Where is The Diversity in NZ Media Education? Paul Norris and Commie Crap

A few days back I wrote a post that lamented the lack of political diversity in media education in NZ. A letter signed by a large number of NZ media educators complaining of the government’s decision to withdraw funding for TV station TVNZ7 revealed a deeply embedded left wing mindset in the media education framework.

Lets concede a point here. I’ll never agree with it, but maybe there is an argument (I’ll call it Number One argument) for hard working New Zealand families being forced to contribute their own money to an elitist broadcaster who broadcasts what those educators consider should be broadcast.

However, there is also an argument (Argument Number Two) for letting people who earn money spend that money as they want it, and if they want to see left wing pap, then they can voluntarily subscribe to a channel offering left wing pap, and if they want to see endless reruns of Jerry Springer, then they should be able to voluntarily subscribe to that channel too. After all it is their damn money. They worked for it. They should be able to spend it as they want. Perhaps in a way that doesn’t even include the dying media of TV and radio.

Here though is the real point- Why isn’t there a clique among NZ media educators who subscribe to the free market argument? Where is the diversity of political ideology that a broad education would demand? Why are they all apparently besotted by argument Number One? How did it come about that the education of journalists in NZ is monopolised by a bunch of commies? Is this why journalism is such a perverted and discredited craft? Held in greater contempt than at any other time in its history? I reckon it is.

Last Monday we were treated to yet another onslaught from this band of Stalinists courtesy of an article by Paul Norris (a teacher at the New Zealand Broadcasting School at the Christchurch Polytechnic) in the NZ Herald. Its the same old rubbish. A narrow minded elitist demanding that other people’s money be stripped from their earnings so Norris can watch television he approves of. Nowhere does Norris touch on the other side of the argument. Here are just a few of his pejorative, argumentative, subjective and unsubstantiated comments presented as unchallengeable truths-

“Our media landscape is changing for the worse.”

“Why should we care about this situation? First, because viewers will be disadvantaged by the loss of these channels.”

“Most other channels are strictly commercial, screening programmes that are driven by the need to bring in the advertising dollar.”

“how can we tolerate a situation where New Zealand ends up as the only country in the Western world that has no mainstream public broadcaster for television?”

“Is this the best we can do – that our entire diet on mainstream television is driven by commercial imperatives, where we are treated as consumers to be sold to rather than as citizens requiring information and cultural nourishment in order to participate adequately in our society?”

“it is a fully commercial broadcaster whose mission is to deliver profits”

What sick nausea inducing communist pap. Where the damn hell is the other side of the argument? I could counter all of this rubbish from Norris in 3 minutes, but here’s the point- If such counter-argument is due, IT SHOULD BE COMING FROM WITHIN THE BROADCASTING MEDIA EDUCATION FRAMEWORK. It isn’t. They’re all cast in the same deeply red political mold and it is not good enough. The minds of our young people wanting to be journalists deserve better than to be soaked in the ideology of far left educators at the expense of a broad education in the craft.

Here is the bit where Norris really gets into his Marxist stride, advocating regulatory theft from private broadcasters so his largely unwanted commie crap can be broadcast.

How about a levy on the net profits of commercial broadcasters above a certain figure, say $30 million? The rationale for this approach is that if there are no requirements on the commercial broadcasters for any kind of public broadcasting – programmes driven by the public interest – then they should pay for this privilege by contributing to the overall media landscape within which a measure of public broadcasting can be found.

This is code for- “we can’t raise the $30 million ourselves, so let’s elect politicians who will steal it from private broadcasters”.

Fund it yourself you commie arsehole, and get all your co-signers on your pathetic whining letter to chip in. Or forget it. You have no right to other people’s money, and that you would pervert democracy by voting for politicians who would do your bidding and steal that money is an even greater immorality. You want it, you pay for it.

And resign as an educator too. You commies are all for diversity except when it applies to political ideas. Get out and let some fresh air into the training industry. Some air that favours freedom and liberty. The stinking overpowering stench of Marxist crap left over from last century has to be banished from our educational framework. Its existed and dominated there for far too long, and its failed results are apparent for everyone not infected with the fatal sickness of cultural Marxism to plainly see.

7 thoughts on “Where is The Diversity in NZ Media Education? Paul Norris and Commie Crap

  1. “if there are no requirements on the commercial broadcasters for any kind of public broadcasting – programmes driven by the public interest – then they should pay for this privilege by contributing to the overall media landscape within which a measure of public broadcasting can be found.”

    I would have thought that if something was in the public interest, the public would be interested in it?


  2. The answer is very simple and extends far beyond journalism education. The entire education sector is leftist and its power structures simply keep everybody out who espouses opposing views. Those with conservative or libertarian views typically have kept those views well concealed when applying for academic positions, and revealed themselves only upon achieving tenure. Even at the undergraduate level this starts, with students that hold contrary views to the leftist argument consistently derided in class and tutorials, and consistently achieving lower grades. I could provide direct examples, but will not do so on a public forum, how deep seated this structural bias is, and how far it extends within academia and all related “research” institutions and grand-providing organizations. Academics that don’t tow the line are simply denied access to research funding, to academic positions and promotions and are derided at conferences and seminars, put differently the “traditional” academic career path is closed to them.


  3. Great comment as usual Bez, but if I was reading that as a leftist I would say “all assertion.” I have not the slightest doubt that what you say is perfectly correct, but you need some backup.

    There is plenty of such evidence in the US. Its hard to come by in NZ. Those responsible for the totalitarian state of education in NZ likewise work to stifle all criticism of the ideologically corrupt status quo.


  4. RB – you can forget that anybody currently in academia is going to come out and admit it. Either they are part of the crowd that sustains this stuff, or they are too afraid for their positions and research prospects. We are talking a relatively small group here, where everybody knows everybody else and their interests are all very tightly connected. This group draws an exorbitant amount of money from the taxpayer and sticks very closely to the political line as desired. Note of course that the exact sciences are perhaps less subject to this stuff, which is particularly rampant in everything to do with the humanities, which is of course an increasingly large part of (mostly useless) academia anyway.


  5. “Note of course that the exact sciences are perhaps less subject to this stuff …”

    Indeed, Bez.
    When I was an engineering student at Auckland Uni back in the early 80s it was quite astounding the number of fellow engineering students who were either Christians and/or conservative in the worldviews. In fact so much so that we (the engineering school) were regarded as a pariah by most of the rest of the University – who were invariably a blend of feminists/lesbians, sodomites, and who were all, as a rule, a bunch of arty farty drug taking Liberals. And that’s both staff and students. The disease was well established even back then – I’m sure it’s worse now.


  6. Journalism and media education is nothing more than a toilet cleaning course. I don’t know why something like that (journalism) needs to be taught as a formal course. Anyone and everyone can do the job of a journalist without being formally trained.

    Paul Norris is one of those journalism PhD (ie, in toilet cleaning) that infected our media with regular commentaries on toilet cleaning. I don’t why he is being interviewed all the time in something that is no different to toilet cleaning. Unbelievable!


  7. Sinner,
    If you think global warming is based on an “exact science” then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you …
    The Bible even warns against such faux ‘science’:

    1Ti 6:20 … avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Comments are closed.