I was interviewed as part of an Al Jazeera documentary on the aftermath of the March 15 terrorist attacks in Christchurch. The program is well worth watching because it addresses subjects that most of the NZ media do not want to wrestle with.
You can find it here.
Thanks for the link.
I thought the interview with the competition shooter who went to police over his concerns was the most interesting.
Stewart Nash made himself seem silly and naive in his own interview.
It’s too bad that the program didn’t cover the SIS, I think terrorism is more their responsibility than the police’s.
I agree. The ex-military guy’s comments were damning. The reporter told me that neither the cops or the SIS would front, perhaps rightfully so given that the IV was held about a week after the attacks. I wonder how the people who denied that there is a white supremacist “problem” in Christchurch (here is looking at you, Gerry Brownlee and Russell Brown) feel given what this doco reports. Perhaps these type of people suffered a case of selective willful blindness based on a misguided sense of regional loyalty? As for Stuart Nash–nah.
Thank-you Pablo for this important link.
1) What does one say? The other side of the coin? The side that the main-stream media prefer to gloss over or completely ignore? Why is that? Are they under instructions from their paymasters to leave it alone? Do they even care? Questions, questions questions.
2) Why do the police so often choose to ignore warning signs when they are reported? I have a theory about that which was amply demonstrated in the documentary. The police represent a cross-section of the NZ community. In some ways it is a good thing, but in others not so good. There are a significant portion of them who are going to respond to incidents/information with the same level of ignorance and prejudice that is prevalent in our society as a whole. We have seen it play out time and again in all manner of ways.
And I can say the above through a personal experience… albeit of a different variety to what is described here.
I submitted a response to your post only to see it disappear into the ether. Perhaps you can retrieve it? Thanks.
Done (it was in the trash folder for some reason).
Oh dear. :eek:
You mentioned “The side that the main-stream media prefer to gloss over or completely ignore? Why is that? Are they under instructions from their paymasters to leave it alone? ”
I was wondering if you could expand on this? Who are the paymaster of the mainstream media, and why would they have an interest in suppressing this story?
We’ve always lacked the economic component to properly defeat the war on terror. The conservative mantra being a hand up, not a hand out.
Because if we are not spreading prosperity and representation equitable using the power of the state it just breeds fertile ground for extremism.
The ‘paymasters’ label was a general term I used for the corporate owners of media outlets and their appointed executives. We know news reporting is meant to be independent of ownership etc., but in some well known cases the owner(s) have partisan viewpoints of which their journalist employees are only too well aware.
Rupert Murdoch is a good case in point.
All the media does is print stories from 24 hours ago, They’re just a manuscript for failure. Want to know how to lose the war on terror badly then read a newspaper.