Carbon Tax #1

.@TonyAbbottMHR what exactly is the problem with the carbon tax, besides the fact that Gina Rinehart hates it?

— Sound and the Fury (@sound_fury_pod) October 17, 2013

The Findings of the Leveson Enquiry

Does the Leveson Inquiry have any teeth? Or is it just a metaphorical gummy shark? Reading the phone hacking coverage in the Guardian, it seems increasingly clear that there may be more of an agenda behind the process and the findings. They report that there is a 17 page section of the 85 page report that one side of the political divide (The Conservatives) refused to support. One quote even suggested that Tom Watson MP was so hell-bent on making the headline that "Rupert…is not fit to run a major company" that the entire committee was divided basically down the middle. Some points ring true from my cursory investigation in all this. 1. News Corporation did act improperly or, at least, did not act decisively enough in dealing with rogue criminal behaviour. Rupert admitted this much in his response this morning. 2. The management of News Corp have not admitted to sponsoring the behaviour from the outset. And really, as if they would. To do so would attract serious criminal punishment for those responsible and, even worse for the Murdochs, negative press. 3. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that a great deal of dodgy dealings were afoot within the organisation, and it is arguable that the upper echelons of management knew about it. How much they knew, we may never know. 4. Partisan or not, there is no doubt that the report has landed some major blows to the Murdochs. Not a knockout blow as such, but one hard enough to leave them winded for a brief moment. How much of this was a response to the outrage that the phone hacking scandal caused is a matter for debate, and you can bet than within certain media circles, it will be a hot discussion topic. It appears to me that this may very well be the case - that outrage, in part dictated the findings of the enquiry. There's no doubt that the hacking the phones of celebrities and the parents of a murdered school girl is bad practice, and the outrage at the invasion of privacy of these people is well deserved. But should this be allowed to taint the view of an inquiry? What's more, if those who have been called to testify to the enquiry have misled parliament, what teeth does it have to call them into account? What powers does it have? Could this set a new precedent, considering that the House of Commons has not imposed a fine on an individual for contempt since 1666? It's one thing to point the finger at the Murdochs for publishing the rubbish they do. I also think that the "Great British Public", to borrow a phrase from Nick Park, should take a long hard look at themselves. Anyone who has ever bought a copy of News Of The World during the period it was a NewsCorp paper in effect contributed to the notion that scandal was what the people want, and if it becomes lucrative through increased sales and revenue, then why not keep going with it? Up the ante, make more money, and on and on it goes… It will be very interesting to see where this goes in the coming weeks...

Australia Day revisited...

I have just finished watching Media Watch on the ABC. Sure enough, they took a look at the drama that unfolded after Tony Abbott's statement to the media regarding the Aboriginal tent embassy.

I meant to write a piece about this at the time. The major issue is that Tony Abbott never said the words he was attributed as having said. As much as I'm not much of a fan of the guy, I will go into bat for him and defend the fact that he didn't say "tear down the Tent Embassy".

So who twisted his words? Ironically enough, it was the right-wing conservative talkback radio station 2UE in Sydney who did. Then, to make matters worse, it was later revealed one of the Prime Minster's media advisors told a union official who told a member of the tent embassy and then it all ended in a riot.

No-one is advocating that the Tent embassy should be removed. The indigenous people of this country are still fighting for their rights and much of what they wish to see discussed in the halls of parliament still hasn't been discussed. They have a right to peaceful protest like anybody else.

Also, no-one is supporting the behaviours of the protesters on Australian Day either. Or the actions of the police. Both sides say the other was violent, and that the other started it, so we'll never know the real story behind that one.

The one thing that Media Watch did pull out of this entire sorry saga was some of the comments left on the Yahoo7 web page about the story, by people who think that anonymity on the internet gives them the right to be racist. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Free speech comes with a responsibility to use it wisely. It is not an open slather-fest to slander one and all because you think you can. But more on that later.

It was a sad chapter in the history of Australian race relations and one that I think is far from over....