For me the most distressing part of the video of the drunk nine year old made public a few days ago was not so much his addled state, the nonchalant comments of the other kids with him, the RTD that was supplied to him or the adult that did the supplying. Nor am I interested in whether the cameraman has some sort of agenda that motivated the video.
What bothers me most is the above remark by an older teenager who was at the skate park at the time of the incident, and who is seen on tape commenting aggressively about the videotaping (by a Pakeha) of the young drunk. The nine year old and teenager are, indeed, Maori, as were the other kids in the video.
I am not sure what to make of the comment. Was it just some stupid remark by a flippant youth? Or is there something deeper going on here? If the latter, is that more reflective of the individual teenager who said it or is there something collective at play? Is this a case of self-loathing, hopelessness, bravado or self-exemption enunciated in a simple phrase and if so, is it confined to this particular kid or that group of kids? Why would he offer such a response when confronted by a stranger remonstrating about the drunk kid?
What does his comment say about the state of NZ society, if it says anything significant at all?
I have no answers for this nor do I have the expertise on Maori issues to offer one. I would be loathe to do so in any event because all of the alternatives appear to be equally bad, so put the queries out there for readers to comment upon and debate.
Here’s a fun game. Watch tonight’s TV news (either channel) and count the following tropes.
Update: I did this — both channels, since they were conveniently on at separate times, and was pleasantly surprised by reasonably sober tone of coverage. Comments in italics.
Gratuitous display of cannabis leaf or other marijuana iconography Four times on One and thrice on 3. Mostly in the display of the “Switched On Gardener” signage.
Gratuitous display of drug porn (huge quantities of plants, or egregiously sticky buds, etc.) 5 times each. TV3 used this as their studio backdrop, otherwise it was the same stock footage throughout, obviously supplied by the police. A distinct lack of additional file footage and High Times-style images of the sort which are usually stock-in-trade for this sort of coverage.
Police casually destroying huge quantities of same None! Only some police confiscating computers, other equipment in the TV3 footage.
Tenuous linkages of marijuana with other drugs, violence or terrorism None! Some passing mentions and image of other drugs, firearms and references to organised crime, but nothing tenuous or unjustified.
File footage of a shadowy person smoking a joint — None!
If it’s clear despite anonymisation that the person is brown-skinned None of these either.
Footage of people being arrested or detained No images of people being arrested. One shot of an unidentified (white) person walking down the street as the voiceover informed us that those arrested were appearing in court.
Footage of supposedly ill-gotten gains: flash cars, etc. Twice each, references to property being seized under proceeds of crime legislation. Nothing major.
Smug, serious middle-aged white people expressing deep concern. The only examples of this in both cases were press conference shots of the senior police officer.
Triumphal statements that this has broken the back of the cannabis industry, with no supporting evidence Again, just what the police told us. Reporters stuck generally to the facts.
Reporter looking smug and saying words to the effect of “we can’t reveal which garden centre at the moment …” with the clear implication that it’ll all become clear pretty soon, and anyone who’s anyone already knows Well, although National Radio didn’t report (and the police refused to say on-air) which gardening shop chain it was, it was no secret, so none of this.
Breathless revelations that people who aren’t beneficiaries or gang members are involved in cannabis production and consumption Mentioned twice on One and once (but more extensively) on 3 — the fact that “managers and directors” of the company were among those arrested. But in general, not a big deal made of this fact.
Implication that schoolchildren might have been in danger Not mentioned or implied at all.
No mention of the fact that alcohol causes orders of magnitude more harm by almost every indicator Not mentioned or implied either, but on both channels, the booze story took precedence, occupied considerably more screen time, and was covered in much more depth.
So, all in all, nothing much to separate the coverage on One and 3 news. Both items were characterised by a heavy (almost total) reliance on official source material and footage — although both did a field cross, TVNZ’s was the usual pointless live cross, while TV3’s reporter didn’t even make the screen, with the field shots showing police hauling stuff out of a building. Both used similar (probably supplied) footage and images as background, and emphasised the length of the investigation, the number of people involved, and the impact the bust would have on the cannabis industry. Neither report was journalist-centric, with both reporters essentially relaying facts with a minimum of editorialisation. Both reports showed a distinct lack of sensationalised narrative, imagery or suggestion, lacking the usual devices employed to propagandise and pad out this sort of topic matter.