shannonsays.com

Fleet Street comes to Oz: Media & Schapelle Corby

Keeping with the hysterical media-fed reaction to the Schapelle Corby being jailed for 20 years in a Bali prison...

Anyone would think the infamous Fleet Street editors had moved to Australia to help with the media feeding frenzy and come up with tabloid headlines following the Schapelle Corby verdict.  Rupert Murdochs' News Limited tabloids have been particularly sensationalist.  Here are some of the headlines from The Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun since Saturday:

"INSIDE CORBY'S NIGHTMARE" ... "Day of outrage to show our disgust" ... "Hellhole she'll call home for 20 years" ... "NATION'S FURY" ... "20 years in hell and prosecutors still demand life" ... "Nation's fury at sentence" ... "ALONE AND AFRAID" ... "Family fears suicide" ... "Let's hurt Bali in the pocket" ... "Indonesia must look at grotesque anomolies" ... "A NATION REVOLTS" ... "Fury erupts at Corby jail term" ... "From support to damnation" ... "Horrors await in jail hellhole" ... "Corby's ex-lover backs trade ban" ... "Australia is crying now" ... "Share of hell in grotty cell" ... "Embassy phones run hot with hate" ... 'DAYS OF HATE" ... "Cellmates 'are giving her hell'" ... "National donations backlash"

Over the top headlines like that might sell papers, but they are also proving to be headlines have the capacity to incite readers and fuel something much bigger – like demonstrations, retribution and hatred towards Indonesia.

Now what does that achieve?  An intelligent answer was forthcoming from the guys at Crikey (sub req):

"(The media reaction) achieves only two things: more circulation for newpapers and the end of a workable Australian relationship with Indonesia (and possibly other Asian countries)."

Agreed.  Hysterical headlines and stories like these have nothing to do with press freedom or editorial independence, and it is time draw your weapons people.

When Only a Big Word Will Do

This from this weeks Reader (from Stop Smiling Magazine).  It is an extract from an interview with Christopher Hitchens (of Vanity Fair fame), and made me chuckle.

"I used the word “Promethean” and they[magazine editors] said, “Take that out because people won't know what Promethean means.” I said, “Maybe they won't. I'll cut it out if you give me another synonym for it. You give the words that would stand in for it and I'll change it.” “There doesn't seem to be one,” they said. “No, there isn't, is there?” You either know what “Promethean” means or you don't. If you do, it saves you about 50 words. And if you don't, then you can look it up! So I said, “No. I'm going to keep it, because it's an important word and it's actually not condescending to Americans in the least. You have to condescend far more by finding the 50-word substitute. No, I won't change it. Fuck you. And I don't mean to publish in your magazine, either, for that matter.”

So what does Promethean mean?  I didn't know either.

Hitchens should go and buy himself a copy of The Little Red Writing Book.

The Schapelle Corby Verdict: Why maintain the whinge?

First things first- and as I have said previously- I have no firm view as to whether Schapelle Corby is really guilty or not, and only Schapelle knows that for sure.

But, let's face it it was no real surprise that that she was found guilty.  Despite the media induced outpouring of public emotion and anger that her 20 year jail sentence has caused (even on my own blog), based on everything that was presented during her trial, her conviction was hardly a source of astonishment

But for goodness sakes, some of the rubbish that people are coming out with is beyond crazy.  Let's look at some of the comments that are being frequently made by people following the verdict and sentencing.

"We know she is innocent"
Why are so many people absolutely convinced that she is innocent?  What evidence have they seen that I haven't that gives them so much conviction?  I haven't read through a transcript of her trial and am reliant on the information I have read in the press and online, but I am yet to read anything that provides unquestioning evidence of her innocence.  It seems that just because most of us wouldn't try to smuggle drugs into another country, we assume that someone who looks like us (young Aussie surfer girl) wouldn't be as dumb either.  The media have represented Corby as some kind of girl next door. It is an absurdity to think that common citizens are incapable of criminality.

I even heard someone say that she doesn't "look" guilty.... whatever that means.

If anyone who can provide me with such overwhelming proof of her innocence, I welcome you to give it to me.

"The trial was unfair"
The Indonesian Justice system is different to ours, and thus the trial might seem unfair by our standards, but why does that necessarily make it unfair?  I think the trial was fair.  Defence got a "fair" hearing, as did the prosecution.  The judges made a decision based on the what the heard.  Like it or not, we must accept the that the Indonesian system functions as it does. 
However, I do think that her defence team could have done a better job, but that doesn't mean that the whole trial was unfair, surely?
(I'll have some more to say about her defence later in the week)

"Let's demand our Tsunami aid back"
What a ridiculous, pathetic and counterproductive comment to make.  The reasons why should be evident to anyone with even a modest sense of intelligence.

"The Government should have done more"
Like what?  It is not the role of Governments to interfere in the judicial systems of other nations.  There is absolutely no way we would not tolerate the reverse, ie Indonesia poking it's nose into the way we deal with alleged criminal offenders.  There would be widespread outrage if that happened.

As for calls that the Australian Government should "just bring her home" are naive in the extreme.

She got the normal level of assistance any Australian citizen would receive if they were in her position, and perhaps a little bit more.  Just because it is not splashed across the front page of the newpapers, doensn't mean that the Government did not use every channel, every influence available to them to assist Schapelle.  But at the end of the day, they can't influence a court, whether it is our courts or a foreign court. 

So what more  should our Government have done exactly?  And why are they a source of fault in all of this?  I also think that it's worth remembering that in broad diplomatic terms Indonesia is our friend.

"We should protest and boycott Bali/Indonesia"
Many people have already cancelled trips to Bali, and several protests and rallies are planned for this week.  But why?  As Tony asks, should we persecute the Balinese people over this?  Such a response is the product of the emotional "she's innocent- the trial was unfair" line of argument.  In such a context it makes sense.  But move away from that for a moment and tell me why boycotting Bali is helpful to anything?  It is counterproductive and just portrays us Australians in a pretty poor light.

In conclusion, let me say that I have as much sympathy for Corby as the next person, but I refuse to buy into all the hysteria when it flies in the face of the facts and common sense.

Anyone who wants to counter any of my thoughts is welcome to use the comments area.

The Debate About Drought Relief

Drought is a fact of life in Australia.  But what to do about farmers who are caught up in it all?  Do we help them out, like we always do,via tax payer funded relief packages, do we shrug our shoulders and say "tough" or should we look at doing something else, like trying to work out how the hell we are going to live with this new reality rather than simply hoping for rain?

Unfortunately for us, debate is too hard, so our Governments will just throw some more money at the farmers so that they can service their mounting debts.  That ought to shut them up for a while.

But it is getting a bit ridiculous now.  I mean, how much of a relief is too much? And should we keep giving it anyway?

Well, here's one view:

"Farmers. Fellas. If a little milk bar operator, dry cleaner, plumber, printer, chippy, lawyer, dentist, doctor, engineer, butcher or any other small business goes under there is no government handout available. Those business people are required to stand or fall on the strength of their own planning, operation, diligence, risk assessment, market observation, personal and business insurance protection positions. End of story. Question is, why the hell should we all, as tax payers, keep bailing you out? You know the risks, you enjoy the returns. If you have a business problem, sort it out yourself. Yes, we know the weather can't be controlled. Tell that to the local electrician who cannot get Telstra or some other large service provider to do their job and misses out on a Yellow Pages ad, or whose telephone business lifeline goes down. Nobody steps in to pick them up. At least you have the Farm Deposit scheme – not available to any other taxpayer – where you can defer tax paid on income into those years which are good. Lucky you.

With all the government (read taxpayer) support, technical services, science, management schools, courses, urging, droughts, market responses and media coverage, why haven't you learnt?"

Harsh words. But I sort of agree with the sentiment.  Why should we continually be asked to prop farmers up with handouts?  Why do they deserve more of a leg-up than other businesses?  Of course a very simplistic line of argument that hardly adds much to the whole debate.

Which is why John Williams' article (apparently he is the former boss of the CSIRO's land and water division), in The Age yesterday.

Williams criticised government drought policy yesterday – but also added

“Australians had forgotten the variability of the nation's climate and started farming land that previous generations would not have farmed. Unsustainable areas included parts of the Mallee across Victoria, NSW and South Australia; SA's Eyre Peninsula; and some parts of western NSW and central Queensland.”

It's a healthy debate to have, and a necessary one.  I dunno what the answers are, but I don't think continual, haphazard subsidies and handouts are they way to go.  All that shows is that we have no real plan for dealing with the effects of the extreme fluctuations of our climate.  Which is pretty piss poor really.

We can't drought proof this place, but we should be able to work out a better way of dealing with a future that will be hotter and drier than the past.

Shut Up Eddie

Australian readers will like this.

And maybe so will Eddie's wife....

The Monthly Cover: Meaning Revealed

The other day I wondered what the hell was going on with the cover on fledgling Aussie mag The Monthly.  Now I know:

"I asked my 21/2 year old what the woman on the cover's expression was and he said "She wants her money  back".

She might be right:

Virgin Blue: Snookered

So Virgin Blue has been judged to be the "Best Low Cost Airline"  whizzing around the worlds' skies, hey?  Better than Ryanair, Southwest and Easyjet.  Obviously Virgin Blue's staff are are much better looking than anyone elses.

Ironically though, the news comes as Virgin is trying to shed the low-cost moniker and portray itself as a value-based or "new world" carrier in an attempt to boost its appeal to high-yield, business like travellers.

Like most pundits, Brett Godfrey (Virgin Blue boss) and the Virgin Blue mob underestimated the impact of the Jetstar (Qantas' low frills offshoot) launch and despite what they might like to believe, this new airline has succeeding in nicking a fair whack of Virgin Blue's passengers as well as downgrading the perception of what "low cost" is all about.  And despite it's problems, Jetstar is successful and making money.

And now Virgin Blue is stuck.  The gravy-train years of post-Ansett and the simpler challenge of attacking the higher-cost, full-service Qantas are over. The launch of Jetstar has locked Virgin Blue firmly into the middle ground, and has given the Qantas group the ability to match Virgin Blue in price-sensitive segments, as well as continuing its dominance in the premium business segment.

And now they have the impending arrival of business carrier Ozjet, which will further cement Virgin Blue into the middle ground.  But the problem seems to be that Virgin Blue doesn't want to accept the middle ground, and as a result are now looking a bit confused.

"Are we a low cost airline (the best in the world, even)? or are we an airline that can cater for business travellers as well?"

The truth is, they don't appear to know.  And how do you continue to promote the image of Virgin as a value airline while pushing it as an upmarket carrier that appeals to the business market?  It is difficult to do without completely confusing the market and risk in isolating both ends of the spectrum.

The things that business folks expect like frequent flier programs, lounges, more flexible fares, priority boarding, fancy meals and other "frilly" offerings cost bucks.  And Virgin Blue doesn't have much bucks to spare if this weeks profit warning is anything to go by.  No doubt they'll figure out how to do it though.  But at what cost?

Further adding to Virgin Blue's dilemma is this weeks announcement from Jetstar of the sale of a million seats at $29, including taxes and charges, to celebrate the anniversary of their first flights on May 25 last year.

If they don't want to lose more passengers, Virgin Blue will have to respond.  Again reaffirming them as a low cost carrier.

The reality is that Qantas's Geoff Dixon has Godfrey and Virgin snookered between Jetstar and  Qantas.  And there appears no way out.  Why not just stay there?  Why not try to dominate the middle ground?

The business graveyard is full of businesses that were successful in one segment, but the persued growth in another segment, only to fail in winning new business whilst isolating the loyal customers they once had.  It's a risky game.

Success? What would sports people know anyway?

Whenever a successful person is asked (and its usually business people or sports people that are asked) something along the lines of "What is the key to reaching the top?" the same answers are always dished up; hard work, persistence, passion, commitment, having a dream and wanting it enough.  You know the sorts of things, and they are all probably true enough.

But when Clive Hamilton, director of The Australia Institute and author of Affluenza: When Too Much Is Never Enough, was asked here is what he had to say:

"Don't believe those various sports stars who say you can achieve anything as long as you want it badly enough.  Most people who try to succeed fail- and those who are driven to get to the top are usually miserable when they get there.  Instead we should devote ourselves to doing what we love to do or feel we are meant to do."

Sage advice, Mr. Hamilton.

The Monthly: reviewed

Earlier in the week I promised to tell you what I thought of new Aussie mag The Monthly, which according to it's publisher will fill the space that the New Yorker' or Atlantic Monthly might fill in the States.

I have never read either of those, but The Monthly was a bit disappointing.  For a start, after having a quick flick through it, I was surprised at the crude, cheap looking layout.  I almost just chucked it straight onto the coffee table, ready to be put out with the thirteen supplements that come with the Saturday Age.

But back to The Monthly. The articles (well essays really) are pretty good, once you remember that Aussie writers sometime become a mistake throughtfulness and seriousness with being over tedious.  That aside, you can expect lengthy, generally well written articles by Margaret Simons on the ABC, John Birmingham on his home town of Ipswich, John Harms on 1950 Stawell Gift winner Ken Trewick, an piece by one of my favorites Don Watson on how country towns have changed,as well as contributions by Tim Lane, Helen Garner, Robert Forster and others.

They all combine to make The Monthly a reasonably good read.  It is just that it looks really crap.  I know that mags like this don't need to offer a graphic experience, but this is 2005 and I would expect a bit more sophistication.  One thing I still don't get is the cover image. Now isn't it standard practice that the image on the cover is somehow linked to the a story, usually the cover story?  Most magazines I know use the cover to illustrate a theme or central point in the story.

But not with The Monthly.  Strange.  I  am at a loss as to why you would want an ordinary photo take up the whole cover of your first edition that adds nothing to anything inside..

Anyway, I'll pick it up again next month.

(If anyone else has any thoughts on the first Monthly, I'd love to hear them)

Update of Change This

Thanks Seth.

Just this week that I was wondering what happened to Change This. I hadn't got an update email for a few months, so I visited the website, you know, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.  But nope.  Nothing.  It appeared that Change This had gone as quickly as it came.  Oh well.

But now I know what happened:

"Starting at the end of last year, I entered into a very long negotiation with a major web company about passing the reins (of Change This)on to them. Alas, as often happens with long negotiations with major corporations, it crashed and burned at the very end. One side effect is that ChangeThis has been relatively bereft of new content since February or so.

The good news?
a. next week I hope to be able to tell you about a new team taking over--no money is changing hands, just a team of folks who want to do the hard work to make it fly...
and
b. we learned a lot. We learned a lot building it and launching it, and we learned a lot in watching what spread (and what didn't spread). And, I think, our millions of readers learned a lot."

Cool.  I look forward to the reincarnation of Change This.  The manifesto's were alway sharp and snappy, covering a diverse range of ideas and opinions.