Teacher lodges BSA complaint about Native Affairs bias

A teacher who needs to remain anonymous for fear of losing his career saw my Native Affairs debate with Annette Sykes on 19 May and immediately lodged the BSA complaint that you can read below.

Before you read his complaint, I thought you should read his theory about how blinkered Treatifarians like Sykes are able to shamelessly sidestep any inconvenient truth that threatens their claim of entitlement to your money.

The show itself was the typical Native Affairs ambush, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I must also praise the staff at Maori TV, who are always unfailingly courteous and helpful to me — and have the best green room food of any channel. (Thank you taxpayers!)

Despite the hostility from mein host Mihingarangi (AKA Joanna) Forbes, I managed to air many points, and Forbes’ rude outbursts provoked such an outcry that we’ve been able to open up a new front in the battle: complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Association.

Please join in the fun and lodge your own.

I dared to suggest that colonisation had massively advantaged Maori.
Mihi Forbes countered with “Then what about all the Maori crime etc.?”
I answered as above. Annette Sykes’ response was fascinating, expanding
my horizons on French cuisine.

I’m not sure why Maori TV asked me back only a week after I’d posted raw footage of the Titford interview, where I gave them the affidavits showing that Sue’s father had burned down the Titford house, not Allan.

(Evidence which they neglected to screen.)

I certainly wasn’t their first choice for the follow-up story, which they made clear by mentioning the names of four other commentators who’d declined their invitation.

Forbes’ bias first surfaced when she sneered at One New Zealand’s Ross Baker for not appearing “because he lives in Australia”. In fact Ross had been happy to go on the show — knowing he’d be ridiculed — if Maori TV paid his airfare. They wouldn’t.

Her bias was most apparent after I was at last able to mention my evidence that Allan Titford was innocent of burning down his own house.

And what was Forbes’ priority upon learning that a man has been locked up for 24 years, almost solely on the say-so of a woman who appears to have lied?

Was it to sympathise with the incarcerated man and demand a retrial, as any fair person would have done?

No.

Her priority was to demand that I apologise for Allan Titford’s previous blaming of the highly plausible but now exonerated suspects, Te Roroa.

Given that even his bitter ex-wife acknowledges that Te Roroa shot Allan’s stock and committed numerous other acts of sabotage and intimidation over many years, I was not about to offer any such apology simply because the tribe’s list of offences had reduced by one.

(My opponents might say the same about Allan Titford’s list of offences. But I also have evidence that casts doubt on at least two of the rapes. And if Sue has lied about the arson and the rapes, what does that suggest about her other 36 charges?)

I did mention on the programme that Allan himself has written in recent times that he doubts Te Roroa committed the arson — even though he did not know at that stage who did. The so-called moderator ignored this, preferring to focus on the time when he did consider the tribe responsible.

With no regard for the evidence on the affidavit, Forbes then blithely accused “a member of the Titford family” of burning down the house.

Clearly, she had no interest whatsoever in acquainting herself with the facts or seeking justice for a falsely imprisoned Pakeha, only with cynically using the new evidence to invoke sympathy for Maori.

 __________________________

A TEACHER COMMENTS

(The words from here on, apart from the photo
captions, are those of the teacher complainant.)

Though I don’t expect anything to come of this, any opportunity to provoke self-criticism and self-analysis in our opponents should be seized. And nothing will irritate them more than having to draft a response to my complaint (“the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass”).

I am genuinely intrigued to know how they will defend themselves against the accusations. For, these are people who seem to possess an in-built mechanism to resist self-criticism. They are saddled with their own self-deceptions and this distorts their entire worldview.

To be sure, there are those who are knowingly cynical and act accordingly, but the opponents that you faced on Monday night really did seem to be convinced that they were in the right.

 Another enjoyable Maori TV ambush. Native Affairs, Monday 19 May
with Mihi Forbes and Annette Sykes.

I once visited the concentration camp in Dachau and I remember discussing with the tour guide the curious phenomenon of high-ranking Nazi officials who refused to plead guilty to crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials.

Even when confronted with evidence of genocide, they could not bring themselves to denounce the Nazi regime. How could this be?

We came to the conclusion that they had so utterly based their identity on the Nazi ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would have collapsed into nothingness.

In other words, their resistance to self-criticism and self-doubt was a psychological survival mechanism.

(Analogies drawn from the Nazi era are never very tasteful, but I think this one does shed some light on the Annette Sykes and the Willie Jacksons of Maoridom.)

So, what is needed is more skepticism and less identity politics.

Have radicals like Annette Sykes (who’s father was born in England so is less
native to New Zealand than John Ansell) “so utterly based their identity on the
[Maori] ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would collapse”?

Unfortunately, Annette Sykes seems to disagree with me on both counts. I did some research about her prior to your television appearance and I actually heard her say that what New Zealand needs is a “commitment to decolonisation”.

(To me, this has disturbing echoes of the Khmer Rouge catch-cry to “clear the ground.”)

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Annette Sykes can pass through the university system without having fostered any sympathy for Western cultural and intellectual traditions.

(Without the sense that the Greeks and the Romans and the French and the Germans and the Russians and the Italians and maybe even the British may have something more to offer than the songs and the dances and the wood carvings that have been preserved within Maoridom. And this from a law graduate!)

Maybe it’s because the Western intellectual tradition — which begins with Socrates — was founded on skepticism, and skepticism invites self-criticism…

__________________________

THE TEACHER’S BSA COMPLAINT

The Maori TV bio of Mihingarangi Forbes (Joanna until she changed her name
while attending a Waikato Maori-immersion college), included the revealing
comment: “Mihi always knew she would work in communications because she
told such tall stories as a kid.” She was still at it on Monday. [JA]

My teacher friend complains as follows. You may wish to follow the same format. You should address your complaint in the first instance to Maori TV, then when they inevitably reject your concerns, report them to the BSA.

Programme Title

Native Affairs

Date of Broadcast

19 May 2014

Time of Broadcast

8.30pm

Channel/Station

Māori Television

Programme standard(s) breached

Free-to-air TV –

1: Good Taste and Decency, Free-to-air TV

4: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints, Free-to-air TV

5: Accuracy, Free-to-air TV

6: Fairness, Free-to-air TV

7: Discrimination and Denigration, Free-to-air TV

8: Responsible Programming, Free-to-air TV

10: Violence

Reasons

 During the live ‘debate’ involving John Ansell on last night’s episode of Native Affairs, the following standards were breached:

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

I refer to to the presenter’s treatment of both the Alan Titford trial and the Treaty of Waitangi.

A set formula (in both cases) was clearly advanced and the contrarian guest (John Ansell) was set up as a strawman to be discredited and made to look foolish.

In the introduction, the growing number of groups who are casting doubt on modern interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi were referred to as “racist hate groups”.

Disgracefully branded a racist hater, Martin Doutre spent years living with
Maori and learning about the pre-Maori Patuparaiahe people. They were
more honest times, before the Treaty grievance industry made it harder for
kaumatua to tell the truth about their history.

Concerning Alan Titford, evidence that was presented by John Ansell to prove his innocence was discarded with the words “well, he has been tried and found guilty already” (or words to that effect).

Also, there was no effort made to educate the viewers as to the controversies surrounding the Titford case and the Treaty of Waitangi.

FAIRNESS

Defenders of Alan Titford and, shall we say, ‘Treaty skeptics’, were misrepresented (as crackpots) and their views were denigrated and distorted.

In a previous episode, evidence presented by John Ansell that proved the mendacity of his accusers was omitted and suppressed.

Also, John Ansell was not given a fair opportunity to speak during the ‘debate’ owing to the presenter’s nasty hectoring.

DISCRIMINATION AND DENIGRATION

(as above)

ACCURACY

Describing Treaty skeptics as racists and members of hate groups, refusing to acknowledge evidence that absolves Titford of guilt, pretending that the views expressed by John Ansell are not shared by serious academics (like David Round, for instance).

RESPONSIBLE PROGRAMMING

Indoctrinating your people with false information, instilling a victimhood mentality, promoting tribalism and solipsism — these things are not good for Maori, they are not good for our country, and they are not good for the world.

Ignoring evidence when some poor sod has to sit in prison for 24 years having lost everything is also not very responsible.

VIOLENCE

The violence that was wrought on truth, good taste and decency was more than I could bear. For sheer barbarism, no amount of rugby or boxing coverage could ever have quite the same effect.

Urging your guest to apologise at the end of the debate was particularly graceless.

GOOD TASTE AND DECENCY

(as above)