Digesting Henry's unsavoury Breakfast
So, Paul Henry has been put out to pasture – at least for now, and definitely from Breakfast.
Sir Anand Satyanand has accepted TVNZ’s apology. TVNZ has upheld the hundreds of complaints it received against Henry’s offensive comments. The diplomatic storm between India and New Zealand died in the teacup. Michael Laws’ attempt to cash in on the episode and another to exhume some people’s reaction to an ethnic beauty contest held months ago sputtered and whimpered like damp Diwali crackers.
But there are a couple of things about the episode that are bound to linger longer – especially in Kiwi Indians’ minds.
As the controversy was unfolding and Mr Henry was getting a pounding from all sides, one senior Kiwi journalist friend said it was only fair that someone stand up for him. Someone had to present a contrarian view. He said he was contemplating writing a column in which he would defend the Breakfast anchor.
I asked him if he had seen and heard Mr Henry’s last comment about Ms Dikshit: “It’s so appropriate … because she is Indian.” He hadn’t seen it before. He was appalled. “Now, that is really indefensible,” he said. And dropped the idea.
While most media commentators concentrated on Mr Henry’s remarks about Sir Anand and the pronunciation of Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit’s name, almost every one of them either ignored or completely glossed over this most racist of remarks.
Commentators have said Mr Henry’s departure has cast a cloud over the freedom of expression and have criticised the establishment and Kiwis in general for having drifted too much into the spiceless, bland realm of political correctness.
It is as naïve as it is unfortunate if freedom of expression is thought of as a licence to insult, and cause hurt in the media. Off media, comments such as these could well lead to disciplinary action, despite free speech being guaranteed to every individual. So why should media commentators be the exception?
If commentators think that this is the sort of thing that adds spice to media programming and public debate, it only betrays a lack of imagination and savvy, having therefore to resort to such tasteless and base attempts at stirring debate.
And treating the growing multicultural milieu with respect is not so much about bowing to political correctness as it is about facing reality.
As public criticism ballooned, major advertisers on TVNZ were quoted in the media as saying that they would watch content on the channel with more care and if it tended to offend, they would pull advertising. This undoubtedly would have been an important factor in the TVNZ management’s stand on the episode as it descended into a public relations nightmare.
At half a million, New Zealand’s multi ethnic combination is sizable enough not to be trifled with. The advertisers know this better than anyone else. It is not for nothing that the likes of Bunnings Warehouse, Progressive Enterprises, Westpac, ANZ/National and a growing number of companies are increasingly featuring Kiwis of all ethnicities in their advertising.
Countries like Singapore have honed the idea of projecting and celebrating multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism to a fine art in their advertising and tourist offerings with amazing results.
A few years ago I was at a tourism seminar in Fiji where international branding experts advised Tourism Fiji to project its inherent multicultural and multi-ethnic composition better in its tourist literature. Back then it tended to project only ethnic Fijians on its visual advertising and surveys showed tourists were actually surprised to find people of so many different ethnicities when they landed there.
That suggestion was happily taken aboard and Tourism Fiji’s imagery today shows a fuller and more real picture of the country – and it’s bringing in ever growing hordes of tourists.
The other sour taste from the Henry saga for a while at least in the Kiwi Indian community will be the Prime Minister’s on screen non-reaction and his government’s subsequent failure to make any statement directed at the Indian community in New Zealand.
While the opposition predictably cashed in piling media releases by the day, precious little came by way of statements particularly addressing the hurt in Indian community from the government and the National Party.
So, Paul Henry has been put out to pasture – at least for now, and definitely from Breakfast.
Sir Anand Satyanand has accepted TVNZ’s apology. TVNZ has upheld the hundreds of complaints it received against Henry’s offensive comments. The diplomatic storm between India and New Zealand died in the...
So, Paul Henry has been put out to pasture – at least for now, and definitely from Breakfast.
Sir Anand Satyanand has accepted TVNZ’s apology. TVNZ has upheld the hundreds of complaints it received against Henry’s offensive comments. The diplomatic storm between India and New Zealand died in the teacup. Michael Laws’ attempt to cash in on the episode and another to exhume some people’s reaction to an ethnic beauty contest held months ago sputtered and whimpered like damp Diwali crackers.
But there are a couple of things about the episode that are bound to linger longer – especially in Kiwi Indians’ minds.
As the controversy was unfolding and Mr Henry was getting a pounding from all sides, one senior Kiwi journalist friend said it was only fair that someone stand up for him. Someone had to present a contrarian view. He said he was contemplating writing a column in which he would defend the Breakfast anchor.
I asked him if he had seen and heard Mr Henry’s last comment about Ms Dikshit: “It’s so appropriate … because she is Indian.” He hadn’t seen it before. He was appalled. “Now, that is really indefensible,” he said. And dropped the idea.
While most media commentators concentrated on Mr Henry’s remarks about Sir Anand and the pronunciation of Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit’s name, almost every one of them either ignored or completely glossed over this most racist of remarks.
Commentators have said Mr Henry’s departure has cast a cloud over the freedom of expression and have criticised the establishment and Kiwis in general for having drifted too much into the spiceless, bland realm of political correctness.
It is as naïve as it is unfortunate if freedom of expression is thought of as a licence to insult, and cause hurt in the media. Off media, comments such as these could well lead to disciplinary action, despite free speech being guaranteed to every individual. So why should media commentators be the exception?
If commentators think that this is the sort of thing that adds spice to media programming and public debate, it only betrays a lack of imagination and savvy, having therefore to resort to such tasteless and base attempts at stirring debate.
And treating the growing multicultural milieu with respect is not so much about bowing to political correctness as it is about facing reality.
As public criticism ballooned, major advertisers on TVNZ were quoted in the media as saying that they would watch content on the channel with more care and if it tended to offend, they would pull advertising. This undoubtedly would have been an important factor in the TVNZ management’s stand on the episode as it descended into a public relations nightmare.
At half a million, New Zealand’s multi ethnic combination is sizable enough not to be trifled with. The advertisers know this better than anyone else. It is not for nothing that the likes of Bunnings Warehouse, Progressive Enterprises, Westpac, ANZ/National and a growing number of companies are increasingly featuring Kiwis of all ethnicities in their advertising.
Countries like Singapore have honed the idea of projecting and celebrating multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism to a fine art in their advertising and tourist offerings with amazing results.
A few years ago I was at a tourism seminar in Fiji where international branding experts advised Tourism Fiji to project its inherent multicultural and multi-ethnic composition better in its tourist literature. Back then it tended to project only ethnic Fijians on its visual advertising and surveys showed tourists were actually surprised to find people of so many different ethnicities when they landed there.
That suggestion was happily taken aboard and Tourism Fiji’s imagery today shows a fuller and more real picture of the country – and it’s bringing in ever growing hordes of tourists.
The other sour taste from the Henry saga for a while at least in the Kiwi Indian community will be the Prime Minister’s on screen non-reaction and his government’s subsequent failure to make any statement directed at the Indian community in New Zealand.
While the opposition predictably cashed in piling media releases by the day, precious little came by way of statements particularly addressing the hurt in Indian community from the government and the National Party.
Leave a Comment