They Didn't Change My Mind About Climate Change

I can't sleep and don't want to work on my International Relations essay so I'm just going to blog some stuff and listen to All The Rowboats by Regina Spektor on repeat.

Because I've been busy I only watched the ABC's documentary I Can Change Your Mind About Climate and the following Q&A discussion last night.

My God, that was a PAINFUL two hours where I had to resist yelling at my laptop...

I seriously had hope for this. The ABC usually produces balanced and intelligent programs. Yet they cast two polar extremes in the climate debate where there was absolutely no chance that either of them would change their minds.

Nick Minchin is a moron. There I said it. And Anna Rose is annoying, despite myself being a member of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition.

They both arranged meetings with people that agreed with their respective views. It was pathetic.

Nick was just facetious the whole time and did nothing but try to discredit legitimate science with some of the most absurd claims I have ever heard.

His first interview with 'experts' was a couple in Perth who used to believe in anthropogenic climate change but are now sceptical of the idea. They said that one of thermometers that they use to measure temperatures around the world is located next to an airport and that the results are skewed. That means that every thermometer in the world can't be trusted...

Yeah, because scientists are that stupid...

And that atmospheric physicist who has taken money from groups with agendas about climate change. Nick only furthered Anna's point by not being able to produce anyone really reliable. Although his last guest, Bjorn Lomborg, suggested an investment over time in green technology made the most sense out of them all.

While Anna did have a lot of respectable scientists to help her case, she herself didn't do much for it. She just repeated herself over and over again. But I will concede that once you state the science behind climate change, there isn't really much else you can say.

The thing that annoyed me most was when Nick brought Marc Morano on...

Anyone who knows who Marc Morano is knows that he is definitely the most UNreliable source when it comes to ANYTHING to do with climate change.

Morano has been called one of the 25 most influential right wing journalists in the world. So clearly, the fact that he has a bias shows that he isn't a good journalist. He runs a blog called Climate Depot that only spreads climate change denial propaganda.

According to Source Watch, Morano has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. He has protectionist views of American industry and thinks that regulation for sustainability will endanger 'American values.' Morano continuously lists costs, figures and statistics that he does not reference. And a simple search for his information reveals no source. Morano lies in order to push his agenda. He is a narcissist and a disgrace to journalists everywhere.

My favourite guest on the show was scientist and writer Ben Goldacre. He said that anthropogenic climate change is almost universally accepted by scientists. Very rarely is there completely universal acceptance of something in science, so this is as good as we're going to get. Goldacre said that we shouldn't waste our breath with climate deniers. Debating something that is pretty much universally accepted only creates room for scepticism.

This raises an important point, should journalists allow for both sides of the argument to be represented in the media?

I think climate deniers should be kept out of the media. Yes they have the right to free speech and should be allowed to make their voices heard as that is a core tenet of liberal democracy that I hold dear. But, the media should only report on actual scientific evidence that supports anthropogenic climate change. I don't think this because I believe in climate change, I believe this because journalism is about reporting the truth. Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much universally accepted in the scientific community. You can't really get much closer to complete acceptance when you deal with idiots, and some scientists are idiots.

So, I Can Change Your Mind About Climate pissed me off unbelievable as the debate went absolutely nowhere. They came to 'common ground' at the end and then just went back to their polar extremes on the following Q&A discussion, which just rendered it pretty much pointless.

I can feel the rage build inside me as I write this so I'll be brief about the Q&A forum. Anna and Nick annoyed me because they just repeated themselves again. Chief executive of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, social researcher and writer, Rebecca Huntley, and all round corporate fat cat Clive Palmer joined the panel.

Megan and Rebecca were by far the best that night. They were respectful with their answers, to the point and thought provoking with their commentary. Clive Palmer, don't get me started. And then to find out today that he's challenging Wayne Swan's seat... The last thing we need is his agenda being supported by Australian politics.

My opinion about the debate between climate alarmists and deniers can be summed up with the eloquent, funny and oh so true words of Ben Goldacre:

"I would rather slam my cock in a door than debate with someone who doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change!"

Regina Spektor Obsession

IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE 

29 MAY

I MUST SHARE THIS WITH THE WORLD!!!!!

ENJOY FRIENDS!

Is it Acceptable to Kill a Whale in Order to Save Two Pandas?

Well, is it?

Five years of Catholic education and learning about morals and ethics, I'm an atheist and lack a moral compass...

I guess what this lecture asked us to look at is whether or not media is unethical or just in bad taste.

I am very hard to offend due to my amoral status (if anything Catholic education just makes people more cynical, that was definitely the case with my school). However, I understand that other people have different feelings and thoughts than me, so I do try to tread lightly around controversial issues.

Returning to the media, I think there's a weird juxtaposition when it comes to ethics and taste.

Take for instance this ad for the World Wildlife Fund.

To compare an act of violence against civilians to a natural disaster is immensely insensitive, even I know that. And this doesn't even help the cause of WWF. They talk about how the world is more powerful than people (using the worst analogy ever) and then say that we have to conserve the world... Following the logic of this ad, the world should be able to take care of itself (I am all for ecological sustainability and conservation don't get me wrong, this ad is just stupid).

Now, I'm going to keep talking about the media but I'm going to bring up something personal. In any religion class I did at school we learnt about ethical and moral frameworks, and we were given real life examples were we could apply them. Every example was abortion. Abortion is the easiest thing to condemn using an ethical framework.

People are allowed to have opinions and views that differ from me, I'm not expecting everyone to be pro choice like me. However, I won't stand by and let people be indoctrinated into following something that they don't understand fully. Admittedly I was at a Catholic school where life is considered sacrosanct. However, I won't stand by and let biased opinions (be them religious or otherwise) try to persuade our secular media.

There are so many things surrounding the issue of abortion that we can't just have a blanket rule that says they shouldn't be allowed. Why should women who have been abused have to have a child that will remind them of that terrible experience? Why should a woman give birth if it is going to endanger her own life?

Thinking about it maybe I do have some sort of moral compass... At least some sort of egalitarian one.

I think it comes down to this:

Media is meant to be unbiased and secular. People can use media to represent their ideas, but not to indoctrine people or force their agenda upon them. I think in the case of the Ron Paul ad, he is trying to appear both rational (as a doctor) and moral (as a Christian) which shows that he is trying to push his agenda by hiding behind this facade. 

I'm in a weird place when it comes to ethics and morality. I don't really follow any moral codes apart from respecting others and treating others as I want them to treat me. I think when I work in the media one day I need to understand the various views and perspectives in the community or order to convey information and ideas properly. I also want to one day work in foreign affairs (hence doing an arts degree) and that too requires a moral approach. I have an obligation to do what is best for my country as well as for others in this world.

Ethics and morals are both the bane of my existence and what underpin how I act and view the world... 

R2P

Here's my factual storytelling exercise.

I'm not interesting enough to have a feature story about and I don't know anyone who would want me to share their story with my cohort (or the rest of the internet for that matter).

Instead I chose a group that I first heard about on Market Day during O Week. Seeing as I study International Relations and Peace & Conflict Studies in my arts degree it makes sense that I look into groups like this and explore my interests. I'm already really interested in areas like human rights and human security.

Learning about R2P has really inspired me to achieve my study goals. One day I want to work with someone like them and try to make a positive difference in the world.

Getting a 7 on this assignment isn't important to me anymore (even though I would love one) because I've learnt more about myself and where I want to go in life. So enjoy and tell me what you think!

Why is this Lying Bastard Lying to Me?

From one extreme to the other, we move from commercial media to public media.

Contrary to popular belief, public media isn't owned by the government, it's owned by the common people. I didn't know that until this week.

Used at the beginning of the lecture, I think this quote pretty much sums up everything:

'The difference between commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens.'

The point of public media is to support social and democratic processes. It does this through 'public value':

1. Embedding a 'public service ethos'
2. Value for license fee money
3. 'Weighing public value against market impact'
4. Public consultation

Even though we don't have licence fees in Australia, the point remains the same. Public media is meant to be value for money, by providing people with everything from entertainment, to interest to useful information.

The Australian public media is primarily made up of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS).

ABC and SBS are considered public media because they fit the criteria that has been set out for them:

• Geographic universality
• Universality of appeal
• Special provisions for minorities
• Special relationship with community and nation
• Liberate rather than restrict broadcasters
• Distanced from all vested interests
• Competition for good programming rather than competition for numbers

The function of public media is provide a forum for discussion and debate about topical cultural, social, political and economic issues. There is also scope for local and regional issue to be discussed with various branches of public media.

Even though ABC and SBS receive government subsidies, they do have a commercial aspect. However, in my opinion, this hasn't hindered their performance for delivering outstanding programs. They have separated their business interests from their social functions which doesn't damage their integrity or quality.

News and current affairs are an integral part of ABC and SBS. ABC provides local and national news at a very in depth level. While SBS covers national and international news at a very in depth level. Not only is the quality and content of their news better and more informative than that of commercial media's, but they have another advantage. ABC and SBS provide a forum for people to openly debate social and political issues where they can be respected. Q&A on ABC and Insight on SBS are the prime examples of this. These two clips illustrate their commitment to discussing key issues and topics.

These clips also illustrate the style and form of public media, which is: serious, importance over interest and considered (not quick and unchecked).

However, public media has been criticised for being boring, elitist, of limited interested and poorly presented.

I don't believe these criticisms as people these days just don't seem to care enough about real issues and won't give money to public media to provide this information.

Public media actively encourages people to make their voices and opinions heard, while commercial media just promotes its own agenda and even tries to force it upon people.

Public media also aims to promote political neutrality, while commercial media has a specific view that it will try to put forward. While both ABC and SBS have been criticised for being left wing, they still do give time for every opinion to be heard. And Bruce pointed out that no government has ever really supported either ABC or SBS due to this stance, even left wing governments...

Once a political party or government likes the ABC or SBS due to their portrayal of politics, then neutrality is gone. Politicians hating public media is actually a good thing. It shows that they are critical and will try to find answers to questions and point out the flaws of governments and political groups.

Jeremy Paxman from BBC Newsnight said this about interviewing politicians, regardless of their political stance:

'I always ask myself, "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"'

This shows that public media treat every politician and group the same and will not try to put a particular agenda forward. Take for example of Q&A, every week they have someone from Labor and someone from the opposition as well as other analysts, commentators, journalists and policy makers of various political persuasions. On Insight they consult a range of people relevant to the topic at hand in order to gain the most comprehensive insight that they can into an issue (see what I did there?).

I love ABC and SBS. They have to be the best part of Australian media in my most humble opinion. Or maybe I'm just a commie for believing in all their left wing propaganda...  

We'll be Right Back After this Quick Commercial Break

We discussed commercial media in this lecture, which seems to be the majority of our media.

I have Foxtel at home, but I rarely watch it. Truth be told, I mainly watch ABC and SBS (see next blog entry for details)

Commercial media is profit driven, hence the title. It runs like a business, which is to generate audiences, and makes money by selling space to advertisers.

These are the main commercial media outlets in Australia.

Commercial media is incredibly broad, covering as many mediums and topics as possible to appeal to the maximum number of people. They seem to own a monopoly over every form of media. Fairfax Media has print media, Nine has free view TV and WIN has the regional market.

Commercial media can have an agenda due to the sponsorship or subsidies that it receives. For example, Fox News is almost considered propaganda in the US due to it's clear bias towards the Republican Party. It is not here to serve the public interest, but to serve business interest or anyone who has the money and power to make their voice heard.

Which begs the question:

  Does commercial media have any purpose in the democratic system?

Media is meant to be representative, critical, factual and all information needs to be accessible. But if commercial media serves the agenda of those with money and power, is it really any of these things?

The Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Press Council have been put in place in order to prevent bias and misinformation in the public. These regulatory bodies are meant to provide an 'ethical wall' between editorial content and the commercial side of media. How successful they are, is another question...

As media becomes more commercial, the less it serves its social function of informing people.

The nature and style of commercial media has lead to its downfall as most critics consider it to be the lowest common denominator type of entertainment and information. It has been dumb downed, the 'news' is just tabloids and it's all about pleasing people to increase the ratings and increase the interests of advertisers.

Are these critiques leading to changes in people's attitude towards commercial media? I asked myself this question when this was presented to us:

Advertising revenue for broadcast media has been rapidly declining and is continuing to do so. As such, there is less money from investment which is causing problems with production. There is less going towards the quality of programming which means that commercial media is just importing things from America (British content is considered too high brow for some, and American productions generally aim at the lowest common denominator).

Personally I'm glad that commercial media is facing harsh times. These challenges can hopefully lead to reform which makes it more about its social function of informing as well as entertaining people. It is possible to entertain a wide range of demographics as well as supply all the essential news and information that people need. It's just that no one has really done it yet.

I think these examples show exactly what commercial media is all about. They show they trivialisation of news and current affairs. The promotion of egotism and to a certain extent, ethnocentrism are very apparent. The last example also indicates manipulation, even if it is a parody...

Stephen K Amos

Being the Britcom fan that I am, I jumped at the opportunity to see Stephen K Amos last night at QPAC's Concert Hall.

Laughter is my Agenda

In the past I've seen Lenny Henry, Dylan Moran and Bill Bailey, but I have to say, Stephen K Amos is the only one that kept my laughing continuously.

The thing I'll remember most was his voice over at the beginning to introduce the show and his warm up act, Brisbane comedian Lindsay Webb. Next door in the Lyric Theatre was a production of Annie. To begin the show, Stephen said this:

"May I remind you that there is meant to be no use of electronic or recording devices during the show... Unless you're here for fucking Annie. And I literally mean, to fuck Annie."

After satisfying my childish and crude sense of humour, Stephen delivered a very intelligent and, above all, hilarious show that I'll never forget. Especially when he had a go at a journalism student in the front row! Don't worry, he was only doing music journalism... (and if you're reading this blog Rhys, don't worry I don't mean it. And I'm from Ipswich too.) 

Stephen also shut down the most annoying heckler you will ever see. An obese guy called Sam was sitting at one of the front stalls and thought that he was funnier than the warm up act and interrupted Stephen at the beginning of his act. He shut up after Stephen threatened to piss on him...

I loved it. Plain and simple. I would recommend seeing him next time he's in Brisbane!

The Goon Show

Just a bit of rockabilly to start this post.

Oh yeah, and the title of this post refers to the radio show that Peter Sellers starred in before moving on to movies. I thought it was clever...

This lecture wasn't a typical lecture, we didn't actually have to be on campus to attend. But I still had to be there, and had two hours of nothing to do because of it. Getting back to it, this lecture was an audio file on Blackboard.

This week, Carmel interviewed two radio hosts from ABC Local Radio: Richard Fidler and Steve Austin.

Before moving into radio, Richard had been a performer in comedy groups and even ended up on TV. He sort of stumbled into radio by accident and is glad that he did. Richard finds radio to be much more intimate than other mediums, particularly TV. He finds that radio doesn't talk at people, (good) radio more feels like a voice in your head amongst your thoughts. Radio also tries to make people feel included. Richard interviews many people on his show and says that the key thing is to let the talent lead the conversation, as this makes it feel natural. People feel included by this because they're following thoughts rather than specific questions from the host. Giving the talent space to take the conversation where they want it to go also makes the interview more real. Rather than a series of pre-prepared questions, letting a conversation flow naturally gets more out of people.

Steve trained to work in TV and radio journalism after a long time struggling to think about what he wanted to do with his life. Steve thinks that radio is about being yourself, as people are driven by emotions and life experience that they express when they're being themselves. According to Steve, this is why radio is very human, because people connect with emotions and experiences subconsciously. Steve thinks that to be successful in radio you need to think about others, mainly your audience, and focus less on yourself. He also thinks that by building respect you can pursue the answers that you want rather than force them out of people. Steve says that listening implies respect, which seems to be why (good) radio is so intimate.

Now there is a point to this...

This is a song about love and intimacy between two people. But it uses radio as an analogy for intimacy which reiterates what Richard and Steve were talking about. More importantly, I'm deeply and madly in love with Regina Spektor and just had to put her in one of my posts.

Like newspapers, people have suspected whether or not radio will survive amongst new technology. According to Richard and Steve, it most certainly will. They think that radio is grabbing every new technology and utilising it in order to blend into this tech savvy world. Also radio doesn't marginalise different generations of people with technology, radio tries to be contemporary with as many people as possible. Technology is just one of its means to do so. They also think that radio has a very strategic advantage over other mediums. Radio can be put on in the background while people are doing other things. It allows people to be informed about news and current events as well as connect to human experience. People are able to do this while getting on with their lives, which are becoming increasingly time poor.

And to end, here's some more Regina <3