And the Canberra Games go on and on

NT News keeping it real
Source: Guardian.com

I don't know about you, but the last few days in Australian politics has been kind of fun. I've been addicted to the nonstop rollercoaster ride that is the "Canberra Games". Who cares about shows like Survivor, The Greatest Race or The Bachelor - this is reality TV at its finest. It's a show where you kind of get a say in the process, but not really. People get eliminated. Hearts are broke. Tears are shed. New alliance made and bitter parting speeches are given. There's even the dramatic recaps, speculative commentary from experts and guests, and montages of how far we've come. While it may seem important at the time who gets kicked off an island or given a rose, here it (may be) a substantial change in how the country is governed. Who knows, we might actually have legislation passed by the senate now!

Due to the course of these events, I felt it was necessary to transcribe some of my thoughts on the Turnbull take over. (I hate calling it a coup. Where was the military!? Where are the pictures of people being dragged out of office?! Has the excitement of a change in PM reduced the ability of the media to reach for a dictionary?)

Coup: (noun) [also coup d'état] - a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. Take Burkina Faso for example. 

As much hype as there is about the "shambles" that is the revolving door of our Prime Ministership (thanks Karl and Ray), very little actually matters. Because it's the exact same members of Parliament who return the next day and continue with business as usual. It's a reshuffling of the deckchairs, be it on a the Titanic, or the green Canberran' lawns. What is noticeable is how people reacted and pledge their allegiances. Abbott didn't give a press conference after he was ousted, a sign of very bitter resentment and self pity. Before the spill, many MPs didn't give press conferences, but those who did open their mouths to the microphones and camera lenses leaked out their emotional sentiments on the issue. It was like seeing the live crosses to politicians when they win or lose their seat during an election. There's a moment where they let down their guard with all of the emotional turmoil and show their true personality.

As for what the future holds, I can't envisage Australian democracy crumbling and falling apart from this latest bout of "treachery". There'll just be continued speculation about leadership on both sides, and the ABC will get a to run new episodes of The Killing Season.  Malcolm Turnbull has a lot more panache than previous political leaders, something the Australian community either loves or hates (do I even have to mention Kevin Rudd?) Style aside, there needs to be some substance to keep the viewers interested people voting. Or people will follow the Channel 7 model and not give a damn. That's something I'm much more concerned about! How did James Blunt become popular again?

SHOCK HORROR - trashy tabloids photoshop scandal

Sitting in a cafe today, I saw the front page of News Corp's infamous Herald Sun. I really didn't feel like eating much after that.

Yikes!

Mixing two unflattering photos of people together is never a good idea. Even when celebrity mags try to see what the lovechild of two celebs would be, it always turns out like a deformed being from a horror movie. Doing the same with politicians can only be worse! 

Given all of the commotion that has gone on over the repeal of the carbon tax, why this headline? Why this picture? Seriously, why News Corp, are you trying to make me feel physically sick! Sometimes the content of this rag-mag tabloid is enough to gag on, but this front page is nightmare inducing!  It is kind of expected that tabloids will have a fairly lame yet eye catching headline and front cover, and as the picture below shows, they're usually fairly generic or harmless; personal interest stories, political cartoons and at worst provocative text. Though upon closer inspection, the images and text have been getting more aggressive and derogatory to Labor Prime minsters. That's News Corp's bias coming out strong and clear.

Typical Herald Sun headlines

News Corp's greater purpose of pursuing this line of rag-mag drivel is strangely, both sad and sinister at the same time. There are many other interesting articles out there to write about. The fact that the government just passed one of its key election commitments would be one thing; it's a day for successful government that's dealing with a challenging Senate. Yet instead News Corp decides to make a scathing, not to mention quite petty, attack against the opposition. It's a blatant childish bullying behaviour that is no different to defacing yearbooks and school photos, though now proudly publishing the material.

That's sad for the state of affairs of one of Australia's most read and distributed newspapers, though also sinister because of the the way in which this media conglomerate is trying to influence politics; by bullying and indoctrinating, not reasoning or persuading. The second half of the article itself beneath the horror photo and captions is fairly balanced and factual. Though this is becoming endemic of News Corp's attempts to still retain the most minimal credibility of a news agency, while appealing the lowest common denominator of base and crude attacks against parties and individuals it dislikes.

*Apologies for the lame title.

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

Gillard's 'sincere' response to the floods,
albeit with a prop. Image source: The Australian

Julia Gillard welled up in Parliament yesterday over the disaster that has been the Queensland floods. Tony Abbott was confronted by Channel 7 news reporters, asking for a response to his "shit happens" comment about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. Yet again, politicians are being judged on their style, spin and acting abilities, rather than the policies they are proposing. Politician baiting is becoming a tabloid sport; catching out unsuspecting politicians about their personal lives and minor gaffes, in order to elicit a response to make the front line-up of the nightly bulletin. It is a sobering thought to think that such insignificant trivialities about our politicians is what interests the general populous the most; and ultimately influences the way they vote.

After Gillard's condolence speech in Parliament yesterday, some political analysts and commentators are claiming that Gillard is finally showing her sincere and warm-heart to the flood victims. Others are more sceptical, claiming that this is just an elaborate act. People seem to be genuinely concerned about Gillard's lack of emotional response whilst she had been touring the flood affected areas. In a pure political sense, Gillard's emotional and personal response to the event shouldn't be of relevance; only her policy actions. Gillard welled up whilst reflecting on what had happened during the parliament's official condolence. Though even that is of little relevance. The PM personally cares. It's a nice thought, but it is not one that is fundamental to the overall objective of her job: to lead a government reconstruction effort. It doesn't matter how moved, touched and emotionally responsive Tony Abbott is to the Queensland floods, if his methods of reconstruction are subordinate to Gillard's. Furthermore from this, it is disgusting for the public to expect specific emotional responses from political leaders during times of crisis. Not everybody cries when they tour the aftermath of a natural disaster. Not everybody cries when they meet people who have been physically and emotionally traumatised and are desperately seeking assistance. Lots of water in Queensland, shouldn't correlate to lots of water around the eyes. Everybody has their own unique way of coping with grief, loss and trauma. Tony Abbott didn't well up in front of a TV camera, though no comment has been made about that!

Tony Abbott's recent gaffe of "shit happens" has called into question how genuine he is about the death of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Both sides of politics are very humble and sincere when it comes to Australian soldiers who have died whilst overseas. It is political suicide not to be. So under no circumstances, whilst Tony Abbott was chatting amongst Australian and US soldiers in Afghanistan, would he ever be flippant or disrespectful to any deceased Australian soldier. However "umm....well sometime shit happens doesn't it" sends a different message. It's one of flippancy and disrespect. Thus it is great for a short clip on the 6 o'clock news. Though such a comment was not taken out of context, only the "act" of him saying it was. Abbott would never utter such a phrase in Parliament or at his local church, but when having a casual chat out in a desert with Australian combat personal, Abbott changes his vernacular and actions to "extra blokey" mode.

His response however, to Channel 7s Hollywood-esque surprise interview, was completely inappropriate and personally damaging. Whether it be rage, surprise, or fear of answering a question that will make him look guilty, a Julie Bishop death stare for over 20 seconds is never good. His curt response of "you got the answer you deserve" highlighted how out of control he was within that situation. It was inappropriate of Channel 7 to accost him in such a way, though it is a politicians job to answer tough questions. He didn't answer this one, or deflect and avoided it well. It is ironically timed that Abbott should fall upon his own sword after chiding Gillard for her "tin eared" response to the Queensland floods. But such footage of Abbott saying "shit happened" shouldn't have been repressed, like the Liberal Party did with footage of Abbott shooting a firearm with Australian soldiers. They claimed it would "send the wrong message". Political parties shouldn't be able to control the public image of their constituents if they're running for office, and if that is what the public (regrettably) wants to know about.

What is becoming increasingly clear however, is the media and publics fixated attention on Gillard and her appearance. If she is not being criticised for a lack of crying and being emotional, the Australian or a tabloid will criticise her ever changing hair or whether she carries a purse. Even her dress was criticised whilst she toured flood affected Queensland towns. Since Gillard is a woman, whose dress sense will alter unlike the standard suit and tie for men, in the eyes of the public, there is more to critique. If Gillard is being too masculine in her dress sense and attitude in the chamber, she will be criticised for being bullish. Though if she lacks the "effeminate capabilities" of crying, she doesn't have a heart. Whilst never explicitly exploiting her gender in her campaign to become PM, people are happy to do that for her. Amanda Vanstone's only positive comment about Julia Gillard on Q&A (7/2/11) was that she was "a role model for young girls to look up to and say.... I can do that". If all young woman have to look up to is a PM being constantly criticised for her appearance as a result of her gender, then it doesn't offer much encouragement for ambitious young females wanting to enter the world of politics.

Julia Gillard's tears in parliament yesterday may be genuine, or they may have been put on after much criticism about her emotional response to the floods disaster. Her political commitment to help reconstruct Queensland however, is sincere. Tony Abbott's choice of phrasing whist talking to soldiers in Afghanistan was a strategic act. Though his political position of respecting the family and dignity of Australian soldiers killed in action, is sincere. Politicians act. But when the public deeply care about appearances and spin, the substance starts to get lost. This inane sport of critiquing the theatre of politics and judging the politicians of their performance, is damaging to government, and ludicrous at best. Don't text in your views about Gillard or Abbott's media performance. This is politics, not 'Canberra's got talent!'.

Links: 
Tears flow as Julia Gillard gets real - National Times

Flood victims bring Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tears - The Australian 

PM defends response to flood - The Age

Gillard the actor: Q&A Question 7/2/11 - Q&A website
Reporter asks question, Abbott loses it - National Times

Abbott's frozen fury lingers beyond his words - National Times

Bing - up go the pay walls.

One of the most amazing things about the internet is its free access to an almost infinite source of global information. While there is Wikipedia, blogs and other (questionable) online content, reputable information can sometimes be difficult to find. However online newspapers, such as The Age, Guardian.co.uk and the Economist are all reputable online news sources that provide (most) of their news content for free. Like most other media outlets who have gone online, there is an increasing trend towards customers viewing their content online. Though this dramatic shift in readership and consumption of news, is having a catastrophic impact on the revenue to news providers.

Whenever you view something online that is free, you are still paying for it through exposure to advertising. Thus news providers make their revenue and profit from having ads beside, or randomly popping up (annoyingly) on screen beside their content. However not enough revenue is coming from online advertising, thus news providers are complaining about their dwindling profits. Though most of these news providers are blaming Google for their problems, claiming Google is freely providing their content and making money from it. This is because whenever you go onto Google News or do a Google search, small text ads will appear beside the results. This is the advertising scheme that is making Google millions in profits, though news outlets don't get a cent. However it is ironic still that whenever you click on a Google News article, it takes you to the news source, thus these online news providers gain revenue from ads on their own sites. While they are blaming Google, Google is generating over half of all traffic to these news sites.

This culminating anger has seen Murdoch propose to Binge (Google's newest rival from Microsoft, who only corners 10% of the search engine market), to its delight, a proposal to shut out Google and put up pay walls, by allowing only Bing access to its online articles, and charging viewers accordingly. More niche news services (such as some parts of the online section of the Economist) are able to get away with putting up pay walls, as selective readers are happy to pay for its valuable content. However the average reader may be a bit more wary and less inclined to using a "micro payments" service (a small charge per article viewed) or a subscription service for online news content. Hence if pay walls go up, readership most likely will decrease.

Though cutting out Google may just cause even more economic hardship to these news providers, as Google  still does provide the greatest traffic to these news sites, and is the most used search engine on the web. Google itself may even come back with a counter offer if it believes Murdoch and other news providers are serious about selectively signing themselves with Bing. If Google gave half of its revenue from ads on its Google News service to news providers who are being linked to by Google, it could be a compromise that would keep both parties happy, except for Microsoft's Bing .

The age of free internet content may be nigh, though with some clever advertising schemes and a compromise with search engines like Google, free quality news that drives blogs like this and fuels the thoughtful minds of inquisitive individuals may continue.

Links

Will Murdoch's Bing gamble pay off? - Guardian.co.uk 
Web Wide War - the Economist

Newspaper Darwinism

There is no doubt about it, the old Newspaper is dying.

No, it's not due to TV or Radio. Its due to what you could consider the greatest invention since the wheel, the Internet.

You're currently reading a blog on the Internet. You've probably been on Facebook, YouTube or Google searched something already. The Internet is a powerful tool, connecting and informing us.

That part of informing us, used to be the job of the Newspapers, but more and more people are moving to the Internet. They're choosing it as their point of access for information and entertainment. Any why not? It's up to date (almost live), can be more comprehensive, you can search for the exact news and information you want, and if that doesn't satisfy you, just Google or look at another news source. And most of this is FREE. So it would seem crazy not to get your news and information from the Internet. But this is where we delve into the murky world of the reliability of the Internet.

The downsides, are that each page you load is full with ads. Most articles are quite brief, and more and more articles are on celebrities or gossip. So it is difficult to read any substantive articles on a screen, and depending on your resource, it may not always be accurate.

But aside from this brief comparison of Internet information, what I want to know (and I hope you want to know too) is where are the newspapers going?

Wherever I find a situation where I can apply Darwin's theory of evolution (it is one of my favourite theories), I apply it, and here it goes. ...

Following the theory of evolution "where the strongest survives", and by strongest meaning those who are able to change and adapt to their situation, and be the best, Newspapers will do the same. The Internet has changed, and will adapt to be even more user friendly, thus becoming the main source of information. Newspapers on the other hand, will become specialised. In becoming specialised, they will be the 'strongest in their field'. Providing detailed and in depth analysis from reputable resources by experienced journalists. They will report on major national and international issues, and attempt to be very broad scoped in who their target audience is. Thus while most of the newspapers will die out, the strongest will remain and fulfil that specialised role.

While most Internet information is free at the moment, in the future, to access quality content, you will have to pay for it! For newspapers as well, the cost of the content will be passed onto the consumer, as advertising goes digital. But I think that it is a good theory non the less. Some people believe that Newspapers will die out altogether, or just go completely digital. That may be the case in the long term future when we all walk around with supercomputer i-phones, but until then I think we will go with the good old paper. Recycled of course in this environmentally conscience age.

LINK

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649304
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13642689