Freelance
journalist Jock Anderson calls for reasoned thinking when considering two
media-driven issues.
No two
topics have consumed the New Zealand media as much in recent times as the
so-called flag “conversation” and the push to take more refugees.
Reporting
on both topics has been at fever pitch as hand-wringing reporters and
presenters do their damnedest to foist on the country things many folk are
uncomfortable accepting and won’t accept.
In the case
of the flag debate, or conversation, as it is called, this multi-million dollar
exercise in giving aging academics, past sports heroes and tired “celebrities”
from the marketing world something to do has completely missed the point of
changing the flag.
The chosen
examples on which the nation will be asked to rate by preference are nothing
more than marketing logos, which would be more at home on packs of butter or
footy shorts.
None of
them are examples of what could be truly called a national flag.
Now the
rugby union has farcically warned the government against pinching “its” silver
fern logo.
The flag
debate has been misconstrued from day one, initiated – it seems – by Prime
Minister John Key’s irritation at ours being confused with Australia’s.
New
Zealanders fought and died under our flag and the Returned Services
Association, for one, is rightly opposed to any change to it.
The flag
also represents New Zealand’s place in the British Commonwealth, so before any
flag change is contemplated New Zealand should first decide if it wants to
remain in the Commonwealth or pull out.
That’s a
major serious constitutional “conversation” that has yet to take place.
Which
brings me to refugees.
It seems
New Zealand could double its refugee intake from 750 to 1,500 without too much
trouble. Kiwis are apparently coming out of the woodwork to billet them.
Again, some
caution is required.
The refugee
story is driven by a frenetic media obsessed with images of thousands of folk
running about Europe looking for new safe homes.
Film of a
dead toddler lying in the surf is a newsroom bonus and is milked for every
tear-jerking second.
Does the
media “care” about refugees or changing the flag? No.
These are
simply the hot stories of the day, beaten up to rally misplaced nationalism and
trigger outpourings of compassion.
Nationalism
and compassion have their place but people need to be wary of being rail-roaded
by a cynical media interested more in cheap thrills than rational, informed
discussion.
Prediction: If New Zealand does take more refugees wait
for the media to talk up how wonderful we are as a caring nation. And wait for
the same media to pounce on any unfortunates who can’t or won’t fit in.
That’s
tomorrow’s news…
Jock Anderson has been a journalist for a long
time, observing matters from what he describes as a sensible centre-right
perspective. He can be contacted at jockanderson123@gmail.com
4 comments:
How about we take - say - 10% of the number of "refugees" that the Arab States take?
No more moslems into NZ!
Of Flags and Refugees a Media Bonus.
Jock Anderson has hit the mark; our Media together with the Compassionate Brigade have been having a field day. The incidence of that small drowned child being carried onto the beach must be one of the greatest hypes in recent journalism. Let us compare this death with the recent deaths of small children in New Zealand by violent “carers”. This made small headlines in comparison, and then vanished from media attention, an embarrassment emanating from the standard of child care and parenting that is now a feature of New Zealand. Or perhaps the concern was that these deaths had an ethnic connotation; especially when one reads the United Nations report on the ethnic composition in our prisons!
The mass migration is in effect an invasion from Syria and Iraq, the consequence of failings by the United Nation, the Obama administration, and the Peace at any Price foreign policy of the E U. The removal of being able to deal with ISIS with a strong military solution was substituted with a bombing campaign. The military has repeatedly inform these organisations that a bombing campaign without Boots on the Ground is a useless exercise and is a case of repeating the history of bombing in World War 2. It is like many other components, a tool to use in conjunction with many others; and not the ultimate weapon. (Unless of course, the Nuclear bomb is used, and then that still has to be followed with Boots on the Ground.
The failure to identify and destroy Isis in the early stages can be compared with the similar failure to deal with Hitler in 1934. It is not to late even at this stage, to take the ultimate steps by the Western Powers, (and this includes New Zealand) to place forces in sufficient strength to destroy ISIS. Not merely using the excuse of providing a non-combatant role merely to serve political ends.
But will this happen? Not while President Obama is in the last stages of his Presidency and wishes to be remembered as the Legacy Peacemaker in retirement, or the E.U., who have procrastinated over facing difficult issues since its inception. Western Countries should throw off the comfortable political shield of appeasement, and deal ruthlessly with this Islamic terrorist issue, which would start an end to this mass exodus.
It behoves the general public in N.Z. to realise that distance can no longer protect us from the March of Islam.
A case of “And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
Brian
Jock Anderson must be in the same school of deluded thinking as Mike Hosking if he believes we must exit the Commonwealth before considering a flag change. The vast majority of Commonwealth members have had flag changes.
BeeGee
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.