20
How NZ got played by NZ Herald
(e-tangata.co.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
20 points (95.5% liked)
NZ Politics
514 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What a fantastic article. I knew as soon as I heard the news about this that it was ragebait bullshit, but so many didn't. I have explained to people IRL what this policy is trying to do, how it does it, and how the article titles were misleading at best.
This kind of journalism has no place in NZ.
Nah, the reporting on this was factually accurate. The author seems to have expected our media to justify the course of action our health departments are taking, and was shocked and appalled when they didn't.
It included some accurate facts, and excluded a bunch of other facts that contextualised what was happening. Framing is important as it helps to influence how an article is read and what takeaways a reader has.
Facts such as?...
While accurate (race is a factor), how it was framed, how it was presented, and how little additional information was given was intentionally done to promote outrage by misleading the entire situation. I do not think it was presented in a factually accurate way.
Race is one of many factors. It is an independently clinical factor, just like age, socioeconomic status, pre-existing conditions, and more. We don't see any outrage about any of that, do we? To present it as it was in the initial media attention framed the entire situation in as negative a way as possible. They intentionally left out parts of the situation to make it seem worse than it was. If not intentional, than incompetent.
You can't expect a news article to provide context and back story for everything, or every news article would be a novel in it's own right.
Besides, our media frames and presents things in a certain light all the time, it's just this time it wasn't the angle they wanted them to take.
This time the take was designed to appeal to the racists and of course the racists reacted predictably. Hilariously both ACT and National dropped their facade and started spewing their racism out in the open.
What racism is that, hammer?
In order to be factually accurate it would have to present all the facts. It didn't.
Hammer! My favourite munter!
Enlighten me, what facts were left out?
The fact that maori and pacifica were being forced to wait longer for operations and that the doctors were not treating them and sending them to the hospitals instead.
But your white replacement paranoia kicked in and you reacted in the most racist way possible. It really highlighted how deep and virulent racism is in this country so I guess the article was good for one thing.
I thought the only reason Maori Andrew Pasifica waited longer on average was because those groups had significantly more health issues, largely due to lifestyle choices?
Sounds a lot like you're saying "Maori and Pasifica are lazy, therefore their health problems are their own fault".
Which is completely wrong, btw, and also racist.
I also fail to see how I should be penalised for that.
You aren't being penalized for anything. Certain populations of people have different needs, and in certain circumstances these needs mean they should be prioritized higher than others, due to risk factors and other health outcomes. This isn't a hard concept, and applies to many more things than just race (as outlined in the article).
If all other factors are equal, need, wait time, financial situation etc, a Maori or pacific islander will get treated before a European person.
How is that not penalising us? How is that fair or equitable?
For a start, that is not what is happening. You have proven our point that the reporting on this is not accurate.
Every person is judged on a myriad of risk factors to decide the order of operations. One of these risk factors is race, but so is age, sex, socioeconomic status, genetics, severity of issues, and on and on.
Do you have a problem with someone going ahead of you if they are high risk because their disease is more serious? What about if they have pre-existing conditions? What about if they are genetically predisposed to worse outcomes if they wait? This is no different.
Additionally, you understand the entire health system as it stands is not fair and equitable towards Maori and Pacifika right? When all else is accounted for, they experience worse health outcomes than Pakeha, and that costs the health system (and "taxpayers") more money than needed. Preventative healthcare is always cheaper.
Even if this was a racist policy, which it isn't, it would only be attempting to correct the institutional unfairness between Pakeha and other groups. If you have a problem with this, then one can only assume you think they don't deserve it, which says a lot.