NZ Politics

556 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

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How NZ got played by NZ Herald (e-tangata.co.nz)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

News stories don’t just pre-exist somewhere out there, walking around intact and whole, waiting for an equal chance to step through the door of a media outlet and into the public arena.

They exist in tiny bits and pieces, among heaps of junk and distortions and agendas — and the bits are selected, assessed, ranked, and assembled, according to the rigour and professionalism, or the whim and worldview, of the journalists and outlets involved.

Barry Soper chose to construct a pretty ugly beast out of their scraps. The Herald chose to parade it. Then they stepped back and let everyone else feed it, until the whole thing became something big and real-seeming enough to cause genuine uncertainty and fear, and to prompt genuine attempts to do the proper journalistic work of understanding what this new health initiative is all about.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In order to be factually accurate it would have to present all the facts. It didn't.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hammer! My favourite munter!

Enlighten me, what facts were left out?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[+] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also fail to see how I should be penalised for that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.