I have spent the entire day chronicling a world going to Hell in a hand basket. I looked for coverage on our "serious" broadcaster, Radio New Zealand on the terror attack in Vienna but found nothing.
This is what RNZ thinks you need to know - and it has ZERO to do with earth shattering events around the world.
Radio NZ is looking less like a
news service and more like a
government PROPAGANDA
outlet by the week
So, they did finally report on Vienna but tucked it away under "world news"
I learned a new term from Rick Wiles of TruNews today - news nazi.
It fits Kim Hill perfectly, right through from her notorious 2003 interview with John Pilger through to the present day.
She personifies the "new style" whereby the ego of the presenter is more important than the information.
Today she interviewed epidemiologist, Prof. Raina MacIntyre.
First, Prof. MacIntyre. It took me just one answer to a question for me to ascertain that there might be a certain degree of disinformation here - or making things up as she went along. When asked why we are not seeing children being affected her answer struck me as a tad disingenuous. She claimed that older people are more susceptible to infection because their immune systems are in decline whereas young children, once they get out of infancy are less susceptible to infection than others. This struck me as slightly counter-intuitive and contrary to what I know so I looked. Her contention is contradicted by just this one piece of research (quite apart from commonsense and generations of parents' experience.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3930829/ This does not explain why men appear from the research to be more susceptible than women. This is just my own speculation - but I do ask if Asian men are more susceptible than others. Watch the entire interview on RNZ HERE **** Now, here is Kim Hill trying to manipulate the professor into making claims of the POSSIBILITY of the coronavirus being a bioweapon Not once, but THREE times she comes back whereas prior to that she was content to take Prof. MacIntyre's answers without challenge.
Go back 17 years. This is Kim Hill's interview with John Pilger
Radio
New Zealand which is pointing the 'climate change denial” finger at
other media but neglects to discuss their own denial which is more
subtle than the crude form on talkback radio and is more dangerous
but seeming to tell the truth but totally neglects to tell most of
the story – even its own backyard.
In May, 2017, at the very time major headlines were coming out about record low sea ice levels in Antarctica Radio New Zealand was asking, "why is Antarctic sea ice not decreasinglike Arctic sea ice? No kidding!
In
2017, as the world was annoucing record low Antarctic sea ice Radio
NZ was asking “why the Antarctic is not melting like the Arctic”
As the Guardian publishes an article saying there has been a precipitous melting of Antarctic ice my mind goes back to this.
The headline at the time was "Breaking through the Mysteries of Antarctic Sea Ice" but their basic premise was that “THE ANTARCTIC IS NOT MELTING LIKE THE ARCTIC".
The
woman inteviewed from Otago University not only says that Antarctic sea ice is
expanding at the very time that world headlines was indicating record
sea ice LOWS.
She also said some other pretty hair-raising stuff.
REINVENTING THE WHEEL WITH A DC3 She
also contended that it is impossible to measure sea ice thickness and
they need NZ’S DC3 to do so.
I
look at the US Navy data regularly and they measure sea ice thickness
(presumably by satellite). Are they lying?, I have to ask. Kathryn Ryan, who gave a disgraceful interview (no doubt following RNZ's editorial policy) seemed most interested in getting the sea ice out of the way and ask what it was like being a woman scientist amongst men - yet another way of trivialalising an exceedingly- important topic.
I have said it before and I will repeat it: Radio
NZ are a special kind of OFFICIAL climate change DENIAL organisation while being two-faced about the whole thing.
This is borne out by their responses to any comments or complaints. I
wonder if they will even publish this information Here is a repost of my 2017 item with the original item... ***
Radio
New Zealand claims Antarctic ice is not melting like the Arctic
"Temperatures
in the Antarctic Peninsula have increased by 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit
(2.5 degrees Celsius) over the past 50 years — five times the rate
of the rest of the planet. And scientists think that warm ocean
waters could be melting Antarctica's glaciers as they flow under the
floating tongues of ice." ---
Sometimes
when I switch on Radio New Zealand I have to pinch myself and ask
whether they (or I) exist in some parallel universe.
I
have been covering news from Antarctica for five years and so you can
imagine my surprise when I heard an item advertised on “why the
Arctic ice is melting and Antarctica is not”
My
surprise disappeared when I heard the academic describe how she gets
all her information from computer models inputting all the
information.
No
wonder she seems so out of touch and allows Radio New Zealand give
the impression that sea ice in Antarctica is melting. She must have
been so busy in front of her computer that she has not noticed the
information about disappearing sea ice from NASA and others over the
summer.
One
thing that struck me is Antarctica has no Peter Wadhams who has been
observing the thickness of Arctic ice from a submarine over many
years.
They
do not appear to have a reliable method of measuring Antarctic ice
thickness – so they are attempting to catch up – using a DC3!
Of
course going back 3 years the Arctic ice extent was at a record. That
was when the Russian ship got stuck in the ice in the middle of
summer,something that delighted the deniers.
She
seems to have missed out on research that indicates that Antarctic
ice is melting from below.
We
all know what she points out about the differences between the
Arctic and Antarctica - that Antarctica is and surrounded by sea
while the Arctic is sea surrounded by land, so the sea ice behaves
quite different.
On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of
Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the
first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data
Center. The red line shows the average maximum extent from 1979-2014.
Breaking
through the mysteries of Antarctic sea-ice
Nine
to Noon, Radio NZ
Kathryn
Ryan talks to the University of Otago's sea-ice expert Professor Pat
Langhorne. Sea-ice physics is a relatively new discipline, and there
are many important questions that are still unanswered, such as: why
is Antarctic sea ice not decreasing like Arctic sea ice? The
answers to these questions are believed to be crucial to
understanding the effects climate change is having on different parts
of the continent.
These
are some of the items that seem to have eluded Professor Pat
Langhorne and Kathryn Ryan of Radio New Zealand who I have learned
are the biggest ABRUPT climate change deniers anywhere.
***
P.S
I checked to see what else RNZ have done on Antarctica since and found this, from 2018.
RNZ are so fixated on sea level rise (as if that was the only result of rapid warming!) that they ignore the sea ice.
On
4 May I listened to an interview on RNZ with Christchurch-based yoga
teacher, Donna Farhi in which she was allowed to use the “Me Too”
trope to campaign against the Iyengar yoga movement in New Zealand by
using a 30 - year old case from San Francisco to target Iyengar
teachers in this country where there has not, to my knowledge ever
been a single case of abuse.
It
has taken them 7 weeks to respond to a simple complaint and their
disingenuous (I would say Orwellian) response indicates to me they
have taken time to get legal advice from a very shonky lawyer.
The
language speaks to me of legalese, rather than bureaucrat-ese.
The
reponse is no longer for me about the case in question by goes right
to the heart of the “free speech” question.
Disingenuous
response to a complaint from RNZ says a lot about freedom of speech and media double standards
Listen to Kim Hill's interview with Ms. Farhi HERE
This is my letter of complaint from 4 May, 2017
I
wish to complain strongly about the interview of yoga teacher, Donna
Farhi by Kim Hill.
First
some background. I have, in the past, been a practitioner
of yoga (specifically Iyengar yoga) as well as a teacher and left the
Iyengar scene for my own personal reasons and have not taught for
nearly 20 years. I am aware of the general. Issues Ms.Farhi
raised in the inteview. I have also known Ms Farhi personally and
can attest that she has been saying the same things for about 20
years.
The
interview, in my view, was defamatory (“archaic pedagogy”)
and attacked a whole group of people in THIS country who have NEVER,
to my knowledge ever been implicated in any of the abuse
she is referring to. They, however, will face the brunt of this
attack.
The
issues of abuse, of course, are very real but go right across the
yoga community and indeed the whole “New Age” movement and
need to be addressed although the cases are historical and
relate to another time, to an entire generation of baby boomers whose
moral standards in the 1970’s and 1980’s can only be
referred to as “lax”.
As
an American, Ms Farhi should have addressed these issues in an
American context, rather than on New Zealand media.
I
also found that it was an attack on others while at the
same time being shamelessly self-regarding and self-promoting.
It smacked of collusion in an attack on “the opposition”.
Ms. Farhi is, let’s face it, not a disinterested party.
My
main concern is not the viewpoints being presented (everyone is
entitled to their view) but with the decision of Kim Hill’s
producers and Radio New Zealand to collude with
this.
The
broadcasting standards say quite clearly:
"When
controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news,
current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters
should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to
present significant points of view either in the same programme or
in other programmes within the period of current interest."
and
"Broadcasters
should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs
and factual programming:
is
accurate in relation to all material points of fact
does
not mislead.
Given
that the claims made were of a defamatory nature the VERY LEAST Radio
New Zealand should have done is to have given representatives of
the NZ Iyengar Yoga Association the right to response. The
very airing of highly biased and defamatory comments on
public radio without the right of response is WRONG.
I
shall therefore be making a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards
Authority.
Yours
sincerely,
Robin
Westenra
Here is their response, dated 24 June, 2019.
Dear
Robin
I
write in response to your formal complaint with respect to an
interview on Saturday Morning, on May 4, with Donna Farhi. Your
complaint suggests that this item was in breach of the accuracy and
accuracy standard, so the following provides a full analysis against
those standards, and a decision about your complaint is reached.
We
appreciate you had concerns about the programme, but that does not
necessarily mean they were in breach of the formal standards.
Accuracy
The
accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate
in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead.
Guidelines
suggest that it is not intended to prevent the publication of
material that is clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or
opinion, rather than statements of fact. RNZ notes that Ms Farhi’s
comments were exactly that, i.e. an expression of her comment,
analysis or opinion therefore this aspect of your complaint was not
upheld. RNZ observes that while you consider some of her statements
as defamatory, the formal standards regime cannot resolve matters of
defamation. For the record, RNZ does not believe that anyone was
defamed in this interview.
If
her statements could be construed as statements of fact, even
inaccurate facts, that did not affect the thrust of this part of the
item which was an expression of opinion with largely regard to
investigations into Manouso Manos, an Iyengar yoga teacher in San
Francisco who has been de- certified. Your complaint does not detail
which facts, if any, were inaccurate. For all these reasons, this
aspect of your complaint was not upheld.
Balance
With
respect to balance, the key requirement is that when a controversial
issue of public importance is discussed, the audience is aware of the
significant points of view with regard to the topic. It is doubtful
that the issue at hand, while newsworthy, falls in to the same
category as truly controversial topics such as euthanasia or climate
change. A key consideration of the Broadcasting Standards Authority
(BSA) when considering balance complaints is to determine whether the
topic has excited a public debate. There is no evidence that the
topic of abuse in yoga has reached that level of activity in New
Zealand so on these grounds alone your complaint could be taken no
further and was not upheld. Other
criteria must also be satisfied before the requirement to present
significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The balance standard
applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which
discuss a controversial issue of public importance. Saturday Morning
is a magazine style programme rather than one of hard news and
current affairs so there is some doubt as to whether the standard
applies to this particular interview.
The
subject matter must be an issue “of public importance”, it must
be “controversial”, and it must be “discussed”. Previously,
the BSA has ruled that an interview can examine a single perspective
of a topic if that is how the item is introduced. On this occasion
that is what happened and a “discussion” did not occur as there
were no other parties to the interview besides Ms Farhi and the
interviewer. Other views were not sought or expressed.
Summary
There
is the point too that to censure Ms Farhi would be a breach of the
fundamental rights enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990, section 14, which states:
“14.
Freedom of expression---Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
It
has been held that an “uphold” of a formal complaints decision is
in and of itself an impingement of the free speech of broadcasters,
publishers and those participating in those broadcasts, commonly
referred to as a “chilling effect”. In the instance of these
complaints, RNZ notes that the thrust of the item was about the
developments around Manouso Manos and Ms Farhi’s personal
experiences.
RNZ
acknowledges that while there would be a harm to society in breaching
the standards you nominated, there can also be a greater harm, in the
long term, of unnecessarily restricting individual’s freedom of
speech. On this occasion, what was expressed was a reasonably high
value of free speech, i.e. speech being criticism of other’s
behaviour that had been found wanting by his peers. Stifling such
speech would lead to a greater harm to society than allowing
individuals that right to communicate to the wider public.
Previous
decisions by the BSA would suggest that a very high threshold needs
to be met before a breach of the standards occurs. That, coupled with
the analysis above, indicates that a breach of the standard did not
occur on this occasion.
In
summary then, no aspect of your complaint was upheld. In line with
the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, this letter advises you of
the reason why your formal complaint was not upheld and of your
right, if you wish, to refer this decision for review to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority, PO Box 9213, Wellington. A referral
must occur within 20 working days.
Again,
we appreciate you had concerns about the item and we thank you for
your interest in RNZ and giving us the opportunity to respond to you.
Yours
sincerely
George
Bignell Complaints Coordinator
This is not my politics and I agree with FAR from all that is being said but it is highly relevant to life in New Zealand today
Freedom of speech is now hate speech. This is the narrative of the left to shut down our
An internet search To find just how the New Zealand media is reporting on this I used both Google and DuckDuckGo and entered this search "Radio New Zealand Greenland Arctic ice melt"
This was the parameter of the seach...
This is what Google through out...
And DuckDuckGo (in the last month)
The print media
The search brought up several articles, mostly from newshub.co.nz (previously TV3) and stuff.co.nz (The Dominion and the Press with some minor publications)
I have lost all expectation of the print media in this country but at least they do reprint articles from other sources.
Radio NZ - the national broadcaster Although one would have thought that somewhere across the two search engines that articles from the national broadcaster, Radio New Zealand might have been thrown up in the search. First off, I have to point out in a news environment dominated by two organisations as well as television (TVNZ and Newshub) Radio New Zealand is supposed to play the role of a public service broadcaster *** This is what Radio NZ thinks you ought to know about the world around you. It is all basically a combination of village politics, state propaganda aimed at promoting a government globalist agenda.
For a globalist organisation Radio NZ is extremely parochial. I was told few years ago0 that the official policy line was to publish stories about global warming if they have a parochial,New Zealand angle. Despite the fact articles about even the Antarctica (and presumably of interest to New Zealandrs) are like hens' teeth and the whole thing has to be linked with a large dose of hopium and "what are we going to do". So now that the news is all bad - and you have to be a special sort of stupid to think there is anything to 'hope' for except for a vain and unjustified hope that the Paris accord targets are going to be met and thus save capitalist civilisation - Radio NZ is ignoring the whole thing. Based on what I have observed over the past 8 years I am not in the least surprised that the policy of Radio New Zealand is to black out the most important story on the planet (unless you think that the survival of the species is something of less import than what the village parliament is doing) They've made a good job of ignoring the whole question and now that the bad news is inescapable they are making an even better job of it! The last mention (apart from a shameful item from Nine-to-Noon saying that the Antarctic is not melting like the Arctic) is this item - from back in 2016.
All's well in the land of little Hobbits
It would not be an exaggeration in my mind to conclude that RNZ's main role is to propagandise a world that does not exist any longer and to totally ignore the most important stories on the planet and to generally pull the wool over people's eyes and keep them in a state of ignorance and unknowing.
Posts
