both states. My experience of Iran is that people there enjoy greater political freedoms than New Zealanders (I attended anti-government demonstrations in Tehran at which called for "death to" various government ministers, in a manner which would not have been tolerated in New Zealand), and there is a much freer press (numerous English and Farsi language newspapers criticise the government in ways that we do not see here). On the foreign policy front New Zealand has consistently supported colonialist and racist regimes (even since WWII, New Zealand has given military support to French colonialism in Indo-China, British colonialism in Malaya, US genocide in Vietnam, the illegal occupation of Iraq, the illegimate and war -crime-plagued invasion of Afghanistan, and now the illegal attacks on Yemen, while Iran has consistently supported the victims of imperialism and colonialism). The New Zealand government encourages and profits from the provision of harmful and potentially lethal addictive drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and nicotine based products to the most vulnerable members of its population. It also profits from and encourages female and male sexual prostitution. Iran does none of these things. I could go on and on, but in my mind at least the end result has to be that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a more moral state than the Realm of New Zealand.
That is my experience. While working and living in Iran I learned that much of what was said about that country in our media was false. However you also have to remember that Iran is a country in a slow-burning war with the West, a country whose leaders and scientists face the constant threat of assassination by US and Israeli death squads, and which therefore tends to severely punish any persons who are thought to collaborate with its enemies. At times when Iran is not under siege (few and far between over recent decades), its politics become more moderate. The solution is for the West to stop trying to destroy Iran and to murder its leaders. New Zealand has no such excuse for its many infringements of human rights.
I should make it clear (as I did when in Iran) that I do not endorse all the actions, laws and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that I specifically oppose the death penalty for any crime.
While I did not see the video interview, I have seen a still shot of the participants in situ, and, as others have noted, the setting follows the style used for state to state meetings, with the flag of the State of Israel positioned behind Mr Yaakoby, and the flag of the Realm of New Zealand behind Jack Tame. Both Yaakoby and Tame would have been aware of the significance of this arrangement, and we can only conclude that the message being sent by both is that rather than being a case of a journalist interviewing a diplomat this was a case of two states collaborating to put a common position to the global public. Therefore Jack Tame should not be judged as an independent journalist in this affair. He must be judged as one acting in an official capacity as an agent of the New Zealand state, because there can be little doubt that throughout the interview he was acting on behalf of New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I expect he would acknowledge that to be the case.
That is my experience. While working and living in Iran I learned that much of what was said about that country in our media was false. However you also have to remember that Iran is a country in a slow-burning war with the West, a country whose leaders and scientists face the constant threat of assassination by US and Israeli death squads, and which therefore tends to severely punish any persons who are thought to collaborate with its enemies. At times when Iran is not under siege (few and far between over recent decades), its politics become more moderate. The solution is for the West to stop trying to destroy Iran and to murder its leaders. New Zealand has no such excuse for its many infringements of human rights.
That's a great point Geoff. I've often wondered whether countries like Iran, Russia, Belarus feel compelled to keep a tight grip over aspects of their societies because of US and Western interference and the constant threat posed by regime change activities and whether that would change if states didn't feel so threatened.
I think that there is empirical evidence pointing to that conclusion in the case of Iran at least, and I suspect that the same would apply to Russia, Belarus and North Korea. If the world powers (and smaller countries like New Zealand) could agree to stop either opposing or supporting foreign regimes then I believe that the peoples of those countries would, by and large, sooner or later, manage to solve their own problems. Intervention of any kind is usually disastrous even when it seems on the face of things to be justified by humanitarian concerns. For example the US first supported then decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein (not a nice guy to my way of thinking), and in both instances brought immense suffering to the people of Iraq. Similar things happened in Libya, and I do not believe we would have a war going on in Ukraine now if the West had not been in there stirring the pot since 2014 if not before.
Bravo Mick. Such an important analysis of an utterly appalling interview. It was unprecedented use of TVNZ to promote Zionist hasbara.
No wonder people do not trust mainstream media when we have so much historical and current knowledge from other sources.
It's outrageous to treat the audience with such contempt, allowing the ambassador to offer (mostly) unchallenged propaganda as people worldwide observe Palestinians being exterminated in Gaza by Israel with US, UK and EU weaponry.
Thanks for this Mick . Typical TVNZ / RNZ line - whitewash US and US allies and blackwash their “enemies” or “adversaries “ . I have submitted quite exhaustive and authoritative rebuttals to RNZ on some of their absurdly derivative and speculative commentary on China / Hong Kong / Xinjiang etc . Not a single acknowledgment! A lot of Rnz / Tvnz coverage on geopolitical matters cartoon like propaganda it is so simplistic and myopic. You would have more insight than others into the why - but NZ the poorer for it.
Thank you for highlighting how disgusting and complicit the New Zealand mainstream media is in this genocide. Do they believe that New Zealanders are ignorant of what is going on despite our access to unfiltered information with a small amount of effort? I am ashamed to be from Aotearoa.
I did not see the Yaakoby-Tame interview, and after reading Mick's critique I have no desire to watch it. With TVNZ's facile propaganda posing as journalism it is not surprising that so many New Zealanders have lost respect for the mainstream news media at the same time as they are losing trust in New Zealand politicians.
It is now half a century since New Zealand, the US and their various allies suffered a humiliating defeat in the Vietnam war, and just three years since they suffered further humiliation at the hands of the Afghan Taliban. Despite the mendacity of their press and broadcast media, despite the criminal brutality of their war machine, and despite the mass slaughter of civilians in an attempt to gain victory through the instrument of terror, neither New Zealand nor the US have been able to prevail in any of their recent military campaigns.
The current conflicts in which New Zealand is engaged - the Gaza genocide and the Ukraine war - are unlikely to be exceptions, for the reason that in these conflicts the Realm of New Zealand is allied with morally repugnant powers, the US, UK and State of Israel, while facing morally superior adversaries in the shape of the the Islamic Resistance Movement in Gaza, the Ansar Allah forces of Yemen, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Russian Federation respectively. While these adversaries can not claim absolute moral superiority over the Realm of New Zealand, they enjoy one great advantage in that they are able to speak the truth of their respective situations, something that the New Zealand government does not do and cannot do.
This will not end well for the Realm of New Zealand.
morally superior adversaries in the shape of ... the Islamic Republic of Iran ???
Sorry read on a bit ('can not claim absolute moral superiority' but still ???
That is obviously a matter of opinion which in my case is based on seventy years of life in New Zealand, a few months working on secondment in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a close analysis of the long standing foreign policy positions of both states. My experience of Iran is that people there enjoy greater political freedoms than New Zealanders (I attended anti-government demonstrations in Tehran at which called for "death to" various government ministers, in a manner which would not have been tolerated in New Zealand), and there is a much freer press (numerous English and Farsi language newspapers criticise the government in ways that we do not see here). On the foreign policy front New Zealand has consistently supported colonialist and racist regimes (even since WWII, New Zealand has given military support to French colonialism in Indo-China, British colonialism in Malaya, US genocide in Vietnam, the illegal occupation of Iraq, the illegimate and war -crime-plagued invasion of Afghanistan, and now the illegal attacks on Yemen, while Iran has consistently supported the victims of imperialism and colonialism). The New Zealand government encourages and profits from the provision of harmful and potentially lethal addictive drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and nicotine based products to the most vulnerable members of its population. It also profits from and encourages female and male sexual prostitution. Iran does none of these things. I could go on and on, but in my mind at least the end result has to be that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a more moral state than the Realm of New Zealand.
My experience of Iran is that people there enjoy greater political freedoms than New Zealanders Really? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/25/middleeast/toomaj-salehi-death-sentence-iran-intl/index.html
That is my experience. While working and living in Iran I learned that much of what was said about that country in our media was false. However you also have to remember that Iran is a country in a slow-burning war with the West, a country whose leaders and scientists face the constant threat of assassination by US and Israeli death squads, and which therefore tends to severely punish any persons who are thought to collaborate with its enemies. At times when Iran is not under siege (few and far between over recent decades), its politics become more moderate. The solution is for the West to stop trying to destroy Iran and to murder its leaders. New Zealand has no such excuse for its many infringements of human rights.
I should make it clear (as I did when in Iran) that I do not endorse all the actions, laws and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that I specifically oppose the death penalty for any crime.
While I did not see the video interview, I have seen a still shot of the participants in situ, and, as others have noted, the setting follows the style used for state to state meetings, with the flag of the State of Israel positioned behind Mr Yaakoby, and the flag of the Realm of New Zealand behind Jack Tame. Both Yaakoby and Tame would have been aware of the significance of this arrangement, and we can only conclude that the message being sent by both is that rather than being a case of a journalist interviewing a diplomat this was a case of two states collaborating to put a common position to the global public. Therefore Jack Tame should not be judged as an independent journalist in this affair. He must be judged as one acting in an official capacity as an agent of the New Zealand state, because there can be little doubt that throughout the interview he was acting on behalf of New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I expect he would acknowledge that to be the case.
That is my experience. While working and living in Iran I learned that much of what was said about that country in our media was false. However you also have to remember that Iran is a country in a slow-burning war with the West, a country whose leaders and scientists face the constant threat of assassination by US and Israeli death squads, and which therefore tends to severely punish any persons who are thought to collaborate with its enemies. At times when Iran is not under siege (few and far between over recent decades), its politics become more moderate. The solution is for the West to stop trying to destroy Iran and to murder its leaders. New Zealand has no such excuse for its many infringements of human rights.
That's a great point Geoff. I've often wondered whether countries like Iran, Russia, Belarus feel compelled to keep a tight grip over aspects of their societies because of US and Western interference and the constant threat posed by regime change activities and whether that would change if states didn't feel so threatened.
I think that there is empirical evidence pointing to that conclusion in the case of Iran at least, and I suspect that the same would apply to Russia, Belarus and North Korea. If the world powers (and smaller countries like New Zealand) could agree to stop either opposing or supporting foreign regimes then I believe that the peoples of those countries would, by and large, sooner or later, manage to solve their own problems. Intervention of any kind is usually disastrous even when it seems on the face of things to be justified by humanitarian concerns. For example the US first supported then decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein (not a nice guy to my way of thinking), and in both instances brought immense suffering to the people of Iraq. Similar things happened in Libya, and I do not believe we would have a war going on in Ukraine now if the West had not been in there stirring the pot since 2014 if not before.