Advertisement

Protesting the protester

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” – Albert Camus

Last week, the New Zealand Herald anointed itself judge and executioner, a final arbiter of who is considered worthy of airtime.

Nestled in the top right corner of their Waitangi Day front page, the words ‘protest-free news pages’ encircled a raised fist, stamping out and casting aside the relevance of any person who thinks or acts contrary to the Herald’s apparently final ruling.

That malevolent little circle was, in a way, a protest against a protest. The irony was apparently lost on Herald Editor Shayne Currie who was the only employee to provide a brief (albeit slightly flippant) explanation on Twitter:

“Sick of 1-2 individuals who hijack the day and dominate TV/headlines. So we've ignored them and devoted 7 pages to debate [sic].”

He later stated “today's NZ Herald ignores the protestor who dropped the fish off for the PM (old news, anyway).”

He was referring to the man who dumped a bucket of smelly fish a few metres away from John Key as he was leaving Te Tii Marae. (I’m sure most New Zealanders would consider the faceless and apparently mute seafood-shotputter silly at best and distracting at worst.)

Ostensibly, the Herald’s decision was a reaction against the burbling of many other media who rushed to place their microphones in the fishy hands of a lone assailant. This became headline news (despite the pilchard-pitcher refusing to disclose his motive) and dominating the narrative across almost every bulletin.

Put simply, it was overkill, and disproportionate to how things really played out.

There are two major problems with this act of triteness from the nation’s largest newspaper. Firstly, this branding of protesters as extraneous went almost entirely unexplained. There was no editorial defence aside from the above tweets from Shayne Currie.

Secondly, because of this failure to divulge a motive, the Herald opens itself up to criticism that it is stifling important actions and absolving itself of the responsibility to foster reasoned debate and commentary.

By focusing on the slimy dead fish, most media (including the Herald) barely glanced at the large and sincere anti-drilling hikoi present at Te Tii Marae.

The hikoi that marched toward Waitangi over the past week had been in opposition to oil drilling off the New Zealand coast without government mandate or iwi approval. Sonny Tau, an iwi spokesman told Newstalk ZB that “nine times out of 10 the minerals go with the Government and other companies and we don't get anything out of it. That's the problem."

Organiser Reuben Taipari stated the march was “for our children and grandchildren and we plan to give a united message to the nation and the Crown.”

If this is not a valid and admirable cause worthy of discussion and reportage, then what is?

"Protest is a foundation of a democratic society,” outgoing Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said last Wednesday, mirroring activist Howard Zinn’s famous statement: “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”

In a way, the Herald’s decision was self-defeating. By protesting the protester, the paper defied its very own editorial which trumpeted the creation of an independent Maori political party, the “less visible” successes of Whanau Ora, recognition of the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, and so on.

How did these achievements come about, if not through dissent and grassroots political engagement of which protest is an intrinsic part?

The New Zealand Herald took a radical step sideways in response to a meaningless act, glancing over important events as a consequence. They’ve projected their own reactionary biases at the public to the detriment on an informed democracy, and against the journalistic ethics they’ve apparently sworn to uphold.

There are more sensible, succinct ways of making an editorial point without imposing an irrational, blanket ban on a significant portion of the political discourse.

Despite the po-faced obfuscation, the Herald did publish a brave column by Toby Manhire on Friday, and I’ll give you his words in closing.

“Waitangi Day delivers a sometimes uncomfortable, often controversial moment to consider the way modern New Zealand came about, for better or worse…Of course it isn't sung in perfect harmony, because that would be a nonsense.”

Follow James on Twitter: @James_ARobins