What Australia MUST do: Part I
Well Hello there!
It has been a while hasn't it?
And SO MUCH has happened! It's a wonder this site has been quiet despite, what?, a Z list sportstar/Media whore breakup and a TV star whose fame vanished nigh on 20 years ago being accused of feeling up an underage co-star.
But seriously folks, it does appear that this country is in a Rudd - I mean rut (which essentially means the same thing).
A small country that has the opportunity to lead the world in everything from medical research to human rights in practise is spending its mornings trying to decide between finding new ways to screw with the middle and lower classes and doing SFA.
I really dislike when commentators or bloggers point out what is wrong with a government but don’t offer any real alternatives to the problems. To point out what is wrong is easy, to suggest a solution… well that takes a special type of A-hole blogger.
So rejoice! I have come up with 6 sure fire ways to get the country back on track!
This will be presented in a six part series. Each entry will have two suggestions to propel this little island/continent/rock of ours into the history books as the most progressive and revered nation in history!
To-Do List for Australia: Part I – The Media
Australians are stupid - I mean ignorant - I mean racist - I mean lazy.
Bah! I don’t know what to think about the general populace. I don’t have the time or willpower to get to know you all so I like many others, turn to the media to determine the pulse of a society.
The initial goal of the media companies was to inform and entertain. Then like all good ideas, they begin to decay and corrupt. In most cases the corrosive agent is the almighty dollar. The priorities of the media have been shifted somewhat and now look more like this
Priority 1: Turn a Profit
Priority 2: Create and or air Entertaining material
Priority 3: Inform and educate
If you have read this with a cynical tone so far, you may think that I am complaining. I’m not.
Media outlets make the lion’s share of their money through advertising. The more eyeballs on a page/screen or the more ears tuned into a station the higher that outlet can charge for the advertising. The media outlets need you interested in what they are showing in order.
If a company is producing/airing material that nobody wants to see/hear the less advertising money they can demand. It’s simple, it’s logical, it’s democratic and it works.
Now resume the cynical tone:
Unfortunately, greed has taken the place of responsibility and the commercial media use underhanded techniques to sway public opinion and dupe them into consuming what they put out.
If I were to use what the media calls “news” or “entertainment” to make a judgement on our society I would certainly think Australians are stupid, ignorant fools who are getting exactly what they are asking for.
Perhaps they ARE getting what they are asking for. Perhaps the majority of people out there LIKE to be placed in some sort of altered reality where consumption is the key to happiness. Perhaps I am alone in my want of unbiased straight talking news. The media outlets are only giving out what the people want and even if they were to bend the truth to satisfy the interests of certain (mostly paying) groups; people generally don’t really care.
It is at this point I believe the media should adopt and actually keep it’s own ethical code. Including some of the following rules:
1. Reporting on all news based on importance to the community.
If the station manager is a member of the Labor party and doesn’t really want Steven Conroy demonized or shown in a negative light over his human-rights-breeching-internet-filtering-bill , the news department must refuse to bury of skip the story. The aforementioned law, for example, is of the utmost importance to the future of this country and all citizens need to understand the implications of the filtering plan. If ACA was truly a Current Affairs program and not an over bloated infomercial it would be covering this issue every night with the absence of emotional arguments and focussing on fact and educated speculation from experts. Even if the public really don’t care or don’t want to know, the media should be compelled to inform despite the possible financial impact it has on it’s organisation.
2. Practice Full Disclosure *before* presenting a story
Picture this. A new wonder drug emerges that could cure cancer. The company producing this drug is called DaneCo. One in ten people, however, die instantly after popping the pill; more research could fix this but that would delay release by 7 years and the company can’t afford that. Now imagine the Government is currently considering approving the drug for sale despite the risks.
Channel 78 News reports that The Government is considering approving a drug that cures all cancers and has a 90% success rate.
Channel 89 News reports the Government is considering approving a dangerous drug that could kill 10% of those who take it. They also report that despite the fact that the company could fix it so nobody dies the government may approve it anyway.
At a cursory glance, these appear to be reporting the same thing just from a different viewpoint.
What if Channel 78’s CEO was on the board of DaneCo and stands to make billions off the approval of the drug. The CEO instructed the news team to give a positive story about the drug knowing that the audience will likely pressure and lobby the Government into approving the drug.
Prior to the story taking place, shouldn’t the presenter preface the story with information about the conflict of interest? I think they should, but they don’t.
Shouldn’t Tracey Grimshaw preface a breaking celebrity news story by informing the viewers that they paid the interviewees $200,000 for their opinion?
3. Misleading is the same as lying. Publically retract mistakes.
A couple of months back there was a story about a dog attack on a man who required stitches to his arm afterwards. The media reported that it was a “pitbull” that attacked the gentleman. Through my own investigations and contacts I found out that there were three dogs that were present at the incident and indeed two of them were American Staffy’s, or what we commonly call a “Pitbull”. The other dog was not a Pitbull. If you can guess which dog attacked the man you win a gold star. The “dangerous” dogs were not the attackers. Another glaring piece of journalistic integrity was that they reported the dog had a hold of the man for almost 20 minutes. 20 minutes and only stiches? Here is a tip for those who don’t know: if a vicious “pitbull type dog” has their infamous lock jaw on you for twenty minutes, you will need a lot more than stiches. If you are attacked by one of these dogs and their intent is to kill you and they manage to make contact, you can kiss the skin and tissue around that area goodbye.
Things just didn’t seem to add up about this story until one finds out that it wasn’t a “pitbull”.
So, where was the correction? Where was the clarification of the facts? There was none. I’m not suggesting the news correct every one of the many, many inaccuracies it portrays every night, but if they get a story flat out wrong – the people should be informed.
The media has tried policing itself with their ethical codes (written and unwritten) but these have failed. I also don’t think they would start cracking down on themselves when so much money is at stake.
I hate the government, but a democratic system elects a government to make decisions on their behalf. They should also regulate and watch industries that have a large influence. While this comes dangerously close to a controlled police state, I’m suggesting the Government sanction and pay for a truly independent fact and conflict of interest watchdog on all “news” programs. If the “news” wishes to have opinions and or “sponsored” segments, that is fine as long as the audience is well aware that they are viewing such content.
An informed public is a smart public. And a smart public is what we need moving forward.
So, an independent whistle blowing watchdog for the media and it’s “news” programs that is my first of “Six things Australia must do to advance”
Ohh this IS exciting isn’t it? What will number 5 be? Crocs? Tasmania? Lara Bingle? Only time will tell.
Continue to press F5 until the next step is revealed!
- db
