I used to house share with a woman of Torres Straight and Islander descent. Her nieces and nephews used to come over when their parents were up to something and she'd baby sit. Beautiful kids. Occasionally we'd chuck on a DVD or the tele and it wasn't till then that I noticed the lack of programming aimed directly at them and those of the Indigenous population.

I'm a Caucasian Kiwi and there's a HUGE difference in the air time the Maori get as opposed to what happens here. The Maori language sits side by side with English with official documents, on air info, and various other public signs etc. The Maori culture is generally celebrated with examples like the Haka and nation anthem and obviously other examples that aren't international, but national.

I get the many and varied types of Indigenous language; that's not my point.

Anyone tell me why Australian TV is aimed DIRECTLY at Caucasians on the whole?. The style, the actors, presenters, humour, drama, news, sport etc is generally Caucasian influenced, or flavoured.

Why?.

...and yes, I know about 'Living Black'.

I noticed that too StG, even official buildins have the Maori name first followed by the English. Maori is even taught in schools.

The lack of consideration towards Indigenous Australians is most poignant in the choosing of 26 January as Australia Day which is hardly inclusive in representing British occupation.

The answer may lie in the fact that Maoris make up a larger percentage of the populaton so the culture is more prominent than that of Indigenous Australians. New Zealand is smaller geographically which means the population is more concentrated. I rarely see an Indigenous person where I live and yet in New Zealand, Maori people are much more visible.

Hi Pelican :-)
Hi StG,
There are other programs "message stick" fillers on aboriginal mythology etc and some cooree music show. Then there are a number of black issues on ABC Fora has had quite a few.

There are black radio stations and a TV channel in the NT and WA. Apparently it’s beamed into a number of communities.
The problem to me is that there are so many different 'nations' in the aboriginal community as a whole.

I'm not that well versed on modern Maori tribalism as opposed to Cooree nations with separate languages, myths, customs etc.

I suspect that Pelican is probably right. Given that they constitute a small% of Aust the argument would then be t here are other communities with simular numbers with approximately the same coverage.

In reality there are innumerable differences between the two groups and their circumstance that make comparisons dubious. One can with some accuracy suggest that the Maori is not really an indigenous race in the same way as the Cooree or Melanesians are. They’re more latter day settlers. But I guess that’s a different topic and off topic…sorry.

I'm really not wanting to debate NZ. I was just highlighting the difference in what happens mainstream between here and there.

Yep, there's a spattering of shows on ABC, SBS, and some local stations, but mainstream (which the vast majority watch if they have a choice) - 7, 9, 10 - has next to zero content for everyone other than the Caucasian Australian.

Why?.

The shows don't need to aimed directly at Indigenous Aussies, or Islander Aussies, or Greek, Lebanese, Chinese, European, Asian etc, maybe of they had a showing of content, topics, hosts, stars, reporters, and some relevant content. When's the last time you saw an Indigenous Aussie running a lead role on Home and Away, or read the channel nine news, or host a morning show, or have a drama that relates directly to anyone other than Caucasian Australians?.

Just seems odd to me that you can't put a kid down in front of a tele and give them someone to relate culturally too.

StG
As pelican said the commercial media is only interested in mass markets. Otherwise they would run more high-class programs.
The indigenous needs are a niche market hence they outside of SBS and ABC it's there isn't enough of them to justify us (sale of ad space) to bother.
The side trip to differences with Maori is both the % of the population and a common language. Which isn’t the case with Australia's indigenous people. That's all
Peraps I should have said that but i guess I do wander at times on subjects I find interesting.

:-) say hi to the children for me.

who does free to air target?
the sports coverage is woefull (anybody watched the aussies playing test cricket in south africa?)the commentators at best moronic at worst they are Phil Gould.
The news is 15 second sound bites with no investigations no follow ups, Paris Hilton is more news worthy that child abuse outrages.
The movies are b grade 10 year old flops. and dont get me started on reality Tv.
So is free to air targeted for idiots? or is it targeted to make us buy pay tv?

The difference is quite simple, Treaty!

As to free to air, quite simple also, if its free, thats typically what its worth, nothing.

ABC and SBS are free-to-air broadcasters, and they provide more Indigenous-oriented programming than all the commercial stations put together, free-to-air or otherwise. As far as TV goes, the public stations still provide much better quality viewing in general than the commercials in this area, including pay TV. This applies particularly to news, current affairs and documentaries.

That is, unless your tastes are restricted to American dross and/or sport.

Sorry Spindoc, that's just glib inanity.
The free-to-air services are run by accountants, who will always follow the money, and so we get "The Lowest Common Denominator", crud that sells will always win out over better, but less popular, presentations.
And to declare that the difference between NZ and Oz is merely a treaty, lol, that flies in the face of common-sense.
How do you compare them? One was highly successful warrior culture, with one language, belief-system, and power-structure, the other a vast collection of hunter-gatherers with multiple, constantly changing languages and belief-systems. A treaty signed in NZ would be accepted by the whole society, one here would be meaningless, there was no central authority to Treat with, no commonality among the thousands of communities, they didn't even have the concept of themselves as an overall society or culture, and despite the trendies of today, they really were primitives, in every sense. It is highly likely that, if "white-man" had not arrived, the Maoris would eventually have come here, and conquered, and far more harshly than was the actual case. They were following the normal human practice of wiping out the environment of their home, extinctions, de-forestation, all the usual, and would have travelled, they are famous for it after all.

Spindoc
What has "treaty?" got to do with commercial decisions of Commercial TV?

Perhaps I read the original post incorrectly examinator. I thought Stg made the point that “there's a HUGE difference in the air time the Maori get as opposed to what happens here”. I was answering that point and the key difference remains, indigenous representation in our media differs from that in NZ due to the fact that in NZ a treaty exists, in Oz no treaty exists.

There is also some confusion examinator (possibly deliberate) between “commercial TV” and the likes of SBS and the ABC. As pointed out by CJ Morgan, they are all free to air, there is no distinction.

Maximillion, I did not say that the only difference between Oz and NZ was a treaty. StG’s point was the difference in air time. That difference is because there is a treaty and indigenous NZ cannot be so easily dismissed as might be the case in OZ, which is the point being made. If you actually read posts instead of flaring up with righteous indignation, perhaps you might save a little adrenaline.

The rest of your post Maximillion is, well, how can I say this kindly? I can’t so let’s just say incoherent gobbledygook.

Look at the explanations of why Yiddish and so many other languages survive for long periods as sub groups of culture surrounded by larger cultural and linguistic groups.