Convergence of Media in Australia

Ok, first of all I must disclose, before I start this rant, that I support Australian music 100% and I always will.

I have been following closely the progress of, and submissions to, a media review panel set up by the Australian Government into the convergence of distribution methods used by media organisations in this country.

By convergence, we mean that the various media organisations now have a variety of means in which to disseminate their content - through terrestrial broadcasting, the internet, digital broadcasting and the like. Convergence largely means that using all of these outlets, radio stations can almost be regarded as something more than just a radio station, because of the various other ways they can deliver their services now. Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and The Sydney Morning Herald now disseminate their news via the internet. They even have WebTV set up and also they show video news on alot of their stories. The internet has allowed far more methods of communication for newspapers that just in print.

I have been reading a few of the submissions to the review panel (which can be found here), and while some submissions make some good points, some, like the Commercial Radio Australia (CRA) submission and the Austereo submission make one particular point that is highly laughable and somewhat disturbing:

That the Australian content quotas should be dropped.

I, for one, think this is a ridiculous proposal, however I will examine the issues for and against.

As pointed out in the submission from the Music Council of Australia, Australian music quotas exist purely because of the behaviour of Commercial radio programmers. Local content quotas were first introduced in the late 1940s and have steadily increased over the years to a minimum of 25% locally produced music across all music played, and 6.5% of that must be new or recently produced Australian music.

These quotas exist because commercial radio just did not play locally produced music. Things have not changed at all over the years. Commercial radio has always lauded the new release from America before a local release. Most Australian music that gets played on Commercial rock stations has been played for months prior by the ABC's station Triple J.

Listening back to the history of Triple J and you will find that Australian music wasn't played on radio when the station started, and if it was, you probably couldn't tell it was Aussie. For example, the biggest Oz band in the 1970s was Little River Band, or LRB for short. They were huge in America, because they sounded American. And with lyrics like "Can you guess where I'm calling from? The Las Vegas Hilton...", you'd be forgiven for thinking they were based in LA instead of Melbourne. And yet, this was the standard for Aussie music on commercial radio in those days. Triple J changed that, by actively seeking out new local music and putting it to air. By the time Triple M in Sydney had started playing Midnight Oil (whose music it now plays heavily every day), they'd been featured on JJJ for over 3 years.

The argument against the local content quota, according to Commercial Radio Australia is that all the other content platforms do NOT have local content quotas, and yet commercial radio is bound by legislation to play local music. Fair point. So why not expand the legislation to cover all media outlets? Internet radio streams based in Australia and online content providers in Australia included? I think that'd be great, but it would difficult to police. For example, any Australian resident can start up an online radio station with the US based Live365.com and, being based overseas, could escape the local content rules. Additionally, any Australian can listen to hundreds of radio stations online from the same place and never hear an Australian song in any of it. Keeping track of it all would be a nightmare.

The other argument they make is that the Local content rules often don't fit the station "format". Considering that the local top 50 singles chart has only 5 Australian songs in it, I can see why "hit music/top 40" stations feel this way. However, it should be Radio, more than any other media's job to seek out and promote new music as music, apart from advertising and stupid people who think they're celebrities trying to be funny, is the other core part of their programming.

Southern Cross/Austereo also make the point that, even without the quotas, audiences will still seek out Australian music and then they, the radio stations, will respond to what the listeners want. This is complete and utter rubbish. The core audience of radio stations don't want to research music and discover for themselves. They want to hear it on the radio FIRST before they buy it. If radio don't plug it, there's every chance it won't get heard. To Austereo's credit, they have started a digital radio station called "Radar Radio" which plays unsigned local music, but of late it has seen established overseas bands like Amy Winehouse and Snow Patrol creep into the playlists which means that it could decide to take the overseas music option as a preference, as history shows it has done in the past. It needs to work both ways - listeners tell the station what they like, radio plugs music that the listener hasn't heard and the cycle perpetuates.

It could also be argued that the Australian content quotas don't work anyway. Inevitably Austereo's Triple M get around the local content quotas by playing INXS and Cold Chisel's greatest hits ad nauseum every day, at the expense of local bands. But, there are other stations that have taken the lazy way out, and avoid the Australian music rules by not playing music on air at all. Once great rock stations like 2UE (the first radio station in Sydney to play rock 'n' roll music) and 2SM have both been converted to talkback stations, with grumpy old men ranting and whining across the airwaves 24-7.

There are, of course, a number of barriers to the expansion of the local content quotas, talkback radio notwithstanding. Namely, the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement stipulates that local content quotas are NOT to be increased for the life of the agreement, thus giving ample opportunity for US imports to succeed in our marketplace. I don't see why this is necessary since the commercial media mindset has been for years that anything cultural that has been imported is automatically superior to anything created here. And if that hasn't been the case, then why did (now legendary) local acts like The Seekers, The Bee Gees, The Saints, The Triffids, The Go-Betweens and The Vines all have to go overseas in order to get noticed back in Australia?

It's my view that media can create the audience, and by extension, can create the buzz around a band, if they plug it enough. If radio make the effort and play a record a lot, it can get in peoples heads and then it becomes a hit. But, like it appears to be on most stations in England (except the top 40 ones) and America, that locally produced music is a top priority, over and above anything else. There is no reason why mainstream media in Australia cannot muster the same sort of confidence in the local music scene while still keeping an eye on what's happening overseas....

...and if Commercial radio think they are already doing that, then they are sorely mistaken.

Dear Mr Murdoch

Dear Mr J. Murdoch,

Based on your testimony at the Commons Enquiry yesterday (UK Time), can you please write me a cheque for £700,000? I won't complicate things by telling you what for, or by giving you any legal documents to read.

Seriously. How blind do you have to be to be authorising payments that large to people who complained to you about privacy intrusion, and having documents from QCs detailing illegal activity within your own organisation and then not reading them?

I can concede that News International is a very large corporation with many subsidiaries, and that it is hard to have a handle on everything that could possibly go on within it on a daily basis. But, when the alleged phone tapping was taking place, for a time, you were the Head of the business unit conducting the breaches, and handing large sums of money to high profile victims of the aforesaid breaches. How could you not know what was going on?

Probably a wise question to ask at this point would be "What is your responsibility in this scenario and where does your personal governance of the company extend to?" In other words, when does the buck stop? It's pretty clear some dodgy dealings have been going on, and there's no hiding from that. Even blind Freddie knows that. But, for some reason, you have no idea about any of it? It doesn't make sense.

So, maybe if you could just make out the cheque as soon as possible, and then, by this time in 2013, you'll have no knowledge of it and it will all be sweet?

Thanks,

Me.

Free Trade exposed

Finally, this week Julia Gillard mentioned the failure of international Free Trade.

One of the things that slipped through to the keeper back in the dark days of the Howard Government was the free trade agreement with America. There was little information issued from the government, some modest coverage of it in the media, but little to no details of the agreement. All we kept hearing was that "this is a good thing for Australia". A quick Google Search would take you to the US State department web site where a summary of the agreement could be seen.

In short, it was the product of a close personal alliance between then-PM John Howard and George W. Bush. It reads as though America is protecting their interests and their export dollars while Australia, as usual, lays down on its back while the yanks walk all over the top of us. Just like our airwaves being saturated with American content, the free trade agreement meant that we had to open our borders significantly to allow more US-produced materials while they would increase their imports from Australia by less than 1% of their total import quota.

It turns out that within 12 months of this agreement starting in 2005, the total imports from the US rose to $3.7 billion every 3 months. This makes for a great win for America, but bad for Australia, considering our exchange rate against the greenback at the time was so weak.

In the initial negotiations, the US wanted us to significantly relax our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which makes our prescriptions so affordable, and also to relax our Australian Content quotas on Radio and TV. This has also happened, as it turns out (more on that later, as this is a major gripe with me).

The upshot of all this means that we were sold on the idea that we would be able to have our exports compete on a more level playing field in the US marketplace, but considering their primary industries are already heavily government subsidised, Australian product would look exhorbitantly expensive in comparison to locally made US products in the same instance. Take this quote from Inside.org.au:

"...the United States maintained substantial barriers to Australian imports while gaining not only the removal of nearly all traditional trade barriers, but also influence over a wide range of Australian domestic policy institutions."

The benefits of the agreement for Australia? In short, none. It doesn't, it didn't, and it won't benefit us in the future. The US can just come in and ride roughshod over us, and we can't do anything in return.

The discussion on the repealing of such an agreement by Julia Gillard is one of the smartest things she's said in recent times. Let's hope it goes ahead.

Living beyond 150?

Would you want to live beyond 100?

New technology may soon allow us to live life up to 150 years of age. Would you really want to?

Let's think about some of the wider ramifications of this.

If we retire at 65, you leave yourself a long, long time to decline. Will this push the retirement age up substantially?

If we look at the social justice perspective of this, breaking things down to the haves vs have-nots, how is it fair to raise the retirement age beyond what it is now, especially if you are unable to work due to the inability to afford the use of the drugs?

What about the aged care system, potentially having to support aged people for longer? Ditto the health system, although one could see them making a lot more money out of this idea...

There's no guarantee that everyone will live to the full 150 years. Suppose you do and all your mates only live until, say, 120? It'll potentially make for a lonely existence in the last years...

Discuss.

Tyranny has come to Australia?

What garbage!!!

A Power Play for the Future


Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece re: Carbon Tax vote

In the last week there's been a lot of rhetoric, heresay and conjecture in relation to the Carbon tax vote in parliament last week. A lot of the critics have had some quite colourful things to say in terms of accusing the government of "tyranny" and all kinds of things.

The funniest one is that "democracy has died; tyranny has come to Australia". This is a general view held mostly by listeners to 2GB in Sydney, as evidenced by the comments on the topic from the listeners to the Alan Jones program. However, the view was first provided by certain members of the Federal opposition, most notably from the leader of the National Party, Warren Truss.

The dictionary definition of "tyranny" is:
1. Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. The government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
Pasted from

Forgive me for assuming that our elected representatives in the opposition are highly educated (something that cannot be assumed of the 2GB listenership), but you would think that they would be able to use the term "tyranny" in the correct context and with the correct meaning. Irrespective of what one's opinions of the Carbon tax are, tyranny did NOT happen last week. Democracy is typified by the ability of a person to vote on one topic one way or another, depending on that person's view. The carbon tax reforms, all 19 of them, were VOTED on by a full sitting lower house. This is NOT tyranny, this is democracy.

The vote on the last bill went 74-72 in favour. This is democracy. If it WAS tyranny, the PM would have stood up and said "This is how it's gonna be and there's nothing you can do about it". No vote, no discussion, end of story.

So the coalition lost - suck it up. You still have your chance to defeat it in the Liberal controlled Senate. But you could do us all a favour and stop with the histrionic bleating about tyranny just because your side lost. You're confusing the unthinking viewers of Today Tonight and the mindless sheep that Alan Jones likes to call "listeners". And God knows they don't need to be any more confused than they already are.

Definition of Irony...

This has to be a textbook example of Irony:

Julian Assange's own memoir is being released without his consent.

Discuss...

Television 4, Sept 18 2011

It still remains to be seen what this will look like, but if this is anything to go by I'm quite unsettled by it.

From what it appears, this could be a 24-hour digital infomercial channel as part of the Prime7 TV network for regional Australia. Seriously, do we need a 24-hour advertising channel on TV? Do we need more advertising?

Who would be brainless enough to watch a 24 hour channel full of ads? I'm naive enough to think that this won't be the case; that channel 64 would not be as vacuous as the press release makes it sound. But I'd be really annoyed it is...

9/11 Remembered

I shed a small tear yesterday as I heard a small piece on the radio commemorating the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. The piece was genuinely moving, but, sentimentalist radio programming aside, the event it chronicled was so profoundly tragic and mind-boggling devastating that you couldn't help be moved by it.

A lot of people I knew watched the events almost live as they unfolded on the news. I didn't have the TV on at the time. With the time difference between New York and Sydney being what it is, the first plane hit at 10:46pm Sydney time, and I went to bed about then. I heard nothing until I woke up to go to the beach at 6am - on the radio alarm clock they were talking about some major tragedy involving planes flying into buildings. I launched out of bed and fired up the TV to see it for myself....

...Words failed me. There was just nothing I could do or say. I felt powerless but I felt so profoundly saddened by what I was seeing.

Even now, it's still so hard to put into words what I feel. There's no doubt that this event changed the world and the lives of people living on the other side of the world as well. As Australians, our neighbours in Bali had their own tragedy just over 12 months later when a bomb took out 88 Australian nationals in the Sari club.

As a result of this, the world became a hotbed of paranoia and general fear. More terror attacks happened in the years since, two wars have been fought, Middle eastern dictators have been forcibly removed and more. In the immediate 12 months after the event global finance markets took a hit, consumer confidence plummeted, tourism crawled to a stand-still. Evan as far as people not wanting to eat out anymore caused issues, with heaps of small businesses shutting down. Indeed, our local pizza place closed with months of this tragedy, but that could have been through other issues too...

...either way, things were never the same anymore...

...Lest we forget.

Murdochs again...

Here is an opinion that makes some good sense (for once) about the level of influence Rupert Murdoch has in the media.

I see it as a real issue for the head of a media organisation to determine which way to slant a story as it appears in his papers. It's well documented how News Ltd's outlets are attack dogs for more small-L liberal type government groups (Labour in the UK, Democrats in the US, Labor and the Greens in Australia) and lap dogs for Conservatives.

The issue is more that this plays into the hands of those who are less engaged with their world and who are apathetic enough to accept at face value what the papers tell them. These types of people (and I refuse to identify demographics here) are the ones who will not get the full and unbiased account of what is happening - they get a dodgy slant on it that may or may not be correct, especially in light of the recent News Ltd scandals.

How they've managed to build themselves up with such power is beyond me, how they manage to keep it and continue to have such influence confounds me. I recently remarked to a colleague who said he holds a small amount of shares in News International that, in light of the phone hacking scandal, "if that was me, I'd be getting off that sinking ship". How wrong I was. News isn't going to go under with any small stroke of a pen. They are too big and have too much money to disappear overnight....

...unfortunately.

21st Century Propaganda

Here is an interesting story published recently regarding the release of a colouring book for young children explaining the events of the 9/11 tragedy 10 years ago.

If the idea of memorialising an event such as this in this fashion isn't strange enough, the blurb on the inside takes the cake. According to the story, it is full of factual inaccuracies and falsehoods, but more worryingly, it takes a pro-American, anti-Muslim view of the events.

The fact that Muslims are labelled as "extremist", "terrorist" and "anti-freedom" is of some concern. The target demographic (ages birth to around 8, I'd image) is largely unable to comprehend any sense of reasoning here. Everything they understand is, for want of a better term, black or white; no shades of grey. That comes with the ability to think in abstract terms into the high school years.

For the most part, kids of this age group believe almost blindly what their parents and teachers tell them. This in itself is not a bad thing. What IS a bad thing is when the kids are told something that is inaccurate, and they take to believing that in the same way. Explaining this to kids in this fashion is likely to make it easy to understand, but I do see potential for kids to assume wrongful views based on biased information.

Kids of all ages need to be given information that presents a cohesive view of the world. Most kids under the age of 10 can see both sides without getting confused. It's not hard to say that "a handful of bad people did bad things to innocent Americans. The bad guys identified themselves as "Muslims", but not every Muslim is a bad guy like them. Not everyone agrees with what these bad guys did. Killing people is wrong etc etc etc..."

Where were you when you heard about the 9/11 tragedy??

Fake news cross?

Now this made me laugh this morning:

Channel 9 Live cross to helicopter was faked

The bigwigs at Channel 9 made a public statement (read: excuse) that they couldn't fly the chopper due to inclement weather. Apparently the journos in the chopper never claimed they were in the air at the crime scene, but they were introduced by the news anchorperson that way.

So who is at fault here? And what was the point of the live cross in the first place? In most cases, a live cross to a chopper adds no value to a news story as it is, and it was no different in this case. A lot of scalps were taken as a result of this though. I'd argue the merits of sacking the young journos - weren't they just doing what they were told?

It's hard enough to decipher the truth from the fiction these days in the news. Making up fake television like this doesn't help matters...

Asylum Seekers Part 3 - Tampa anniversary

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Tampa crisis; a very dark moment in our recent national history. This is a classic example of a number of things:

Firstly, the lines between fact and fiction being blurred by the media - and not just by the shock jocks like Alan Jones, by the mainstream news services as well;.

Secondly, of a government trying on the classic tactic of "conviction without trial" - "we don't know what their story is, and what's more, we don't care. They're not coming here" was John Howard's official stance on the people who were rescued by a Norwegian freighter;

Thirdly, of a government pandering to far-right views on immigration, being overrun by foreigners. There are so many legislative areas that could be improved to alleviate some of these fears, but largely this is just rhetoric and hot air from a bunch of people who should know better.

It is now reported that most Australians want to see Asylum seekers processed here, and I couldn't agree more. If their claims for asylum prove to be fraudulent, by all means send them home. But there is no reason to assume, before being examined, that these people are freeloaders. What are people afraid of immigration?

So the refugee camps are full? Why? Fix it! Other countries take a quota of refugees as part of their annual immigration intake. Would that be a better solution to the current one?

Here is an example of a story that includes some follow up on the people who were caught up in the Tampa crisis, proving how wrong John Howard was to assume these people were "illegal" asylum seekers.

Any other (sensible) ideas would be welcomed!

Asylum Seekers Part 2

Here we go again, banging the drum on the Asylum Seeker issue.

I take umbrage at a few things mentioned in this issue:

"A Lowy Institute poll this year found that 88 per cent of Australians believe they are queue jumpers and 86 per cent believe they "pose a potential security threat to Australia".

Who were these Australians they allegedly surveyed? Did any of those surveyed get the real facts from the people involved in this, for example the ACTUAL asylum seekers? One thing is for sure that NO politician, on either side of political fence, has ever stood up for the people who (I'm assuming) are making their way out of oppression in their home countries. We seem to forget that that is what asylum seeking is all about. I've made the point in these pages that if you have a legitimate claim for asylum from persecution in your home country, it is NOT illegal to ask another country for asylum. Furthermore, if you can't get a plane and a visa, how the hell else are you supposed to get here?

However, if it is found that the people arriving on boats are jumping the immigration queue, by all means deport them. After all, this is an illegal practice and as such, one cannot expect a nation to grant someone clemency or recourse for trying to break that nations laws, right?

Furthermore, is it overly cynical to doubt the integrity of any "studies" done by an independent think tank run by a billionaire shopping centre magnate?

The fact that 88% of respondents claim that these people are a national security threat and are "queue jumpers" proves, if nothing else, the need for a more free and open press, in order to give us the truth. The amount of misinformation on this issue alone proves that we, as a nation of literate media consumers, are not being fed reliable and accurate information.

There is no excuse for Xenophobia, but there is equally no excuse for a nation's media outlets to stoke the fires of xenophobia in the minds of its audience.

Note: I know these links all come from the Sydney Morning Herald, but there is suspiciously little printed about this in the Australian Murdoch press web sites...

Pippa Middleton's Butt

This morning on Sunrise on Channel 7, the top of the hour promos were talking about Pippa Middleton's bridesmaid dress and how she "allegedly" wore "push up undies" to get her butt looking like it did.

My view? Slow news day, obviously.

Get some perspective, Channel 7. This isn't news. No one cares. It's one thing to listen to Kochie go on about how the Dow Jones index lost 20 points - That has some wider ramifications to the world at least. Stories about the shape of Pippa's butt just make the audience's IQ head in the same direction as the Dow - down 3% by the close of breakfast.

Bert and Ernie

The recent articles in the press about Sesame Street caused me more than one instance of rolling eyes again recently. Ros Marsden nailed it with this one:

Bert and Ernie

Sesame Street has been around for 42 years, not just "entertaining", mind you, but educating kids of pre-school age on issues that they can understand, like numbers and letters and how to be friendly to people you meet in your neighbourhood. And yet, for some strange reason, the Gay Rights lobby thinks that Bert and Ernie are poster-boys for their cause.

I choose to pass no judgement on the Gay Marriage issue. What I DO have a problem with, is the pushing of this, or any kind of political agenda onto pre-school aged kids. At that age, all kids should be worried about is getting their single digit numbers in the correct order and learning to do things like tying shoe laces. Issues of sexuality won't even register on the minds of a child that age simply because they lack the cognitive abilty to deal with such a complex issue.

Bert and Ernie and their alleged sexuality have found themselves at the centre of debates for do-gooders and PC-advocates-with-nothing-better-to-do for years. They seem to lack an understanding of a concept where two men could live together in a shared environment and, possibly, just maybe even, NOT be gay? No, really! Haven't they ever heard of the idea of "flat mates?" Sharing a living space, sharing the rent and that's all? Even a 4-year old is smart enough to realise that they're just friends and nothing more! Why try and ascribe a more sinister meaning that a kid is not going to understand anyway?

Call me naive if you must, but the Jim Henson organisation has been making wholesome family entertainment for ages. Sesame Street has been doing a great job at what it does for over 4 decades. Let them keep doing it for many more years to come. And may they continue to do what they do without the interference of politics.

Hoodies in the hood

Yet another ridiculous article in the press as a result of the London riots is this one: The power of the hoodie.

How is it at all sensible and rational to identify and objectify a person, their demographic, character traits and behaviour based on an item of clothing? Someone wears a hoodie, that doesn't make them a degenerate! The wearing of a hoodie does NOT typify anybody. People young and old wear them. They look cute on toddlers, and while they're known for tearing up their homes, they do it because they don't know any better.

The fact that a lot of people involved in the London riots and looting wore hoodies proves absolutely nothing. The banning of hoodies in Tweed Heads and Brisbane have achieved nothing. The motivation behind this stupidly fascist idea is morally vacuous at best. Under the ban, does that mean my kids would get arrested for wearing one when we go out shopping? How stupid!

There are deep issues going on for the people who were involved in the riots. The wearing of hoodies is not one of them. There are inches of newspapers and internet bandwidth being wasted by people debating this point (arguably me included).

Let's get some perspective and get to the real cause of the problem.

Lootin' in London

Like most people I was shocked to hear about the riots in London this week. What appeared to be a legitimate social protest in the beginning turned ugly with shops and houses being burned, and looting galore.

It originally appeared to be the result of an oppressed and marginalised minority rebelling against a lack of future prospects, lack of life, ever decreasing benefits and services and neighbourhood overcrowding, coupled with boredom and ever present visits from the police.

Social explosions of this kind are nothing new. The same scenario exists in Los Angeles (Compton), New York City (Harlem) and Sydney (Redfern). All of those places, in recent years, have seen their share of riots over perceived police mistreatment of locals. However, none of those places saw anything quite of the scale that was seen in London this week.

For a while, it was easy to feel some sympathy for the oppressed minority over there - the class system is, and always was, a flawed system designed to keep the rich in the black and the poor in the red. However, after four days of blatantly ripping off merchandise from stores it's gone beyond a joke.

There's a theory that suggests that on the first day of rioting that the looting happened because the police were so stunned by the damage and were run off their feet trying to get on top of things, that the looters simply got away with it. On the second day, people must have thought "Oh well, yesterday people got away with it, we'll have a go today" and on and on it goes until in excess of 500 people were arrested and charged with looting.

As if that wasn't enough to make one rethink their sympathies for the situation, when one reads a story like this one, about a 19 year old, well-to-do university student who thought she'd join in the thieving for something to do.

As of now...Sympathy. Evaporated.

Sorry kiddies. I no longer feel sorry for the situations of those protesting - there's better ways to get your point heard and now that this has come to light, I hope every last looter gets the book thrown at them. Sure, situations are not perfect, economically or socially, but the actions of people who should know better, helping themselves in a time of crisis is, in my view, unconscionable.

This article sums up the situation beautifully . Entitled "The Stereotype of the Underclass Does Not Apply", author Andrew Gilligan hits the nail on the head.

It's hard to contain the rage.....

R.I.P. News of the World

I have been following this story with great interest since it broke a few days ago.

The British paper "News of the World" has maintained an international reputation as being sordid and scandalous, and not unjustly so. For 168 years they muck-raked the dirt on celebrities and public figures, telling sordid tales of the worst behaviour of humanity. In recent years it's been proven that indeed the story didn't even need to be true - it just had to be salacious enough provoke shock and outrage. And that, ultimately, is what sells papers.

For so long, stories of grotesque debauchery and sexual scandals have been tolerated, simply because they have involved celebrities. People, it is considered, that are not "real", who have so much money and prestige that they do not deserve any kind of sympathy. As a result, most people who read the paper would be quite happy to have these so called "journalists" and paparazzi hounding celebrities day and night and intruding into their private lives.

This is balanced with the journalistic "code of ethics", if it could be called that. The public has a right to know and to be informed. The press will stop at nothing to get conformation on the story. And of course, sources have to be kept anonymous.

We all know now that NewsOFT ran afoul when it started to intrude into lives (through the hacking of phones and voicemail) of the families of murder victims, politicians and fallen soldiers. This compromises their integrity and ability to inform the public.

The coverage in non-Murdoch press has been extensive (take a look on the website for NewsCorp Australia and you'll find precious little coverage, typically.) This quote is particularly chilling:

"Intrusions into the lives of celebrities and political figures by London's aggressive ''red-tops'' had long been tolerated, says John Lloyd, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University. ''They are deemed to be able to look after themselves,'' he says. ''But to hack into the private world of ordinary people who are grieving, who have been caught up in a terrorist attack - clearly, this is bad.''

"This is bad"? That's all you have to say?

News Flash: intrusions into the private life of ANYBODY: rich, famous, powerful or otherwise, is not on and certainly NOT in the public interest. Now that we've crossed the line and intruding into the lives of ordinary people, we risk becoming a constantly watched society reminiscent of Orwell's "1984". No wonder public dissent if rife in England. I, for one, don't blame them.

Murdoch's next move would be to start a Sunday edition of his other best-selling paper "The Sun". You would have to be naive to think that this new sunday paper would be too far removed from the one that has just met it's demise. A leopard can't change its spots, and history has shown that Murdoch fits this bill to a tee.

Besides, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would want to read something a bit more substantial over their museli than stories of David Beckham sleeping with his babysitter.

Asylum seekers, part 1

Anyone who ventures into debates about immigration policy in this country are heading into very murky waters. Debates can be fierce and the fighting can often be over opinions that are ill-informed.

With the ABC airing an episode of their panel discussion program Q&A specifically on the issue of Asylum Seekers in Australia, I thought it was appropriate to clear up some basic facts that the media and it's coverage of the topic seem to miss.

Sidebar: I also want to direct this straight at the group of people that I like to refer to as the "FOWF Brigade". The FOWF Brigade are typically bogans who drive around in big cars or utes with stickers on the back expressing their narrow-minded views on various topics; their views on immigration are usually summed up in four little words: "F*** OFF WE'RE FULL".

1. It is entirely legal to ask another country for protection if your life is in danger in your own country.

This is one thing that the FOWF Brigade seem to forget. If you are being persecuted by your own government it is entirely legal for you to seek political asylum in another country, if you feel your life is at risk.

2. Arriving on a rickety boat from Indonesia is illegal.

Yes, only if you have not made appropriate clearances to enter into Australian Waters. It is also not illegal to arrive on our shores and ask for asylum either. Given that Australia is an island surrounded by water, aside from taking a plane trip, how the hell else are you going to get here? Besides, if the country you are fleeing from has restricted airspace due to it being part of a war-zone and you can't get a plane, what other option do you have?

3. When asylum seekers arrive, it is imperative and highly appropriate that we find out exactly who they are.

In a lot of cases, people will flee their homes with what little they can scrounge before, say, a bomb hits it. In that situation, there's not a lot of time to grab your birth certificate and your CV. So, by the time they get here, and they no identification, what can you do? You need to find out who they are.

We also need to find out what their story is - where they've come from, what the threat to their lives was/is, and what can be done to help them. Do they have anyone they know here? What do they hope to do once they're here? Can they support themselves and their families?

4. Detention centres are NOT bad (at least in theory).

When asylum seekers get here, we have to house them somewhere. We cannot just expect them to sleep on the street until we work out who they are. We do owe them at least some duty of care until their claims are processed. Secondly, while diseases like cholera and dysentery have been contained and vaccinated against in this country for years, we need to make sure that asylum seekers are healthy and not carrying any infectious diseases as well.

5. Asylum seekers are NOT queue jumpers.

Well, some may be. In the past, some people have been caught out. But, there are a lot of people who are genuinely seeking asylum, so by rights one cannot assume one way or another. The immigration queue is quite long, so I'm told, so I guess it's only natural that people will take an alternative route to get into Australia permanently, if they want to badly enough.

One of the major issues that seems to be the core of this debate is the conditions in which these people are forced to live, and for years at a time. I don't know why the processing of asylum claims takes so long. I don't know on what grounds an application for asylum may be rejected (which was the reason that a few people set fire to the Villawood Detention centre a few months back). However, I'd love to know the answers to some of these questions at some stage...

Xenophobia in this country is nothing new. Most of us didn't know what xenophobia was until v. Spy V. Spy issued an album with that title in 1987. But we shouldn't let the unfounded fears of a bunch of ignorant people impact on the policy decisions of the government.

More on this one later...

Video Hits gets Axed

So Channel 10 Australia has finally decided to axe the only music program on its network. I'm not surprised, but I am annoyed about some aspects of the reporting coverage of it.

Take a look here at the story from the Sydney Morning Herald.

I'm sure I remember the show starting on air in 1986 (I'm pretty sure that's the show where I discovered the track "Infected" by The The, which was a hit in 1986) playing the top 40 videos of the week, much like Rage on the ABC was doing at the time. Over the years it has changed its format to now include interviews and funky presenters, including one Dylan Lewis, although he is not as edgy and quirky on VH as he was back in the 1990s on the ABC.

I had to laugh when it said that VH was instrumental in assisting the careers of Australian artists like Missy Higgins and Angus & Julie Stone. Umm, I'm pretty sure that there's a think called Triple J radio that got them started somehow, especially in the case of Missy Higgins who won Triple J's Unearthed competition.

So what's the problem here? Would it be a fair assumption to assume that Australians don't consider music an art-form worthy of any serious consideration?

Who were the producers of the show marketing it to? Did they miss their audience demographic?

Are we so blase about music that we can't be bothered watching it on TV?

Has the iPod mentality reduced our consumption of music down into bite-size pieces of our own choosing, thus rendering a 2 hour music show pre-programmed by someone else redundant?

My view is that music programs on commercial TV have always been about the ultra-commercial. The ABC has been prone to this too, with Rage playing top 50 hits every Saturday morning since the show started.* However, targeting music shows on TV has always been risky simply because there's already a number of channels on PayTV who arguably do music programming better, and for longer, plus now we have the Internet, where you can just watch YouTube videos ad nauseum.

So is a music TV show on free-to-air TV really necessary? Given all that, plus the rapidly declining attention spans of viewers means that it's harder and harder to find a ratings-winning format.

For the most part, the ABC provides a tele-visual compliment to the content on radio JJJ at the expense of almost everything else. But then the ABC are not worried about ratings either...

Seeing as though Ten want to ditch the 24 hour HD sport channel OneHD, maybe they could try a 24 hour music channel and see how it stacks up...? Then again, if they've ditched Video Hits after 24 years, that idea will probably float like a brick...



* This ended about 4 years ago when ARIA, the company who issues the sales charts every week, decided they were enough of a recognisable brand name now and wanted to have their own marketable show with their name on it, and refused to give their charts to the ABC for Rage to compile the show. Now, saturday morning Rage is just filled with whatever the hell the programmers felt like selecting at the time.

Live cattle exports

I know I'm getting in deep with this one, however, it's worth exploring the real issues.

Australia Resumes live Cattle Exports to Indonesia

Recently, the department of Agriculture suspended live cattle exports due to mistreatment of livestock while waiting for their turn at the abattoir. The department has since allowed exports to happen, provided the exporters can vouch for the animal control measures from the moment it leaves their own stock yard right through until the cattle get the chop.

How is that supposed to be even possible? How is a beef exporter going to have the resources to track and monitor the passage and treatment of stock?

The question is, Who should be responsible for looking after the stock en route to its ultimate destination. Shouldn't couriers and other stock handlers have a duty of care to these animals?

Anyway, since when is it the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyers look after their purchases? If someone legitimately buys a gun and goes on a shooting rampage, is the owner of the gun store responsible for the deaths of the victims? I don't think so. The onus should be on Indonesia to ensure the stock they purchase is correctly looked after in accordance with international animal treatment regulations.

It turns out that whether or not Australia supplies beef to Indonesia, the Indo government wants to down-size their import quota from Australia. They want to be self-sufficient in terms of the food they produce, and that is a good sign for them and their economy. It's not real good for our exporters, who are already struggling with the extremely high value of the Australian dollar against a lot of the world's major currencies eating into their bottom line.

So what to do? It will be very interesting how this one plays out...

Plain packaging?

One of the big news stories that is in the face of the consumer these days is the debacle regarding plain packaging of cigarettes. I'm not about to pontificate or opine one way or another on the issue, but I think some clarification of the issues is in order.

Let's take a look at the major players here:

1. Tobacco Giants.

They don't call 'em "Big Tobacco" for nothing. They have heaps and heaps of money behind them. And they have heaps of money simply because of the demand for their product...demand that is created through the addictive nature of their product.

It's a case of simple marketing - "hook 'em in and they'll come back for more". And that's one of the problems with their product: it creates a physiological, and subsequently a psychological, dependence on it in those who use it. So the punters come back, time and time again. And it's so hard to quit, so you can either fight it, or continue to submit to your cravings. Thus the cycle continues...

2. The punters.

(and I hesitate to call smokers "users", but that's kind of what I mean). Years ago, it could be argued that people started smoking due to peer pressure and social norms, and that they were unwittingly addicted as a result. But that was before the research and drug education programs, and I guess we could forgive those who, with more knowledge could have made a more informed choice. Generation X and Generation Y smokers have no such excuse - they know the risks, it's their choice to follow that pattern. Due to the nature of the addiction, the coffers of the big tobacco corps are consistently being filled by these people, at between $16-$20 a pack.

3. The government.

The government has been put in charge of regulating the level of corporate domination and influence of big business, as well as looking after the interests of the people who voted them in. They know that smoking-related illness costs the taxpayer billions of dollars every year. They know where the source of the problem is - see point 1. And yet, the government collects billions of dollars every year in alcohol and tobacco excise, and even that has been increased in the last few years. In some cases, major parties, such as the Liberal Party of Australia and the Labor Party have been known in the past to accept funding donations from Big Tobacco.

4. The Retailers.

Due to the nature of the product and it's hold on those who use it, it is a huge seller for retailers. Even after the excise is paid, the major players still get a fair cut of the profits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issues:

1. The government is worried about the draining of the public purse and the stain on the health system due to smoking related illness.

2. Insurance companies don't insure smokers with life insurance policies. It's too much of a risk, as smokers are engaging in life-threatening behaviour. It's almost a forgone conclusion that a large payout would not only be expected, but inevitable...and soon.

3. The government is in a position where it wants to try and appease as many sides of the argument as possible. The anti-smoking lobby are pursuing this issue with an almost militant vigour, and are pressuring the government to make changes. They have to weigh this up with appeasing the big corporates, who are trying to protect their profit margins.

4. Plain packaging is supposed to deter people from smoking, or so we're told. The anti-smoking lobby wants there to be some kind of deterrent to prevent the take-up of smoking in the future.

5. Tobacco companies are just that - companies. They have staff whom they employ, and who need to feed their families and pay the rent. Like any company, they need to watch their bottom lines, to make sure the money keeps rolling in. Given that people are addicted to their product and are compelled to buy it, the money keeps rolling in, right? And it's extremely difficult to quit, so again the money keeps rolling in, right?

They also have another problem - older smokers are dying. How do you get new people in? Due to the dangerous nature of their product, tobacco products haven't been allowed to be advertised in the mass media for over 30 years. How many businesses do you know of that are not allowed to spruik their wares? Not many. How many products are regulated as such that they can only be sold to a select portion of the population?

6. Retailers are worried that they are going to lose sales because of the change of packaging. Retailers are already forced to store their cigarettes behind matt-black doors and drawers, so as not to appear visible. Is plain packaging going to make much difference from this angle?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is much hot air on both sides of this debate. The anti-smoking lobby is naive to think that plain packaging is going to deter anybody more than it already does. People are hooked and they have major troubles quitting. It doesn't matter how the product is wrapped or where they source the product from - as long as they get it, then that's all that matters. Plain packaging never stops people buying meat pies in Coles, it won't stop people buying cigarettes.

The Tobacco giants are gong with this whole "Stop the Nanny State" advertising campaign. This is a load of crap. Cigarette regulation and legislation has been enforced for years, surely you're used to it by now? With a product so damaging to one's health and that causes so many other effects to society as a whole, you have to accept that regulation of your product is a given. They do have one good point in all this, however...

...they argue that plain packaging will force them to discontinue the use of their branding and trademarks. There is nothing inherently wrong with branding your product to distinguish it from a product issued by your competitors and to ensure your product is not counterfeit. The government is potentially overstepping their jurisdiction by enforcing this, as this is the entire point of the Trade Practices Act. Intellectual property rights should at least be maintained. All companies and people maintaining a brand name should be granted this right, as a bare minimum. Should this go through, it establishes a dangerous legal precedent.

Retailers who think they'll miss out on sales of cigarettes are also telling lies - people are addicted to this stuff! Are people going to reconsider their purchases due to the nature of the packaging? Of course not. Besides, Woollies and Coles have been selling products in plain packaging for years and it hasn't hurt them in the slightest. So long as people (both customers AND checkout chicks) can still read, they'll still be able to work out what's inside the packages.

I have no answers and no solutions. Packaging won't matter to someone desperate for a nicotine fix. Do big tobacco giants pull out of the Australian market, as some commentators have suggested? No, almost any tobacco market is a lucrative one - there's too much money to lose. The government doesn't want them to leave as they could create a black market and/or counterfeit import trade to occur, and they can't afford to miss out on the excise duty, especially when they can't control the supply of it.

How do you stop the take-up of smoking? Human nature is such that we engage in risk-taking behaviour in order to appear bold, daring, brave, and ultimately for acceptance. People will make stupid decisions. If there was some way to make smoking as appealing as catching a dose of the Clap, we may be onto something. But until then, the battle will rage. But at least we can keep thinking about solutions for this very complex issue.

There has to be an answer somewhere...

Think Again

Welcome to my new online forum for all things that don't involve music. My music interests I currently divulge over at The Sound and The Fury Podcast. But sometimes there are a few things that I would like to share that don't fit into that category, such as views on the news of the day.

Believe me, there is so much mis-information out there in the media. as much as I am fascinated by the media, it annoys me totally that there is so many news stories that are unbalanced and biased in their reporting. I'm no expert in anything, but I intend to promote discussion about topics and issues to find a broader perspective on things.

This is not going to be site for narrow-minded, neo-conservative rants. Besides, I'm not neo-conservative. In the interests of balance, I intend to post regularly on issues in the news media that are fundamentally lacking in balance.

Hence the name of the blog..."Think Again".

The Rant starts.....

NOW!!!