Media Integrity

It’s time for a media rant.

Once a journalist many years ago, I have viewed the degrading standards of the media over the decades with much distaste. More and more our news centres are becoming "American-ised" - that is, flimsy, opinionated and superficial. 

With the advent  of 24 hour news networks, the need to speculate, anticipate and add commentary has become common place, and more and more often we are subjected to opinions and sound-bites, rather than fact-reporting and intelligent, in-depth looks at world and local affairs.

Then there's the copy/paste mentality of online news. Online news media - in the rush to get their stories out - often merely quote other news sources, who have invariably quoted other news sources, and no one actually takes the time to verify the facts for themselves.

This is particularly disturbing for online media, as once something incorrect is published online, it is there forever, searchable out of its context at a time beyond its currency. The historical facts forever distorted.

And that’s not to mention the poor editing standards.

Then there is the increasing power media tends to have in politics, leaning one way or another, and unleashing opinions and sensationalistic views and cherry-picked arguments disguised as news to an easily-lead readership. The Australian and The Gold Coast Bulletin are good examples of this.

Then there are the sensationalistic headlines that often have nothing to do with the true content of the story they announce.

And that’s just in Australia - not even touching on the recent Murdoch News International scandal! But who amongst us was surprised that journalism would stoop that low? For many years now I have turned to Murdoch’s American Fox News network to get my comedy fix.

Yes, I find Fox News hilarious! Especially that over-bearing and bullying O’Reilly, who can not let an opposing opinion see light. Fair and Balanced is the Fox News catch-cry. LOL. And they say it with a straight face, while single-handedly trying to get the Republicans back into power. Or at least destroy the Democrats. Amazing!

Yes, standards of journalism are slipping more and more all the time. Maybe it’s not the pollies we have to keep honest any more, it’s the media! Read with caution, I say!

I tend to stick only to the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), but even they have been a little disappointing at times since the advent of 24 hour news channels. Thank goodness for Media Watch. We need more outlets prepared to name and shame those media outlets that continually and deliberately resort to poor quality - and biased – news and current affairs reporting.

And if you haven’t found it, try watching the APAC channel sometime (Australian Public Affairs Channel). It can be illuminating to hear a full interview with a politician, and then compare it to a station-edited version. A sentence taken out of context can make a big difference to the meaning.

So keep your opinions to yourself, journalists. Just report the facts, and let your audience form their own opinions. You are in a privileged role with public responsibilities and you should be accountable.

Remember the journo Code of Ethics? Yes, there is one, and the first code states; Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

There are eleven more points in the code, all asking for honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. It’s time we all expected more from our media, and it’s time we let them know!

Media watch

APAC

Bloody Boat People

The issue of refugees and ‘boat people’ is a hot topic in Australia at the moment. Mostly around politics. 

Soft policies on border protection ensure the number of ‘illegal boat-people’ to our shore increases (right Tony?). Off-shore mandatory detention is not working (Right Bob?). The so-called ‘Malaysia solution’ was voted down in parliament by the Greens and the Liberals, both for different reasons. The debate rages on about what to do to STOP ALL THESE BOATS coming to our shores.

Bloody queue-jumpers! Terrorists! Come to our shores to take our jobs, get handouts from the government, and live it up on our tax payer dollars! Right? Well, that’s what Today Tonight says!
 
So here are some points that might give you a different perspective;  

• In 2008, 42 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes worldwide. 
• Australia receives just 0.57% of all asylum claims worldwide. 
• Approximately 2000 boat people sought asylum in Australia in 2009. This compares to 50,000 people that over-stay their visas each year.  
• Despite a recent increase, Australia still has far fewer asylum seekers now than in 2001 (more than 5500 by boat) or in 2002 (about 3000). 
• Australia comes in 32nd out of 71 countries resettling refugees – slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, and Djibouti. 
• Developing countries host 80% of the world’s refugees.  
• From 2007 to 2008 asylum seeker numbers rose by 
• 122% in Italy  
• 121% in Norway 
• 89% in the Netherlands 
• 70% in Turkey 
• 53% in Switzerland 
• 30% in Canada 
• 20% in France 
• 19% in Australia

I am so bloody sick of hearing Liberal and Labor (and Today Tonight) use these poor souls as a political (ratings) football, trying to score points off the electorate (viewers) with this highly emotive topic. 
 
One thing they all seem to be forgetting in the whole debate is that we are talking about HUMAN BEINGS. And for the most part, we are talking about human beings that have already been highly traumatised, that are fleeing abhorrent conditions, that are using all their resources and risking their lives, and those of their families, in the hopes they can live a life where they are not terrorised daily. ANY WHERE. ANY WAY.
 
Then if they make it here, we put them in prison, sometimes for many years – women and children - and we separate families, and we traumatise them some more - mentally abuse them - all in the name of border security (keeping the electorate happy). 
 
Just last week a young Sri Lankan man in Sydney's Villawood detention centre committed suicide by taking poison, after been locked up for over two years. This was despite having been recognised as a genuine refugee for some time. A number of unsuccessful approaches had been made to the Department of Immigration for him to be released into community detention, and his application for permission to attend a Hindu festival had just been rejected. 
 
We know that people who remain in immigration detention for long periods become mentally ill; six refugees have committed suicide in detention centres since September last year. How many more deaths are we going to allow before our political leaders stop spouting about offshore processing and deterrence of boat people, and turn their minds to putting an end to this mindset?
 
People who come by boat are not ‘illegals’. Under international and Australian law an asylum seeker has legal status. By ratifying the Refugee Convention of 1954, Australia gave any person with a well founded fear of persecution the right to request protection in Australia – regardless of whether or not their legal travel documents are in order. 
 
As well, customary international law prohibits all countries from sending asylum seekers back into danger – known under the legal term “refoulement” – regardless of whether that country has signed the Refugee Convention.
 
And as for terrorists arriving on the boats, there is no evidence for this. All asylum seekers are subject to rigorous security checks while they are held in detention. Anyone who has been charged with terror related activities was either born in Australia, or arrived on a plane with a valid visa.
 
So Australia, let’s drop the red-neck act, man-up, and start treating these people like humans who are in need of some help. Let’s change our attitudes, show our altruism, start pulling our weight on the international stage and do our fair share. 
 
After all, two thousand persecuted people arriving in leaky boat each year is not a threat to our security. These are the same people that we donated millions to during international disasters such as the Boxing Day tsunami, famines and earthquakes, and that we support through NGOs like The Red Cross and World Vision every day.
 
If this hasn’t convinced you, then ask yourself: “What would I do if I couldn’t feed my family, if my wife was under threat of rape each day, if my husband was under threat of murder, if my children could be dragged off at will, never to be seen again? What would I do to protect them? Would I flee any way I could?”
 
Check out www.boat-people.org for more info. Even better – call or email your local Federal MP and tell them what you think.

Why?

WHY?  

Why does Sci Fi always have to get clumped in with Fantasy?

WHY???

Goodbye Osama

Okay. Controversy. Don’t hate. It’s just another way of looking at things.

The debate over Osama bin Laden’s death (execution) continues to rage on. 

I have to say, I found the celebrations over the man’s death a little offensive (I am not a lone voice here – back off). 

Yes, he was – without a doubt - a very bad man. And sure, the world is better off without him.

But to watch American’s cheering in the street, it just makes me wonder what value that we, the western world, actually place on human life ourselves. Isn’t it hypocritical to cheer the death of a human being, when it was the deaths of other human beings that made him so wanted in the first place? 

Weren’t we all horrified when in Iraq, we watched insurgents cheer at the death of American soldiers, and then drag their bodies through the streets? How are we different if we celebrate the death of Osama? 

Death of an enemy, sure. But the ENEMY is relative, isn’t it, depending on where and how you grew up, and which government’s propaganda you are listening to? Don't forget, Osama was America's friend when the CIA trained him and supplied him with weapons and funds.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen him rot in jail. 

And one more thing… with the ‘ENEMY’ watching all that cheering, do you think that will make them think twice before attacking again – or will that incite them to plan more revenge? 

Just think about who the civilised world is, and what human life means to you.

STOP! Before you forward that email...

It was in the newspaper, so it must be true…

Remember when we used to believe those words? But news media has evolved to become just an empty shell of what it used to be. We don’t necessarily believe everything we read anymore.

Do we? Well, we do if it’s forwarded around on email.

I’m a self-confessed kill-joy when it comes to all those interesting but nonfactual little tidbits, stories and supposed historical accounts that get passed from inbox to inbox, without nary a thought for the truth.

Yep, if it doesn’t sound right, and even if it does, I will not hit the forward button, no matter how interesting, without first looking up the accuracy before I decide whether to forward, delete, or perhaps amend / correct and then forward (if I’m feeling particularly finicky).

And by looking up the accuracy, I don’t mean citing the thousands of copy/paste blogs and websites out there that just repeat what they’ve heard somewhere else (a bit like modern media outlets).

Is it my writing / journo background? Maybe. Is it because I’m anal? Possibly. Is it because I believe in truth, justice and the Aussie way? Don’t think so. Just because it’s wrong. I do not disseminate wrong information. And perhaps that’s why I’m always right! (I am so).

I don’t know, call me crazy… I just have an affinity for accuracy. I’m just saying… before you give your friends and colleagues another reason to hate Muslims, or email the British Prime Minister about banning the teaching of the Nazi Holocaust from schools, or get a hunting license for setting mouse traps, JUST CHECK IT OUT FIRST.

You don’t have to look too hard. If the email has been around the traps for a while, it will likely have already been researched by the likes of SNOPES, or URBAN LEGENDS (About) or similar online destinations.  

Just Google a few key words from the email, or search on SNOPES or a similar site, and there you have it! In the amount of time it takes to hit forward and add all those email addresses, you will know the truth status of the historical origin of the word SHIT or GOLF you’re about to send to everyone. You will find out it is crap (or shit) and have saved yourself the trouble. Not to mention saved your workmates from a distraction from their work, for which they will be no doubt grateful.

And while I’m on the subject of forwarding distracting emails, do you know who the people you are forwarding your emails onto are forwarding them on to? And them? Protect the privacy of your recipients and ensure their legitimate email addresses won’t be used for spamming-evil by using the BCC field (Blind Carbon Copy). Don’t forget to delete any forwarded meta-information, and send just the body of the original email. (Once you know it’s true, of course!)

And so ends lesson 1, email best practice 101 (or, STOP! Don’t forward that shite) with Rach!

Now forward this blog to everyone in your address book and something lucky will happen at ten o’clock tomorrow morning, Microsoft will pay 1c towards abolishing dwarf throwing for every email sent, and then ninjas will dance across your screen.

Thanks, Rach

(Shameless, unsolicited plug for snopes.com, the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumours, and misinformation.)

Protectionism in Australian Publishing Lunacy?

Well, I have been busy; Busy working, renovating and writing of other kinds. But not writing on my blog, obviously. Have no fear, however! You will be ecstatic to know I have saved up my list of annoyances and things that make me want to move to Mars. I think I’ll start with this little gem. Protectionism. 

Is it Lunacy? Is it the federal government's fault book stores are closing?

We lovers of reading and writing in Australia have heard of the recent demise of Borders and Angus & Robertson book store giants. Both owned by the same parent company, Redgroup Retail was put into voluntary administration by private equity owners Pacific Equity Partners on February 17, and as of April has closed 49 of its 231 company-owned stores. 

Since then there have been enormous sales on books. Seems counter-intuitive, when some stores are remaining open.

During the kerfuffle of the announcement in February, I read an article online at The Australian titled 'Lunacy of protectionism writ large', by Bob Carr (premier of NSW 1995-2005 and a member of the Dymocks board).

Read the full article here; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-e6frg6zo-1226008423635

Here’s an extract; On Thursday, the country's largest bookstore chain, Angus & Robertson, and Borders bookstores were placed in voluntary administration. They cited this policy [protectionism] as one of the reasons. In other words, to protect 300 jobs in one manufacturing plant, the federal government decision helped cause the loss of 2500 jobs in the retail sector. The old story. Protectionism plugs a gap. But in the end you see a net loss.

By ‘this policy’, Bob Carr is talking about protectionism, and when legislative reforms were narrowly defeated in Federal Cabinet in 2009.

All due respect Mr Carr, you’re an intelligent man, so you know that the headline is inflammatory, and the story one-sided and perhaps a little opportunistic.

While the company's financial woes aren’t related to those of the US Borders chain, which are run independently, it’s interesting to note they also started closing down sales for 200 Borders book stores in 35 states across the USA after filing for bankruptcy in February. 

And this was without protectionism.

In fact, back in Australia, when Redgroup announced a full-year loss of $43 million in October 2010, they said it was mainly attributable to non-cash inventory as it completed its integration of Borders. Not to mention retail earnings pressure due to higher interest rates and drop in consumer spending. And there’s the affect of the transition from print to digital products, which has reportedly cost Borders millions in recent years.

Yet, here in this article is a well respected man practically blaming Federal Labor for the loss of 2500 jobs to come from the pending closures of the stores in Australia. All with a loose and dubious connection. I’m a bit giddy from all that SPIN, Bob.

Mr Carr argues that the price of books in Australian bookshops should come down, and protectionism prevents the local bookshop from importing books and selling them at lower prices, thus competing with online retailing.

But my research has shown (and I’m sure some industry specialists could verify or refine this) that bookstores actually end up with up 50% of the RRP of a book, while an author receives as low as 10%.

So perhaps there is room for improvement in the market despite protectionism, Mr Dymocks-Board-Member Carr?

I’m not going to weigh in (at least not here and now) on the debate or the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. You may already guess which side of the fence I lay on (emerging Australian authors!). I just thought the connection was dubious as an opinion piece and a bit of a non-story, really. And here's the counter-perspective.

Sorry Bob.

Rach

Moving to Mars

Moving to Mars

Why? Why am I here?

No, not here on Earth. Why am I here in the Blog-o-sphere, ranting and raving my opinion around the place like someone cares?

Well, maybe they don’t – but I’m here because of apathy. Yes, forget cancer, forget being eaten by a hippopotamus. It’s apathy that will kill you, Earthling.

Which is why I am moving to Mars. I’m skipping this planet and starting my own little Utopian colony on Mars, organic food and all! No more humans. Just us wholesome, tree-huggin’ hippy Martian types.

Until then, I’m here because I seem to have an opinion on everything, and the Blog-o-sphere seemed as good a place as any to let go of some of that opinion. Get it out of my head so I can make room for other stuff, and get a better sleep.

But not so much out of my head that I become apathetic.

No, it’s apathy that will kill this world. The ability for humans to switch off from things that don’t directly affect them. And even in some cases to ignore them, even if they do directly affect them. Let someone else worry about it!

Problem is, that’s usually me. I worry about things that others don’t seem to. I let things bother me that don’t affect me. I cry at the news when I hear of strangers dying in tragic accidents and natural disasters. I get upset when an injustice is gotten away with. In Australia, overseas, the oceans!

I’m the one that everyone comes to when they want something fixed. When they want someone to show some passion, and determination and to care.

So is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with caring, and having an opinion? Some people think so. I think it’s wrong not to express an opinion if you have it! But then, the world is made up of all types. You can see by now which type I am.

So this BLOG may very well be an exploration in human nature as anything else. It may be a way of bringing awareness on certain topics to some people? Perhaps it might give some people another way of looking at things? Perhaps it will just be a Dear Diary, an excellent therapy session for Rach; me, myself and I.

Perhaps it will just be a bunch of electronic zeros and ones lost to the information cloud for all time? Or maybe a digital archaeologist will dig it up in a few hundred years time, and it will accrue a cult fan base on Mars?

Who knows. But now you know why I’m here. And why I’m moving to Mars.

Thanks, Rach

p.s. Yes, I know Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, but as the crushing atmosphere of Venus is toxic, I pick Mars.

WARNING: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG MAY OFFEND SOME FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST REDNECK SUPERIOR DICTATOR TYPES. PLEASE USE DISCRETION WHEN READING TO AVOID CHOKING ON YOUR HYPOCRYTICALLY TAX-FREE MOONSHINE.