tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post1779317743239112440..comments2023-12-21T23:44:40.324+13:00Comments on Maui Street: Shane Taurima: political neophyte? Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-64039216634295479632014-02-19T01:04:57.530+13:002014-02-19T01:04:57.530+13:00I worked at TVNZ for over 10 years. The Maori dept...I worked at TVNZ for over 10 years. The Maori dept is unique. It's culture of manaakitanga and awhiawhi permeates through the place. It's not uncommon for the dept to host all manner of events involving all kinds of groups outside TVNZ. I think the role Mr Taurima's colleagues played in this matter genuinely reflected this culture. <br /><br />But it's the fact that these meetings involved a major political party, where the purpose was to discuss election strategy? That's not common. For the very good reason of upholding of editorial independence. It's here where this turns pear-shaped. Obviously Mr Taurima calculated he could return to TVNZ after his failed candidacy bid last year, few questions asked. It's one of the peculiarities of modern Maori life : people are expected / obligated to wear many hats. Perhaps a reflection of the many-faceted questions in need of answers in Te Ao Maori, and so few people capable of leading? Maybe. But in this case, Mr Taurima should have removed one of his hats and kept it off. <br /><br />Can he still vie for the Tamaki Makaurau candidacy? I'm not sure. It may depend on whether Cunliffe has faith in him? Tough sell I think.<br /><br />JD. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-80002051447576684222014-02-18T22:41:56.328+13:002014-02-18T22:41:56.328+13:00I disagree that the use of TVNZ facilities was min...I disagree that the use of TVNZ facilities was minor. I actually think the story (obviously intentional) overstates the ‘bias’ issue while understating the potential breach of an employment contract. <br /><br />I get that the ‘perception of bias’ is a big deal, and I agree with your comments about ‘bias being a red herring’. The ‘perception of bias’ is obviously a tempting angle to take, especially since mediaworks can take the opportunity to promote their own ‘perceived impartiality’. <br /><br />My point is, for any state sector employee, political neutrality and use of workplace facilities is probably a breach of the employment contract. I recall on my induction to Ministry of Justice being told using the internet to check personal emails during worktime – pretty minor, breached the code of conduct and warranted a formal warning. Allowing unauthorised persons to enter the building (entry was by personal security cards) was very serious and lead to instant dismissal. <br /><br />I think depending on the terms of his contract, Taurima potentially breached a number of those conditions – using facilities, allowing unauthorised(?) persons and political partisanship, and that, in my view is the real issue here.<br /><br />I also think the actions of privately owned media companies and state owned media companies are incomparable for 2 reasons: <br />1) Privately owned media companies are private so the business can set its own rules around use of facilities; and<br />2) Because they are privately owned, there is no legal requirement for political neutrality. Surely that comes down to the journalist not the business. <br /><br />(Noting that I'm not familiar with media law, so my argument might be completely fallacious)<br /><br />Additionally, bringing the Maori & Pacific programming unit into disrepute through the ‘perception of bias’ wasn’t probably enough to sack him, since an investigation would probably not find evidence of any actual bias (although I am speculating, I don’t have all the fact!) and the principles of justice require a fair hearing etc, but if he breached his employment contract (as I suspect) he had no other option but to resign. In my opinion, any investigation carried by TVNZ will only be necessary to placate the public to illustrate TVNZ’s ‘commitment to political neutrality’. Justice needs to be seen to be done. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-13768259771775463132014-02-18T21:10:52.502+13:002014-02-18T21:10:52.502+13:00@ ATA Tibble - ditto.
Whilst Shane's decision...@ ATA Tibble - ditto.<br /><br />Whilst Shane's decision to allegedly hold the meeting at TVNZ would have been unwise (to put it mildly) - the other issue is the baying hounds of National MPs (Henare, Collins, et al) who are screaming "bias".<br /><br />They forget that one of their own; sitting amidst them; is also guilty of potential bias, having moved from a high profile media job to the National party.<br /><br />Ladies and gentlemen; Maggie Barry.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01692659460246506641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-44766948150546527792014-02-18T18:05:43.821+13:002014-02-18T18:05:43.821+13:00Shane is a good guy. He is a strong advocate of Ma...Shane is a good guy. He is a strong advocate of Maori development. Every one has political views and leanings. But to be the editor of Maori news (editor still means the right to say no to stories and to change the focus or angle) in the publicly funded system, to be actively pursuing a candidacy, and to be holding meetings and using the workplaces systems for one party is not right. This saddens me because it shows to me poor judgment, and perhaps Shane's age and, inspite of his skills, his inexperience. Where were the TVNZ management team and their leadership? He will go on to do good things because he is a talent. But it is sad for him and his whanau.Maoribrothahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13473507985207884847noreply@blogger.com