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.

Small cuts are still cuts Tony Abbott

Before reading any further, watch the video (27 sec) above. 

It was the night before the 2013 Federal Election and Tony Abbott, on TV, confidently outlined areas of Government that would not receive cuts under his first term of Government.

Though today it has been announced that another $50 million may be cut from the ABC and SBS, after the budget already slashed funding to the public broadcasters by $43.5 million. At the time when this was announced, some commentators were relieved to find that sum smaller than what was originally expected (despite the coalitions promises leading into the election). Yet it seems the fallout from the 2014 Budget is continuing, with the ABC and SBS taking another hit. 

Regardless of your opinion on the ABC and SBS, there is something inherently wrong when a leader of a party so clearly articulates a policy position, and less than 12 months later has to do a major backflip. Defence and the School Chaplaincy Program were not budget promises, though they got boosts in funding! Neither does it make economic sense. The ABC and SBS are two of the most efficient broadcasters (that's comparing all broadcasters, public and private) in terms of quality output per dollar input. So making them jump through more hoops is unlikely to make significant savings, which would be needed in a "budget crisis". 

This round of cuts though has been defended as cutting 'back end' operations. That's a lovely vague title that doesn't appear attached to any form of employment! It also ignores the reality that the majority of work in TV is 'back end' work; legal teams, writing teams, consumes, catering, set production etc. Take away some of those roles, and it affects programming quality. The ABC was scrutinised for its handling of the students protesting on QandA, but security guards and risk management planning also fits into the 'back end' category of work as well. 

The more and more this government releases details about its budget, the bigger hole it seems to dig itself into. It set the bar for accountability and honesty when coming into the election. Though it's about time they listen to what they said themselves, and follow the values that they were voted in for! 

              

Roads that lead nowhere

A new registration system can fix congestion problems
 Source: Flickr

I seriously do not understand the fetishism the Federal Government has with insisting that outdated road policies are the way of the future. For a PM that wants to call himself the "infrastructure Prime Minister", ignoring a Productivity Commission report that highly recommends a change to the road registration system and a call for governments to stop implementing expensive, "popular" and "sexy" projects, and instead focus on ones that are more worth while, you'd think he should listen!

But it's a great big new tax! 

The very phrasing that Tony Abbott gave (as reported by the ABC AM program), is that

"Tolls are a fact of life. We pay for road tolls, we pay for roads through our taxes, we pay for roads through our registration and we pay for our vehicles, so there's already a significant form of user-charging. This new form of user-charging, I suspect, is unlikely to ever be adopted by any government."

But changing the road registration scheme where users pay per km they drive, rather than a flat registration fee, is more equitable and reflective of a user-pays-toll-system. Someone who drives 100km a day will pay substantially more than someone who drives only 50km a week. It effectively becomes a user pays subsidised system; everyone pays taxes to have roads available, and those who use roads more pay more in tax (though their vehicle registration fee) for that service.

Who would it affect? 

It seriously is baffling to see why there is no public interest in this type of system. The only increased cost that would occur would be to those to travel a lot via road (such as affluent people) and transport businesses (taxis, trucks etc). Yet these are the groups that need the greatest incentive to change their transport behaviour. It is trucks and city commuters that clog up arterial roads during peak hour times. If they were charged more based on their driving habits, it would change some drivers behaviour, creating more space on the roads. And this would all magically be done without having to create new roads!

Saving money on future infrastructure costs, creating a more equitable user based system and encouraging more efficient transport usage.... yep, no government would ever want to adopt that.


Sources: 
Making road users pay could clear infrastructure gridlock - The Conversation
Tony Abbott rejects pay-per-kilometre plan in Productivity Commission report aimed at drivers - ABC AM radio program