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...
Monday, August 29, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
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!
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...
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...
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, August 15, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
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.....
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.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)