Racism & Online Behaviour (NZ Diversity Forum 2011)
Racism in New Zealand through the Lenses of Controversy provided by Social Media on Paul Henry and Hone Harawira<br />James H. Liu, Caren August, Anne Waapu, and Arama Rata<br /> School of Psychology<br />Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research<br /> Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand<br />
Background<br /><ul><li>The Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research (CACR) at Victoria University of Wellington annually undertakes research mandated by its Advisory Board, including Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, Past-President of the NZ Federation of Multicultural Councils, and Fresco Managing Director Fraser Carson.
Last year, we presented a literature review on Barriers to Equality for Asians in NZ, and this year we have investigated media coverage of the most controversial recent cases involving racist talk by public figures as a lens to view racism in NZ.</li></li></ul><li>Paul Henry and Hone Harawira<br /><ul><li>Media coverage and public scrutiny of these two figures has been the most intense of any cases in NZ over the last few years.
Henry was the subject of 1500 complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, and caused India' Ministry of External Affairs to summon NZ's High Commissioner to India to “unequivocally denounce” Henry's “racist” and “bigoted” remarks.
Harawira was the subject of 814 complaints to the HRC. The Race Relations Commissioner commented that “While there is no legal sanction against racially offensive language specifically, this does not make it acceptable.”</li></li></ul><li>Open and Shut cases of Racist Talk?<br /><ul><li>New Zealanders’ Race Talk has been shaped by Bi-cultural History
Unequal Access to Employment common experiences
Lack of Consensus & Wealth of Justifications for Prejudice and Discrimination in both Cases
Little Examination of Social Media (the Basement); lots on Print Media (the Penthouse)</li></li></ul><li>Medium Differences<br />The Penthouse<br /> Print Media<br />Ground floor<br /> Where we live<br />The Basement<br /> Social Media<br />
Māori-Pakeha Race Talk like the dialogue of a long-married but Dsyfunctional Couple<br /><ul><li>Māori discourses make use of history to provide an understanding of contemporary issues and contemporary difficulties. This can easily move into grievance mode (Liu, 2005).
Mainstream media can marginalize Māori concerns by formulating them as the product of “Stirrers”, and people with “Mixed Blood” who are hypersensitive but practice reverse racism (McCreanor, 2005).
Barclay & Liu (2003): “the bicultural is constituted through varying formations of agreement and disparity, of unity and separateness”. </li></li></ul><li>Point-Counterpoint, a socially evolved way of maintaining the Status quo<br /><ul><li>Racism versus Reverse Racism
Common use of “plausible deniability” (Liu & Mills, 2006) to protect majority group members against accusations of racism and to make accusations of “reverse racism” and “double standards” as counters to Māori claims of historical injustice and redress.
Symbolic Inclusion and Resource-based Exclusion
The relationship between Māori and Pakeha is not denied, but, but claims for redress are positioned as reverse racism and special treatment of a “privileged minority” that violates egalitarianism.</li></ul>Well Practiced Standard Story (McCreanor, 1993)<br />
Little Research has examined Race Talk involving Asians and Asian migrants<br /><ul><li>Evidence of low intensity, but pervasive prejudice and discrimination against Asians in general and in particular recent Asian migrants. Recent representative surveys have suggested that overt discrimination against Asians now exceeds that against Māori.
Little in the way of systematic attempts to describe the discursive repertoires, or standard ways of talking about Asians and Asian migrants in NZ.
Are there any standard of formulaic ways of talking about race issues involving Asians, especially in Social Media? (Symbolic Exclusion?)</li></li></ul><li>Where Do We Go From Here?<br />Discussion<br />Policy Recommendations<br />
Discourses surrounding ‘racism’ in the media<br />The Paul Henry Saga<br />
The Sheila Dikshit incident<br />28th September 2010<br />
The Sir Anand Satyanand (Governor General) Incident<br />4th October 2010<br />
Data Selection<br />Raw data for this analysis was drawn from the free online website ‘YouTube’ by searching the topics of “Paul Henry Sheila Dikshit” and “Paul Henry Sir Anand Satyanand”. <br />The first video clip pertaining to the incident was examined to determine whether it had atleast one full page of comments posted from the month following each incident. <br />The first clip to meet these criteria were selected for analysis, with the second to last page of comments was taken as raw data; based on the logic that the second to last page was full of comments from the initial months. <br />
Analysis<br />Both datasets were read through initially with a very broad scale low level Content Analysis and categorisation of comment valence (i.e. Pro-Paul Henry Comments, Anti-Paul Henry Comments, and Ambiguous or Unrelated Comments).<br />Subsequently Thematic Analysis was undertaken by the research team, extracting the nature of the arguments used in the previously noted broad content analysis categories. <br />
The characteristics of the Medium<br />Anyone can access it equally.<br />This medium can be entirely anonymous.<br />Conversation is not necessarily requisite. <br />There is no need for honesty or civility.<br />Trolls<br />There is no serious consequence aside from possible censure. <br />Swearing= <br />104 instances in SAS sample of 5oo comments<br />Average of ~1 per comment<br /> 398 instances in the SD sample of 500 comments<br />Average of ~2 per comment<br />
Conversation on YouTube<br />Cyclical Descent into Doom<br />International (kiwi vs. India) <br />Talking past each other<br />Rare resolution<br />
How our data stacks up<br />Comment Valence for the Sheila Dikshit YouTube clip<br />
How our data stacks up<br />Comment Valence for the Sir Anand Satyanand YouTube clip<br />
Sheila Dikshit- Pro-Paul Arguments<br />Plain funny<br />Harden Up<br />Lighten up<br />Says what we’re thinking<br />Deserved it <br />Equal discrimination<br />Freedom of Speech<br />No-one’s forcing you to watch <br />Only the second part is bad<br />PC<br />Pro-Paul with no reason specified<br />Social Comparison<br />Went on too long but otherwise ok<br />
The main Sheila Dikshit Pro-Paul Discourses<br />Main discourses surround the idea that people who are taking offence at the comments need to harden up and/or Lighten Up & he’s just saying what we’re thinking.<br />Intertwined with these three dominant discourses is the pervasive idea the comment was intended solely as a joke and should be taken as such, along with statements that the comment was simply hilarious. <br />Example= “Heh, and you have never laughed at something like that. a name, someone falling over, someone wearing something funny, a mipronunciation of a word you know. You are just like him, just like all the rest of us. He just did it on camera. Get off your high horse, and grow a life.” -DemonVenomcat<br />
Harden Up<br />The discourse of harden up which is present in the comments relating to both the Sheila Dikshit and Sir Anand Satyanand incidents centres around the notion that people are becoming too sensitive in NZ ‘these days’ and this is evidenced by people taking offence at this innocent jest. Thus it dictates that people need to “harden up”. <br />Harden up comments are characterized by directives that people need to ‘harden up’, or are ‘too sensitive’.<br />Example=“Harden up you people, stop being pathetic. Worry about something that actually will truly affect and change peoples lives. If you can't handle an opinion then do yourselves and the <br /> rest of us a favor and jump off a bridge because you <br /> will hear plenty more opinions that you are not going <br /> to like in life. Grow up.” -gallardo11<br />
Lighten Up<br />The ‘Lighten Up’ discourse is more centred around the notion that people are becoming too serious, and that the comments were intended as a joke and thus should be taken as such. It suggests that people need to ‘lighten up’ and learn to take a joke. <br />The comments are characterized by directives that people need to ‘chill out’, ‘calm down’, are ‘getting worked up over nothing’ or should ‘learn to take a joke’. <br />Example= “Come on, lighten up! It's not that bad.<br /> Who cares!” –JKoBnZ0<br />
Saying what we’re all thinking<br />Another discourse used to excuse and explain the comment made is that he is simply ‘saying what we’re all thinking’ which is rather self explanatory. It suggests that most people would have a giggle at such a last name. <br />This overlaps with the exceedingly common idea that the incident was just plain funny.<br />Combined this suggests that a lot of these people think that it is normal to find the name funny and even when tempered with remarks that the second part is probably bad or a bit far, that the laughter is deserved, appropriate or acceptable. <br />Example= “its funny as! harden up! Noone here can say that they didn't get a smile when they saw her name! :D :D :D go Paul Henry!!!!! best guy on NZ TV. he's not afraid to say what we all really want to say!” –BradleyThomsonMagic<br />
Freedom of Speech<br /> Use of this discourse mainly centred around the enlightenment principle that people should be free to express their opinion without fear of reprisal. <br />It was often mentioned that F.O.S is one of the basic rights to which NZers are entitled, and to deny Paul Henry this right is wrong. <br />Example= “. . i love this country we are free here, free to say what we think and free to laugh at the name Dikshit lol” -gregggidden<br />
Additional Discourses<br />The lighten up and harden up discourses are seen to take on the basic role that people are becoming too “PC” in this social medium, while the PC discourse is not very prevalent.<br />‘Change the channel’- Basically that people are choosing to watch him, so if your easily offended then watch something else, a freedom of viewing. <br />Equal Discrimination= Meaning that he doesn’t discriminate, he laughs at everyone; this is not his first offensive remark and should not be taken too seriously, because his sense of humour is to insult everyone. <br />
Sheila Dikshit- Anti-Paul Arguments<br />Unprofessional- bad journalism-On national TV<br />Generalizes to all NZ<br />Disrespectful<br />Not funny<br />Racist<br />Anti-Paul with no reason specified<br />He has no right<br />Immature<br />Archaic racism<br />Not his first offense<br />Publicity seeking<br />Social Comparison<br />
The main Sheila Dikshit Anti-Paul Discourses<br />Discourses used against Paul tend to be linked to only a few different major themes;<br />Largely that it is plain racist to laugh about another culture even if it is simply about a name.<br />This is mentioned along with comments that it is simply not funny, socially disrespectful and was not his first offense.<br />Furthermore there is a pervasive idea that it was even more offensive because it was on TV and/or was unprofessional.<br />
National TV/Unprofessional<br />One of the main Discourses utilised is that it is completely unacceptable to say such things because it is on National TV, often stating that while it may be interpreted as funny in some situations it does not belong on a News show, or so obviously in the public eye.<br />Related to this is the idea that it is unprofessional or bad journalism to act as he did, and that this is the main problem with his behaviour. That the deliberate mispronunciation and wanton misuse of his privileged position is the deplorable part. <br />Example= “Arent journos supposed to work in a culturally safe and<br /> respectful manner incorporating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and being mindful of the cultural diversity of our community.” -papichanful<br />“yes we all make jokes. i laugh at funny names too.. but <br /> there is a line come on.. be a little respectful.. you're on<br /> national tv for crying out loud..” -karishs<br />
Tarnishing our International Image <br />Others say that this incident is reflecting poorly on the NZ international image. That his comments are giving the world a negative impression of NZ, especially since media is now so easily international, and that this is the main reason why his comments are so problematic. <br />This was often combined with regrets on behalf of NZ for his behaviour or comments that he does not represent most Nzers opinions. <br />Example= “Is he insulting Indians or his own country and portaying a picture of manners which New Zealanders have? I know he is one of a kind and projecting wrong behaviour on behalf of his country..... New Zealander's should be <br /> more offended by this because a racist is representing<br /> them in front of large number of viewers and<br /> bringing bad name to their nation.”-namitas2005<br />
Disrespectful/not funny<br />This mainly states that the material is not suitable for a joke and that to use it as such is inappropriate and plain not funny. <br />There were several reasons given for why the comments were disrespectful- ranging from its disrespectful to comment such about a lady, to its disrespectful to the entire nation to laugh at the names and therefore the language/culture. <br />Example= “respect should always come before jokes! especially if your an anchor man infront of the camera! . . .” -xentarknight<br />
Sir Anand Satyanand- Pro-Paul Arguments<br />Just a remark/get over it/ harden up<br />Plain funny<br />Says what we’re thinking<br />Wasn’t racist- plain and simple<br />Blown out of proportion<br />Blame TVNZ<br />GG deserved it/Simple mistake<br />Equal Discrimination<br />Freedom of speech<br />No-one is forcing you to watch (it’s your choice)<br />PC<br />Pro-Paul with no specified reason<br />Social Comparison<br />Wasn’t meant to be bad- just went on too long- came across badly. <br />
The main Sir Anand SatyanandPro-Paul Discourses<br />Once again the most prevalent defensive discourse was related to ‘Harden up’- i.e. Its just a remark- get over it; coupled and intertwined with the idea that the comment was quite funny and/or innocently made.<br />It was again frequently mentioned that he was ‘saying what we’re all thinking’ and that he was within his rights to say as much because of ‘freedom of speech’.<br />Example= “If we didn't have people like Paul Henry in this world life would be a PC boar. Get over it, this is a country of free speech if you don't like it move.”-Udster741102 <br />
Blame TVNZ<br />This discourse revolved around arguments saying that TVNZ was encouraging him to say edgy and slightly controversial things and thereby laying the guilt on TVNZ.<br />It often suggested that because he was encouraged into saying such things it is not his responsibility and should not have been suspended (these comments were posted before his resignation it appears). <br />Furthermore the comments did not often address whether Pauls’ comments and laughter were or were not racist/appropriate. <br />Example= “I don't think only Paul Henry should take the fall for something the invisible people in the background at TVNZ have clearly supported him doing, all this time to get their ratings. All very predictable really. . .” -MrDoublehappy<br />
Just a Joke...<br />Effectively attempts to displace all guilt under the argument that the comment was intended solely as a joke and meant no harm. Thus any offence taken is mainly the fault of the observer, not Paul.<br />This was commonly intertwined with the idea that it was ‘blown out of proportion’. <br />Example= “LOL it's funny how people make a big deal out of this. Maybe Paul didn't know the GG was <br /> born in NZ but still I think the whole <br /> thing is taken out of proportion.” <br /> -mzkiwiana<br />
Deserved it/Simple mistake<br />It was mentioned that the comment may have been ‘deserved’ because his Kiwi identity is not instantly apparent. <br />This meshes well with the ‘says what we’re thinking’ and ‘it was an honest mistake’ discourses. However, there were some who commented that remarks on his validity as GG were warranted for more impolitely race-centric reasons. <br />Example= “In all seriousness, does Anand Satyanand sound like a NZ name? Does he look like a NZer? I'm not saying this makes him less able to do the job but you would not, if you saw him, be able to tell him as being a Kiwi. . .” –RichieDcik<br />“Paul Henry has only said what the majority of NZ probably thinks. In China, I would expect the GovGen to be Chinese and Chinese looking; in India I would expect the GovGen to be Indian and Indian looking - it's not about racism, it's about identity. NZ's GovGen should ideally be what a statistically typical NZer as per last century was, i.e. European or better still, Maori/part-Maori. . .” -UBeeware<br />
Additional Discourses<br />Once again the argument was used that if you don’t like what he’s saying then ‘change the channel’- ‘no one’s forcing you to watch him’. <br />The ‘Equal discrimination’ discourse was also again employed. <br />Too PC<br />Freedom of Speech<br />
Sir Anand Satyanand- Anti-Paul Arguments<br />There is no Kiwi stereotypic look<br />Racist- plain and simple<br />Disrespectful/had no right<br />Unprofessional- on National TV <br />Generalizes badly to all New Zealanders<br />Anti Paul with no specified reason<br />GG above reproach regardless of ancestry<br />Need to embrace all cultures<br />Not funny or joking material- offensive<br />Publicity Stunt<br />Remarking on Kiwi-hood is insulting<br />We’re all migrants<br />Not his first offense <br />Social Comparison<br />
The main Sir Anand SatyanandAnti-Paul Discourses<br />The dominant Anti-Paul discourse concerning this incident was that ‘there is no stereotypical Kiwi look/sound’. <br />Often posed as a question or a joke, or was coupled with a comment positing whether Paul’s sentiments meant that he thought only Pakeha or Maori could be/are Kiwis. <br />Example= “Wow... I wonder what a REAL New Zealander looks and sounds like these days :S I've met thousands of them and most are very different. One of the things I love about this country. Obviously a view not shared by some :(“ <br />- unbreakabl83 <br />
Not his first offense<br />Numerous comments utilised the argument that this was ‘not the first time’ that Paul has said something offensive or made a remark at someone else’s expense. <br />Many people use this argument as a basis for condemning Paul, while others merely use it as an acceptance that this suspension was bound to happen regardless of their feelings for or against Paul. <br />However, some used it to redeem him, saying that this isn’t his first time making remarks about someone but this is simply his style and isn’t meant to cause offense as much as to skirt the boundaries. <br />
Newspaper Data<br />In order to attain a Newspaper dataset pertaining to the two incidents ProQuest ANZ Newsstand search engine was used, typing in either Sir Anand Satyanand or Sheila Dikshit along with Paul Henry.<br />A condition was set that the article must have been published before the end of the year (2010). <br />The ensuing mass of titles was used only if directly pertaining to Paul Henry and atleast one of the incidents and in more than a passing manner. They were also discarded if they were editorials or letters-to-the-editor. <br />
Newspaper analysis<br />Newspaper analysis showed multiple discourses which repeat from those in the YouTube comment analysis. <br />However the predominant discourse repeated was the ‘saying what your thinking’ discourse, mainly through use of citation of a comment made by TVNZ Spokeswoman AndiBrotherston saying that Paul Henry was prepared to say the things “we quietly think but are scared to say aloud”.<br />Discourses tended to be concerned with a higher level compared to the YouTube comment discourses. Instead of focussing on more specific details the Newspaper articles focussed more on large scale consequences.<br />Trade with India<br />Commonwealth Games<br />
Continued...<br />The Government reaction was often cited, with reactions from assorted Ministers being quoted; most of which had a condemning tone, rather than defensive. <br />Tended to allude more often to financial/ economic motives for retaining and replacing Paul Henry, and the consequences of either action. For instance, Progressive Foods Enterprises threatening to remove its advertising contract from TVNZ.<br />However, it was not wholly one-sided as many articles also mentioned the ‘ratings’ side of things, with one article even mentioning a 100, 000+ viewer decline from Breakfast since Paul resigned. <br />
Continued...<br />When quotes from Paul were used (when not directly from the two incidents) they showed a less than apologetic stance. <br />“He’s always been furious about two things- that his family got dragged into it, and the apology, because he’s always thought it was a complete over-reaction for India to demand an apology, and that it was even worse that we gave it”<br />“We are apologising for one person in the country exercising their right to freedom of speech. I think that’s an outrage.”<br />Coupled with quotes where he states that the fault was not his but he was given it anyway.<br />“I was the performing snake with the sting in its tail. The better the performance, the greater the encouragement. And then when I turned around and bit someone’s head off, they were happy to see the demise of the snake...” –Paul Henry<br />
What Happened After?<br />TVNZ Upheld 1500 complaints against Paul. The complaints committee decided that both comments (about Sheila Dikshit and Sir Anand Satyanand) breached broadcasting standards of “good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration.” <br />Communications Minister Stephen Joyce suggested he was becoming a liability & Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples suggested Paul should go.<br />Paul resigned on the 10th of October.<br />TVNZ Chairman Sir John Anderson and Chief executive Rick Ellis made a written apology to Sir Anand Satyanand on the 11th of October. <br />NZs’ High Commissioner in New Delhi apologised formally after the Sheila Dikshit Incident.<br />
Some final points<br />There are differences between the media types:<br />YouTube- Everyone gets an equal say(a very democratic medium in that respect)<br />Newspaper- A more sanitised view, without obscenity. <br />The level at which they analyse.<br />The reactions they incite. <br />Conversation- <br />Newspaper- Letter to the editor, takes time<br />YouTube- Instant, anonymous<br />
Medium shapes the Message<br />YouTube comment forum seems to be a breeding ground for uncivil society. <br />One way in which this is encouraged is the format- Content Video then top rated comments, then a place to add your own, with all most recent posts just below. <br />This means that instead of just posting to the content video, comments are often influenced by previous peoples comments, especially if disagreed with. <br />TVOne video comments require one extra click to see comments previously posted. <br />
How is racism constructed in New Zealand social media?<br />Reactions to Hone Harawira’semail<br />Anne Waapu<br /> (NgātiKahungunu)<br />Arama Rata<br />(Taranaki, Ngāruahine, NgātiManiapoto)<br />
Overview<br />Present Hone’s controversial email<br />Method<br />Content analysis<br />Thematic analysis<br />Theoretical analysis<br />How do New Zealanders determine whether or not race based talk is racist?<br />
Two youtube clips and a TVNZ article</li></li></ul><li>Method Continued<br />The Youtube clips<br />Te Karere (Māori News) bulletin <br />Hone was interviewed shortly after his controversial email reached the headlines<br />Hone apologized on camera for the words but not the sentiment<br />60 minutes profile<br />Again interviewed/profiled shortly after email headlined<br />Delivered insight into Hone’s viewpoint, giving viewers some reasoning behindhis comments<br />TVNZ article<br />‘MPs expletive laden email raises eyebrows’<br />The original leak of the email with the specifically ‘racist’ sections given prominence<br />Was updated as developments arose, keeping the thread discussion alive and providing more stimulus material to respond to<br />
Method Continued<br />Discourse analysis of comment threads<br />Researchers read through threads to ‘get a feel for the data’ and potential themes arose<br />Nvivo software employed<br />Threads were coded using a creative on-the-spot method where the researcher attributed previous nodal themes to uncoded comments or prescribed a new theme/node to the fold<br />Free nodes were then reviewed to structure a hierarchy of the common discourses<br />
Content Analysis<br />Rounded to 1dp<br />73.3% off topic and offensive comments<br />
Downward spiralling discourse<br />Justification<br /> Judgment<br /> Accusation<br /> Personal attack<br /> Insult/obscenity<br /> Off topic<br /> Deletion<br />
Examples<br />“@examinationboardyour too dumb to realise that Maori have mastered your customs to the point that governments have changed legislation to stop them from progressing. The argument here is that Hone Harawira sends a racist email and the country has a problem with it but Don Brash campaigns over the whole country talking the same trash as you but thats OK? Maori are going to be rich because the governments will compensate them. Examinationboard, your not sophisticated enough to get anything.”<br /> - Ubeenpawned<br />“The fact that a small portion of Maori are fighting for their pathetic race and the rest are either in prison, lazing around at home bluging off the tax payer, or working at their pee lab pretty much means "maori" are destined for failure.<br /> Maori aren't as evolved as the white man, even if they did succeed they wouldn't know what to do with so much power because they only know what to do what the white man tells them.”<br /> - examinationboard<br />
Examples<br />“@examinationboard you only know what to do when I tell you your a [expletive]... go back to sucking the sheeps[expletive]. NOW!!!! BTW everyone knows that your a [expletive]... you are the [expletive] of youtube. Bahahahahahahaha.”<br /> - Ueatturdsnow<br />This comment has received too many negative votes showhide<br />“@Ueatturdsnow f#$k your dumb! why bother about the whole sheep shagging thing? you brain dead caveman!”<br /> - Bradsfish<br />
Thematic Analysis<br /><ul><li>Justification</li></ul>MP conduct or power or representativeness<br />need to be reprimanded<br />generalizability<br />empathy for directly involved party<br />empathy for affected party<br />condone it with exception<br />cognitively racist<br />calls to move on<br />call for equality<br />affectively racist<br />race hatred<br />Maori bludgers<br />bottom line “hes racist”<br />harden up – don’t be so sensitive<br />PC – socialization, not what you really think<br />freedom of speech<br />responsibility of privilege or position<br />justification by insult<br />feudal bonds<br />moral indignation<br />double standard<br />labels “kiwi” one nation<br />qualified support<br />special treatment<br />want reaction from Govt bodies<br />
How does talk function to maintain existing unequal power relationships, or to denounce inequality?</li></ul> Low High<br />- “Hone is just getting - “double standard”<br /> one back for Māori”<br />
Theoretical Analysis<br /><ul><li>Accountability</li></ul> Low High<br />- “private email” - “taxpayer funded”<br />- “saying what we are all - “standards for <br /> thinking” elected officials”<br /><ul><li>“representing electorate” - PH “represents NZ”
PH: “TVNZ put him up to it”</li></li></ul><li>Discussion<br />Social media reveals the ‘ugly side’ of freedom of speech<br />‘Cloak of Confidence’ / ‘Cloak of Cowardice’<br />Anonymity = catalyst for discourse most wouldn’t dare in public forums, reserving such discourse for closer, ‘safe’ circles of like-minded individuals<br />Online conversations deteriorate quickly into kindergarten ‘one-up’ manship<br />Loss/ignoring of original argument for sake of getting ‘1 up’ on a weak point found in previous statement (public sparring match with no resolution, not meaningful dialogue)<br />Leads to downward spiralling discourse, concluding with obscenities, threats, and deleted comments<br />
Discussion<br />Revealing ‘ugly side’ allows us to:<br />Provide evidence of, and deal with underlying issues<br />Strategies to dissuade race based attacks and encourage dialogue<br />Mass media + Social Media responsible for fanning flames of racial hatred<br />Controversial content increases website views<br />Consequences for offensive discourse:<br />No consequences exist: insights further racism<br />Consequences exist: public is quick to quash racist discourse (MAORI number plate comments on Trademe)<br />
Recommendations<br /><ul><li>Responsible website hosts:</li></ul>Filter what is posted<br /><ul><li>Education around use of social media</li></ul>Threaded comment behaviours/protocols<br />How to respond, without entering into futile debates<br />E.g. boycotting certain media and their advertisers, negative feedback for derogatory comments.<br /><ul><li>Civic Education in School for Online behaviour.
Be smart about your use of economic and political pressure</li></ul>The Penthouse sends signals to the basement about what its ok to let out- we can’t believe that it wont affect our living space<br />