Subsidising market populism

With state-owned Television New Zealand facing increasing pressure these days to cut staff and compete with Sky TV, perhaps the government should be putting some thought into whether taxpayers should continue to subsidize mass-market entertainment.

Most of the programming on TV2 for example is popular soap-opera entertainment like Shortland Street, which is little different to the kind of television viewing produced by the private sector. And if such programmes can be made successfully in the private sector, then there's little justification for the public sector producing them as well.

The original rationale behind public broadcasting was to provide high quality content that the market was unable or unwilling to deliver. This relatively elitist approach to public broadcasting reached its cultural apex in the 1960s and 1970s, with the BBC in particular, delivering a number of excellent dramas, documentaries and comedies, which in many cases have not been bettered.

In the 1980s though, market populism began to take hold as an odd alliance of left-liberal egalitarians and neoliberal managers decided public broadcasting needed to take account of mass market tastes, i.e., the tastes of those US commentator Steve Sailer refers to as "people who like movies with big explosions."

Market populism, for better or worse, has also spread through the Anglosphere's education establishment with its notorious "communications" and "studies" majors, and through cultural institutions like museums which switched from being relatively hi-brow cultural repositories to kid-centric pop culture centres, guaranteed to insult the intelligence of anyone with an IQ north of a 100.

This was kind of sad, since in the 70s and 80s many had struck a pretty good balance in their displays, which made them accessible to the average person, while still being interesting to the well- educated.

In the new millennium public broadcasting reached further lows as public radio became little more than a left-liberal propaganda vehicle and public television sunk to the reality TV lows of Treasure Island, Big Brother and I''m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.

From a conservative perspective, it would make sense for the commercially orientated TV2 to be privatised, and to reserve the limited state funding for the more educational and high-brow, but less commercially viable, Television One.

As far as Radio New Zealand goes, this should either be privatised, or made to present a more diverse range of political viewpoints.

A good start would be to include a few conservative and libertarian guests on its interview shows. If we have to listen to interviews with leftists like Howard Zinn or Naomi Klein, then why not interviews with independent right-wing figures like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan?

The Concert Programme arguably deserves to stay, as its about the only arm of state broadcasting that's focused on preserving western culture and providing a genuine alternative to populist commercial media.

anti-BNP hysteria

From reading some of the responses of politicians in Britain's mainstream parties to the British National Party's success in winning two seats in the European parliament, anyone would think that a descendent of Adolf Hitler had just been voted into Number 10.

A particularly overblown label which they keep throwing around is "fascist," which now seems to be totally divorced from its original meaning as a particular form of technocratic totalitarianism.

In mainstream liberal society, the term "fascist" lost its original intellectual definition some time in the hedonistic late-60s, when it came to be used to describe virtually anything that was perceived as vaguely authoritarian or conservative.

When coined in the 1920s, fascist, referred to a particular system of non-democratic government, which was moderately elitist and had an corporate economic system in which the public and private sectors worked closely together in the national interest.

In the contemporary world, the developed country with the most fascist-like state is probably Japan, with its staunchly meritocratic education system and complex system of state-directed financial institutions and large scale industrial networks. However, since the country doesn't conform to what most semi-educated left-liberals think of as a "fascist" state, with a militarised government and a charismatic strongman leader, it never gets labeled as one in the mainstream media.

Among European countries, the most fascist-like states would probably be the corporate Scandinavian likes of Finland and Sweden, where the government, for better or worse, continues to take an active role in economic development and industrial relations.

The British National Party, by contrast, fails most of the criteria for being a fascist party. It does advocate protectionism for native industries, but has no detailed corporate programme for integrating the public and private sectors. It also has little to say for example on important corporatist issues like research and development or industrial relations. Nor does it call for greater government control of free speech, the media or the legal system.

A true fascist party for example, would probably be critical of the jury system, which is would perceive as wasteful and unprofessional, and would probably be strongly opposed to populist public referenda.

Nick Griffith himself has argued that a true fascist-style party would probably fail in Britain since the country has no fascist intellectual tradition to draw upon.

Rather than fascism, populism seems to be dominant political philosophy of the BNP. It's political campaigning, emphasises populist imigary, of the Battle of Britain-era and its policies, such as immigration restrictionism, capital punishment and pulling out of the EC, are those which most working-class Britons either support, or would have supported just a few decades ago.

Probably only its anti-interventionist foreign policy could be construed as being more ideologically nationalist than populist.

However, majoritarian populism is arguably just as unpopular these days as Fascism. At no stage in the last 40 years have the populist policies which the BNP now advocates, been put up for public vote through referenda or by being advocated by the major parties.

Controversial matters like increased immigration, EU entry and the repeal of the death penalty were all decided through closed negotiations among the nation's elites without any real democratic imput from the populace.

The reason why mainstream politicians are so concerned by the rise of the BNP is that it represents a populist challenge to the elites monopoly over deciding policy on controversial issues.

In the minds of Britons, political, business and media elites, the populace should only be able to debate, minor issues like small variations in tax rates and prison sentences (which can later be reversed if they prove unsatisfactory) and not over serious matters of long-term consequence like immigration.

It's also rather ironic that pro-EC parties like nu-Labour and the Liberal Democrats should be so concerned about Britain having some nationalist political representation, when this is now a well-established trend in most other European countries which they supposedly want closer relations with.

By labeling the BNP as "Fascists" or "Nazis", rather than calling them what they actually are, Briton's mainstream politicians and journalists are showing contempt for both the British populace, and the populace of much of western Europe.

Double standards from TVNZ

Over the last few weeks the popular UK documentary series Ross Kemp on Gangs has been screening on New Zealand TV and I've found it quite eye opening.

For example, I knew Jamaica had quite a high crime rate, but I had no idea that the nation's capital, Kingston is arguably the most violent city in the world (for the size of its population).

Unfortunately though, the episode on gangs and football violence in Poland, was a bit disappointing. In the show Kemp interviews a neo-Nazi skinhead, who doesn't speak any English, about his about his political views and reasons for engaging in soccer violence. Naturally, the youth doesn't have many intelligent things to say, and Kemp looks suitably disgusted by his predictable opinions about Jews and other races. Kemp also fails to ask the most obvious question, and the first one I would have asked - "why do you like a guy like Hitler, who killed so many Polish people? "

Anyway, Kemp then turns up at a football match where a neo-Nazi gang is clashing with a rival non-Nazi nationalist gang, and very briefly interviews an English-speaking non- Nazi nationalist whose face is concealed by a bandana. The young gang member, who appears more intelligent that the neo-Nazi interviewed earlier, then states that the two groups often fight each other after matches, but have significantly different ideologies

Now to my mind, it would have been interesting to interview one of these non-Nazi nationalist gang members, and find out what their views were, and why they disliked the neo-Nazi skinheads, particularly since the former appeared more typical of the average Polish gang member. Unfortunately though, the programme appears to be more about creating shock value than looking into the attitudes and habits of the typical gang member and what makes them tick.

Certainly one episode of the series has been viewed a little too shocking for local audiences by Television New Zealand. On Radio Live this week Michael Laws said TVNZ has decided not to play an episode about the New Zealand Mongrel Mob.

It seems it's ok to look at other country's gang problems in a slightly sensationalised way, but politically correct TVNZ isn't keen on the same treatment for New Zealand's indigenous underclass.

Tapping conservative sentiment

One of the ironic things about conservative politics, is that while many people still hold conservative views, of one form or another, conservatives make up only a tiny minority of the chattering classes.

I used to be of the view that many educated people with conservative views were unwilling to express their views in public, but the Internet now provides anonymity and easy accessibility for those who are concerned about personal privacy and whether expressing unfashionable views may harm their career.

Let's face it, the lack of a media voice can no longer be used as an excuse for disinterest in conservative politics.

If there were a high number of literate, educated conservatives in the 20-60 year age range (which covers the overwhelming majority of those who blog, or comment on blogs) then this would probably be reflected in a healthy number of conservative sites.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. For one thing, I suspect there may be a fair amount of untapped interest in conservative weblogs among the over 60s (ok , it's not a "sexy" demographic, but don't underestimate it).

Over the past few years there have a lot of conservative-sounding comments left on mainstream newspaper website stories about emotive issues like immigration, crime and terrorism and, as an extension of established mainstream media, these websites receive a high number of hits from retired citizens, as well as being a first port of call for many of those who are new to the Internet.

While the number of "silver surfers" is on the rise, very few retirees have any familiarity with weblogs. For a start, there's the teen-centric name "blog," which conjures up images of juvenile computer geeks talking about frivolous games and gadgets rather than serious commentary or unfashionable thinking.

Even among generation-Xers, you will get a lot of eye-rolling if you suggest that blogs can be a source of intelligent analysis of politics and current affairs.

For example, I have been regularly reading mainstream news sites for over a decade, but it is only in the last 2-3 years that I have started taking an interest in weblogs. Whenever someone mentioned blogs to me, I automatically assumed they were just teen gossip vehicles like Myspace, and never bothered to investigate further.

Identifying a market for conservative blogs among retirees is one thing, but getting them to actually start reading and writing them is another. About the only constructive thing I can suggest at the moment is conservative bloggers post comments on mainstream newspaper sites, in which they mention ideas/opinions put forward by prominent conservative bloggers.

However, I don't suppose newspaper sites will appreciate rival media trying to poach patrons, so I think we need a more a viable long-term strategy.

Any ideas?

The NZ Media's Pacific Agenda

In the New Zealand media there has been conspicuously limited coverage of the recent ethnic tensions in Tonga.

During the rioting in the nations capital in November 2006 eight Chinese immigrants were killed and a large section of the city was destroyed by fire. A number of ethnic Tongans are currently on trial for inciting violence and damaging property.

However, the story has been given little coverage on New Zeland television. This has been particularly noticeable on the left-of-centre TV One News.

In contrast, there has been extensive coverage of the Fiji coup even though the events in Fiji have unfolded peacefully and have had little real impact on New Zealand. Although many New Zealanders do have property in Fiji this doesn’t really explain the media’s intense fascination with the country’s politics. The last coup in Fiji had very little impact on New Zealand citizens living in Fiji or owning property there.

Furthermore, there are probably just as many Tongans living in New Zealand as ethnic Fijians, so it seems odd that the media is neglecting events that are directly relavant to this section of the population.

The coverage of events in Fiji also glosses over the significant ethnic tensions between native Fijians and Indian immigrants. Hence, it appears that the media wishes to downplay the problems of ethnic tensions in the region for fear that this might play into the hands of limited immigration advocates. Meanwhile it wishes to show that problems with democracy in Fiji are due to a small number of nativist military leaders and that western style democracy will prosper if the military are kept in check.

However, one of the primary reasons why Fiji is prone to military takeovers is because its democratic government is corrupt and inefficient- a trait it shares with most other government’s in the region. Despite what Helen Clarke and the NZ media may think, New Zealand is not going to be able to turn the South Pacific into a model region of democracy and prosperity.

As a successful western country, New Zealand should not be looking at the region through rose- tinted glasses.

Maori 'Warrior Gene' Controversy

There has been an interesting range of responses to Dr Rod Lea’s theory about Maori having a ‘warrior gene’ for aggressive behaviour.

TV had the most in-depth coverage with Dr Lea being interviewed by John Campbell. Surprisingly, Campbell handled the interview in a pretty unemotional, low-key way, giving Lea plenty of time to respond to his questions. This suggests that TV3 is perceptive enough to realise that there are going to be alot more stories about genetic differences between races and that a lot of politically incorrect findings are likely to emerge.

Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on some liberals that their worldview is now diverging from that of modern science.

However, The New Zealand Herald ran a comments board about the story on its website and anti-scientific hysteria was rampant. It was clear from almost all the responses that any scientific findings that conflict with mainstream liberal values must be automatically discounted. Not a single comment was posted in support of Lea or his research findings.

Neo-conservative commentator Alan Duff has been less hysterical but also makes little sense. Duff tends to blame Maori violence on welfare and illiteracy, and argues that the gene theory can be 'reputiated'. If the threory is scientifically wrong then Duff is free to ignore it. However, he then states that:

'...the last thing we need is another excuse, or another reason for Maori
dominating in the violence stakes and all the bad stats.'

Duff seems to be suggesting that scientists should only publicise 'good news' and that 'bad news' should be brushed under the carpet. Society's job is to decide what to do with scientific findings not to deny they exist. According to Duff's logic we should also hid the facts about global warming since 'bad news ' is bad for the global economy.

Interesting, some Maori have taken the view that there may be some truth in Lea’s findings and have decided to take a positive spin on the theory. They are claiming that the gene may have helped Maori to discover New Zealand and survive in a difficult environment. Again though, you can’t pick and chose scientific facts. If a genetic disposition has a positive side it is will often have a negative side as well. This is something modern liberal society has yet to acknowledge.

BBC Bias

Recently, I've been following the international news on Germany’s DW-TV and have noticed a big difference between their reporting and that of the BBC.

In the BBC’s television coverage of the conflict in Lebanon there is an overwhelming focus on emotion over fact. There are continuous images of injured civilians and the odd Israeli tank, yet you almost never see a Hezbollah fighter. Similarly, each bulletin leaves you none the wiser over what is actually going on, and who is actually winning or losing the conflict itself (what’s happened to the British stiff upper lip these days).

Watching DW-TVs coverage is like taking a nostalgia trip back to the 1970s- and in this case, I mean that in a good way. The emphasis on victims is toned down, facts are discussed, maps are shown, and there are actually pictures of Hezbollah fighters, complete with the rockets they are using to bomb Israel.

The DW-TV coverage also tries to address the links between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. From what I can ascertain, Hezbollah is getting some funding from Iran and acquired quite a lot of Weaponry from Syria before the Syrian withdrawal in 2000. Admittedly, the link between Hezbollah and its Arab neighbours is complex, and DW-TV struggles to address it in its brief news broadcasts and documentaries. However, it does a lot better than the BBC, whose reporters completely avoid the topic. The BBC simply takes Syria’s word for it when it says it has no connection with Hezbollah.

In the BBC coverage of the war in Lebanon it is pretty clear who is in the wrong- Israel, they are the ones in tanks gunning down civilians. If only they would just chill out and negotiate. In contrast, DW-TV acknowledges that the Israelis are in a very difficult situation. Whenever the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon or Palestine it is perceived as weakness in the Arab world and hot-heated groups like Hezbollah treat it as a signal to resume attacks.

The relatively fair and accurate coverage of the war in Lebanon by DW-TV seems quite surprising given the supposedly strong anti-US sentiment in Continental Europe. I wonder if many US neoconservative pundits actually watch DW-TV?

In contrast, Great Britain is supposed to be an ally of the US and Israel, but you wouldn’t guess that from BBC television coverage of the fighting in Lebanon. Sure, Israeli policy in Palestine may be questionable, but surely Hezbollah is the main culprit in the present conflict.

The BBC is really letting itself down in its current coverage of affairs in the Middle East, and judging by its botched broadcasts on the Lebanese conflict, doesn’t really deserve its status as a premier international news provider.

A Slack Effort From Slack

Despite its controversial cover, David Slack’s- Civil War and other Predictions is a disappointing effort that provides few novel insights into New Zealand’s major social, economic and environmental issues.

In the first section of the book Slack canvasses relations between Whites and Maori over the Waitangi Treaty settlement process. He argues that Whites have slowly come round to accepting the Maori point of view and that Maori claims are eminently reasonable. However, as with most discussions of redistribution issues between Maori and non-Maori racial categories and demography are not addressed. Many Whites that oppose redistributing resources back to Maori privately cite racial ambiguity as a primary reason. The Maori population is heavily interbreed with the European population hence the common refrain, ‘why does that guy deserve a treaty handout, he’s Whiter than I am’. Similarly, due to intermarriage, it is very difficult to assess just how large the Maori population actually is and census numbers fluctuate appreciably. Although the Treaty settlement process involves tribes rather than Maori per se, many non-Maori primarily see it as an issue about racial preference.

On the very important topic of immigration Slack glosses over most of the big issues. He seems to dismiss the debate over immigration as ‘cheap political capital’ that occurs ‘every couple of years’ with each immigration wave. However, what matters is who comes and how many. New Zealand is a relatively equalitarian society in large part because of an abundance of land relative to labour, which is maintained by immigration restrictions. Furthermore, despite all the recent economic reforms, the nation still mainly lives off the land through farming, fishing and tourism. Large numbers of immigrants may water down how much of the ‘resource pie’ each person gets. Even worse, if large numbers of unskilled immigrants arrive we may also lose the option of trying to compensate for physical resource depletion by developing hi-tech industries.

Since the 1970s the number of non-western immigrants arriving in N.Z hasn’t been that large so there has not been that much serious disruption. However, what will happen, for example, to New Zealand’s largely Western culture if the country losses its European majority? In Western Countries such as the United States and France where the White majority is now under threat political divisions and ethnic tensions are becoming very serious, as seen in the French street riots and ‘White Flight’ from Southern California.

The issue of immigration is also conspicuously absent from Slack’s coverage of environmental issues. He puts forward some reasonably sensible arguments from Green politician Jeannette Fitzsimons about issues such as peak oil and consumerism but never mentions immigration and population growth. Environmental pollution is essentially caused by two factors- industrialisation and population growth. Hence, if you don’t address population growth (which in New Zealand largely comes from immigration) you are effectively trying to deal with the pollution problem with one hand tied behind your back.

The last section of the books deals with cultural tolerance and political correctness. Slack largely dismisses political correctness as a knee-jerk response to relatively trivial issues. However, he overlooks an important issue that is saturated with political correctness- the treatment of children and adolescents in today’s society. Many people are put off teaching and parenting by the behaviour of children and increasingly ambiguous norms regarding how children can be disciplined. Can teachers shout at children, physically expel them from a classroom? Can parents slap children on the leg, hand e.t.c if them deem it appropriate? What can and can’t I do if I catch a teenager vandalising my car?

On the topic of homosexuality Slack argues that the majority is now in favour of gay rights and people have overcome their bad old ‘1950s attitudes’ thanks to progressive politics. He doesn’t mention though, that changing attitudes to homosexuality may be related to such factors as the relatively small size of the gay population, the containment of the aids problem in N.Z, the development of modern condoms, the end of military conscription and the importance of gays in the modern service economy.

Despite all my criticisms of Slack’s book I will acknowledge that it does cover some issues quite well and there are some intelligent points on legal topics and economic policy. However, when I see a controversial title like ‘Civil War’ I except some really brave, incisive commentary and in this respect Slack fails to deliver.