General Investigation

Investigative journalism. One of the subjects I get to look forward doing next semester.

I think investigative journalism is best described in this way:

Sceptical not cynical.

I'm actually really looking forward to investigative journalism and would love to be involved in these kind of projects during my career.

Being the outspoken politics student I am, I enjoy questioning the status quo and looking at the reasons underlying everything. Which is exactly what investigative journalists do. Journalists are sometimes referred to as the Fourth Estate in society, which is pretty true as they're the ones that question authority, or at least bring challenges to authority to public attention.

Investigative journalists dig deep into issues. They look at everything and anything that is related to the issue that they are covering. It's like doing a history/politics essay. You look at everything to gain the best understanding you can. Even though I bitch and moan about my essays, I do love learning about the topics. Investigative journalism is hard work, but I think it's definitely worth the effort in the end.

Investigative journalism also dispels my worries about agenda setting as it looks at the issue fully and is able to provide an analytical framework. I'm a real nerd that likes to know everything.

I like to think of the Four Corners report in the 80's, The Moonlight State, when I think about where I want to head in my media career. Chris Masters and his team (including Dr Redman) risked a lot in order to get the truth. They faced a corrupt government that would do almost anything to prevent their secrets from getting out. 

And while on the topic of investigative journalism, Julian Assange and Wikileaks are not journalism in any shape or form. Assange just releases cables and lets them fall into the wrong hands. I'm very anti Iraq/Afghanistan War, but I don't attempt to endanger anyone's lives in order to get my point across. And all useful information from these cables has come from reporters from some the worlds largest newspapers going through them and discerning what is relevant to the public, and also how to protect soldiers and other such people involved.

I'm looking forward to investigative journalism next semester. Not because I find it interesting and quite noble, but because I think I'll be good at it. I don't think I'm a good journalist, I'm a good Facebook stalker which means I can dig up information quite easily. It is amazing what I've learnt from my hours of stalking...

Fight Club!

My inactivity has been due to the onslaught of assignments as of late. But they're all finished now!... Except I still have to study for exams... shit.

I read this on The Drum the other day. It's about politics AND the media. My two favourite things ever!!

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4046520.html

This paragraph is what really got me thinking:

Ultimately our political culture is strengthened by a strong media. We rely on journalists to ask the questions that we can't. Imagine how our democracy would look if there was the same level of interest in policy as there was in personality. At the moment it's a pretty disappointing affair, with way too much sizzle and not enough sausage.

What I want to ask is: how is what the media IS asking relevant?

All we hear about is the fighting between the two major parties. It's rare that policy is debated. And when it is, all they do is berate the other side.

As a politics student I understand the desire for power. But what I don't understand is how neither side will ever compromise or agree with one another. That's what strong political leadership is, being able to do what is right regardless of your political persuasion. I mean, the Liberals are about free markets and liberal economics. And they have come forward saying that they support the reforms in aged care and disability pensions. But they still go on about the cost! They're ignoring what is morally right. And what is right is that we look after our most vulnerable citizens. That is what a liberal democracy does.

I know I'm always having a go at the Liberals on here, but Labor really isn't any better.

And as a journalism student, I don't understand why the media makes such a big deal about the fighting between the two parties! We're taught to be objective and to seek the truth. What the hell were our current journalists taught?! I want to know what the government and opposition propose we do about issues such as climate change, asylum seekers, and gay marriage. I don't want to see Tony Abbott standing next to signs calling Julia Gillard a liar or saying that she's Bob Brown's bitch.

A few weeks ago on ABC Radio they were having a discussion about Australian politics and the Westminster system itself. I can't for the life of me remember who was on, but what they all said was so true. They said that the Westminster system creates an adversarial political system. So no one can agree with their opponents for fear of the consequences from their own party.

See why I believe so strongly in an Australian republic??

I am sick of the bullshit that fills the news when it comes to politics. I want to see objective, truth seeking, and reliable reporting when it comes to politics.

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!"