SINCE the Pope has now officially blessed social networking, we better start taking it seriously. While there has been some initial polling, we're still yet to get the full picture of the public's reaction to the government's proposed flood levy.
In the mean time, Twitter and Facebook are already pointing us towards the public's trust issues with government.
Usually any political debate on Twitter or Facebook roams over the same political ground. Why wouldn't it? Its members, generally speaking, share similar education levels, economic backgrounds and age ranges.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Curiously, on the flood levy, the reaction seems to be split down the middle.
Both sides have been fighting the political battle online. Facebook groups and websites sprang up straight after the levy announcement. Stopthelevy.com, a domain bought by Tim Andrews — creator of the blog "Why the right will triumph in Australia: Hot Girls" — came online just two hours after Julia Gillard had delivered her speech outlining the ins and outs of the flood package. The website is sponsored by new conservative kids on the online block, the website Menzies House, which in turn has links with the Liberal Party and, in particular, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi.
There's no keepthelevy.com but many Facebook groups have popped up in support of the new tax. Groups like "Happy to pay that tiny flood levy to help rebuild lives in QLD" and "Supporting the flood levy" have more than a thousand "likes" between them.
But there are also other pages, such as "NO flood levy", "Say 'No' to Julia Gillard's flood levy tax" and "No flood levy, No Julia Gillard, No Labor" that have a few hundred "likes". Stop the Levy's Facebook page is also approaching a thousand supporters.
When you think about it, Twitter is a select focus group on steroids. In the banter we can see all the angles of the debate; those who are critical often point to a lack of trust in the Gillard government and its ability to manage the books — Labor's recurring cross. One concerned taxpayer tweeted "2 years ago the Federal Government gave out money in the form of the Tax Bonus and is now hitting taxpayers for a refund with the flood levy". Another seemed to agree with the sentiment: ". . . we will NOT be taken as fools by this economically incompetent and untrustworthy Labor govt".
Those in favour of the levy have pointed to the uncharitable nature of those who are unwilling to pay a small amount to help rebuild. One blogger took the idea of people on higher incomes not wanting to pay the levy to a unique conclusion. She offered to pay it for them — as long as they sent her a picture of themselves fanning banknotes with a caption that read "that's right — I don't want to help!".
One tweeter shared much the same sentiment: "Next time you hear someone bitch about paying the Flood Levy, throw 'em two bucks and tell them 'the first month's on me' ".
Many agreed the whole issue revolved around trust, with one microblogger noting: "The point of paying tax is 4 the gov't 2 use it in our best interests! We need 2 trust the gov't we elected to follow through."
This debate does boil down to an issue of trust — those who have faith in the government and those who do not. How you solve this dilemma is what the government has to resolve. And sharpish.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Top 10 moments in a seriously weird political year
Undoubtedly, this has been a year of strange political tidings — from Tea Party endorsed candidates using "I'm not a witch" as a selling point in their US mid-term campaign ad to the almost daily scandals involving Silvio Berlusconi.
But you don't have to look that far afield to find some weird moments in 2010. And so in the spirit of end-of-year reflection, here are the top 10 weirdest moments in Australian politics of 2010 (barring the Julia/Kev swap because it would eclipse everything else):
1: Shoe throwing
Advertisement: Story continues below You've got to say one of the most awkward television moments of the year and by far the most entertaining was watching a dread-locked hippy cliche throw his shoes at ex-PM John Howard on ABC's Q&A over the Iraq war. You couldn't write it. It was just too perfectly awful.
2. The Latham encounters
Former Labor leader Mark Latham's return in the 2010 election campaign contained innumerable cringe-worthy moments. Suddenly employed as a journalist for 60 minutes, Latham turned up in the campaign circus, pushing through a crowd to accost PM Julia Gillard. He then later tried to tell his point of view on the incident, but instead excused his actions by saying it was the PM's fault, she had made the moment awkward because she stroked him down his front.
There was also the excruciating "confrontation" with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott reported as only this campaign could have been by Sky News. As one commentator described it, it was the moment where 24-hour news ate itself.
3. 7.30 reportland meltdowns
Kerry O'Brien, in short succession, managed to have two political leaders meltdown on his program. After some light pushing, O'Brien got Abbott to say you couldn't trust what he said unless his were carefully scripted remarks, and Rudd blew his top at a particularly inopportune moment when he was down in the polls. The latter interview gave us the ever-popular term "7.30 reportland".
4. Group Hugs
For 17 days when Australia was holding its breath waiting for the three independents to bring one of the two major parties into government was filled with strange moments. Apart from Oakeshott's painfully long joint press conference with Windsor, the "group hug" in which ALP minister Anthony Albanese, Coalition MP Chris Pyne, Oakeshott and Windsor hugged and patted each other on the back in front of cameras was a moment, I dare say, we may never see repeated. Even Pyne said that this was taking the spirit of harmony "a little too far".
5. Rudd speech to Mid-Winter ball
Maybe it was all the negative press he was getting from David Marr's Quarterly Essay or the further flak from his comments on journalist Latika Bourke's fashion sense, but Kevin Rudd's speech to the Mid-Winter ball, was filled with passive-aggressive moments, false good humour and awkward timing. The ball became a telling point in Rudd's demise. In the speech, he spent some time describing the ins and outs of rat f---ing and telling the mining presence at the ball that he had "a very long memory"'. Hmmm.
6. Kiss and make up?
Rudd is also involved in another of the more awkward moments of the year. During the campaign, Gillard, desperate to make the divorced pair look positively marital, set up a media opportunity in Brisbane. There were to be no questions asked, just happy snaps. But the carefully staged event ended up looking strange and forced.
7. Budgie smugglers
Despite being managed to within an inch of its life, the campaign actually managed to produce a few hairy moments for both candidates. Abbott probably had the worst of it, getting accosted by a man in red speedos who later, it turned out, was a man on the Victorian Labor payroll. Gillard got off relatively lightly with just a disgruntled student protest and a few bad photos with disapproving babies.
8. Campaign fringe — Barker, Francis and the rest.
It's hard to go past dumped Liberal party candidate David Barker for an unacceptable campaign tactic, just attack your opponent's religion. Too easy. Barker is not in the parliament because of his anti-Muslim comments on Facebook, as well as attacking Gillard's atheism. Some other highlights from the campaign fringe included revelations about liberal member for Dawson, George Christensen, who in a student newspaper made jokes about Jews, gays and women, and Family First candidate Wendy Francis who tweeted that children with gay parents were being emotionally abused.
9. The Australian Sex Party debating Family First on morning TV
Do I need say much more? Here they are on channel 7's Sunrise.
10. Climate change elephant on Sky News
The climate change elephant followed the election campaign relentlessly, and his persistence, it seems, paid off scoring himself an interview on Sky News by prodding the live news anchorman, David Lipson with his trunk.
Bella Counihan work at the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.
But you don't have to look that far afield to find some weird moments in 2010. And so in the spirit of end-of-year reflection, here are the top 10 weirdest moments in Australian politics of 2010 (barring the Julia/Kev swap because it would eclipse everything else):
1: Shoe throwing
Advertisement: Story continues below You've got to say one of the most awkward television moments of the year and by far the most entertaining was watching a dread-locked hippy cliche throw his shoes at ex-PM John Howard on ABC's Q&A over the Iraq war. You couldn't write it. It was just too perfectly awful.
2. The Latham encounters
Former Labor leader Mark Latham's return in the 2010 election campaign contained innumerable cringe-worthy moments. Suddenly employed as a journalist for 60 minutes, Latham turned up in the campaign circus, pushing through a crowd to accost PM Julia Gillard. He then later tried to tell his point of view on the incident, but instead excused his actions by saying it was the PM's fault, she had made the moment awkward because she stroked him down his front.
There was also the excruciating "confrontation" with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott reported as only this campaign could have been by Sky News. As one commentator described it, it was the moment where 24-hour news ate itself.
3. 7.30 reportland meltdowns
Kerry O'Brien, in short succession, managed to have two political leaders meltdown on his program. After some light pushing, O'Brien got Abbott to say you couldn't trust what he said unless his were carefully scripted remarks, and Rudd blew his top at a particularly inopportune moment when he was down in the polls. The latter interview gave us the ever-popular term "7.30 reportland".
4. Group Hugs
For 17 days when Australia was holding its breath waiting for the three independents to bring one of the two major parties into government was filled with strange moments. Apart from Oakeshott's painfully long joint press conference with Windsor, the "group hug" in which ALP minister Anthony Albanese, Coalition MP Chris Pyne, Oakeshott and Windsor hugged and patted each other on the back in front of cameras was a moment, I dare say, we may never see repeated. Even Pyne said that this was taking the spirit of harmony "a little too far".
5. Rudd speech to Mid-Winter ball
Maybe it was all the negative press he was getting from David Marr's Quarterly Essay or the further flak from his comments on journalist Latika Bourke's fashion sense, but Kevin Rudd's speech to the Mid-Winter ball, was filled with passive-aggressive moments, false good humour and awkward timing. The ball became a telling point in Rudd's demise. In the speech, he spent some time describing the ins and outs of rat f---ing and telling the mining presence at the ball that he had "a very long memory"'. Hmmm.
6. Kiss and make up?
Rudd is also involved in another of the more awkward moments of the year. During the campaign, Gillard, desperate to make the divorced pair look positively marital, set up a media opportunity in Brisbane. There were to be no questions asked, just happy snaps. But the carefully staged event ended up looking strange and forced.
7. Budgie smugglers
Despite being managed to within an inch of its life, the campaign actually managed to produce a few hairy moments for both candidates. Abbott probably had the worst of it, getting accosted by a man in red speedos who later, it turned out, was a man on the Victorian Labor payroll. Gillard got off relatively lightly with just a disgruntled student protest and a few bad photos with disapproving babies.
8. Campaign fringe — Barker, Francis and the rest.
It's hard to go past dumped Liberal party candidate David Barker for an unacceptable campaign tactic, just attack your opponent's religion. Too easy. Barker is not in the parliament because of his anti-Muslim comments on Facebook, as well as attacking Gillard's atheism. Some other highlights from the campaign fringe included revelations about liberal member for Dawson, George Christensen, who in a student newspaper made jokes about Jews, gays and women, and Family First candidate Wendy Francis who tweeted that children with gay parents were being emotionally abused.
9. The Australian Sex Party debating Family First on morning TV
Do I need say much more? Here they are on channel 7's Sunrise.
10. Climate change elephant on Sky News
The climate change elephant followed the election campaign relentlessly, and his persistence, it seems, paid off scoring himself an interview on Sky News by prodding the live news anchorman, David Lipson with his trunk.
Bella Counihan work at the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Gay marriage dinosaurs should evolve or die out
COMMENT
Today, parliament carried by the slimmest of margins, 73-72, a Greens motion on gay marriage.
Not to grant legal status to gay marriage, mind you.
Advertisement: Story continues below No, this vote was just to give parliamentary weight to MPs talking to their constituents about gay marriage - and seeking their views.
It's significant progress, no doubt.
Despite this result, it continues to be the rigid stance of Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who has ruled out changing the party's policy on the issue until Labor's national conference - that has arguably sparked the most discussion.
And now, she's begun to attract some heavyweight celebrity criticism.
Renowned expatriate actor Portia de Rossi today declared her dismay at Gillard's lack of leadership - and she did most articulately; with a passion hard to dismiss as mere Hollywood sideline sniping.
Striking all the right notes, de Rossi - married to talk show megastar Ellen DeGeneres - urged Australia to take a lead on an issue she insisted was a matter of "equality for every citizen".
It didn't "seem right to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens," she said.
"I always thought Australia would pass this equal rights law . . . long before America would," she told ABC radio this morning - adding she was "a little bit disappointed in the new prime minister''.
"But I am hoping Australia will be a leader in this."
But leadership appears to be in short supply; especially from our politicians.
And if the following comment is anything to go by, there may not be a lot of point in parliamentarians talking to their electorates.
One enthused news site commenter posted the following on an article arguing for gay marriage: "Who said Guy marrigers (sic) must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist (sic) terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, (sic) they all turned gay, now were (sic) are they?"
Never mind meteorites, climate change or the challenge presented by the evolution of mammals. 'Dinosausers', more commonly referred to as dinosaurs, living in uncivilised times without a gay marriage ban, were apparently not able to help themselves being attracted to the same sex of their species causing a drastic drop in reproduction, leading ultimately to their demise. The implication being that if we allow gay marriage today, along with the problems of so called "immorality", a similar epidemic of homosexuality could wipe our species off the planet. The theory suddenly explains all those coupled male fossils they've been finding.
Now, perhaps more illuminating than this new and clearly scientific theory that I would suggest all paleontologists examine closely, is the fact that people out there may actually take the underlying premise of marriage as procreation vs homosexuality seriously. All I can say is let's hope this guy is a great satirist trolling and misspelling his way across news sites heavily laden with dollops of irony.
But a different type of gay dinosaur is still walking the earth with the political lay of the land for gay marriage remaining perfectly preserved in a tar pit of conservatism and tradition. The motion to be voted on today has ALP support but the PM remains firm against the idea of a conscience vote or a change to the Marriage Act, which currently defines marriage as between a man and woman.
This is despite moves from within the ALP, with Labor minister, Mark Arbib, federal backbencher, Stephen Jones and government MP Kirsten Livermore all dissenting from the official party line. Funnily enough for Ms Livermore, a recent survey showed her electorate as one with a large amount of anti-gay sentiment. The seat of Capricornia, currently on a margin of 3.7 per cent, had 44.7 per cent of respondents agreeing with the idea that homosexuality was immoral and only 33 per cent thought gay adoption was a good idea. The survey also spelled out the obvious, that anti-gay sentiment remains entrenched in outer-suburban and regional areas and in strong Coalition seats. Overall 27 per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted over two years, believe homosexuality is immoral.
Independent MP Bob Katter summed it up nicely; asked about the Greens' motion to promote a conversation between MPs and their electorate, he said he didn't need to talk to them: "I think I know their attitudes . . . Their attitude is not in favour." We know that areas like Bob Katter's electorate of Kennedy in North Queensland don't tend to be very receptive to the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, or that it's not the will of the majority.
Still, it is more than likely that Labor is going to take the cautious road on this one. The dinosaurs are not the ''gay ones'' that died out according to our commentator's theory above, but the ones in parliament directed by those voters stuck under a fossil somewhere. The movement on this issue has been glacial with small increments towards a more progressive stance, including the vote this morning which doesn't even approach the strength of a conscience vote but instead is simply a promise to talk. You've got to hope that as we enter a different paleontological age, these gay (marriage) dinosaurs evolve or die out.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for The National Times.
Today, parliament carried by the slimmest of margins, 73-72, a Greens motion on gay marriage.
Not to grant legal status to gay marriage, mind you.
Advertisement: Story continues below No, this vote was just to give parliamentary weight to MPs talking to their constituents about gay marriage - and seeking their views.
It's significant progress, no doubt.
Despite this result, it continues to be the rigid stance of Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who has ruled out changing the party's policy on the issue until Labor's national conference - that has arguably sparked the most discussion.
And now, she's begun to attract some heavyweight celebrity criticism.
Renowned expatriate actor Portia de Rossi today declared her dismay at Gillard's lack of leadership - and she did most articulately; with a passion hard to dismiss as mere Hollywood sideline sniping.
Striking all the right notes, de Rossi - married to talk show megastar Ellen DeGeneres - urged Australia to take a lead on an issue she insisted was a matter of "equality for every citizen".
It didn't "seem right to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens," she said.
"I always thought Australia would pass this equal rights law . . . long before America would," she told ABC radio this morning - adding she was "a little bit disappointed in the new prime minister''.
"But I am hoping Australia will be a leader in this."
But leadership appears to be in short supply; especially from our politicians.
And if the following comment is anything to go by, there may not be a lot of point in parliamentarians talking to their electorates.
One enthused news site commenter posted the following on an article arguing for gay marriage: "Who said Guy marrigers (sic) must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist (sic) terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, (sic) they all turned gay, now were (sic) are they?"
Never mind meteorites, climate change or the challenge presented by the evolution of mammals. 'Dinosausers', more commonly referred to as dinosaurs, living in uncivilised times without a gay marriage ban, were apparently not able to help themselves being attracted to the same sex of their species causing a drastic drop in reproduction, leading ultimately to their demise. The implication being that if we allow gay marriage today, along with the problems of so called "immorality", a similar epidemic of homosexuality could wipe our species off the planet. The theory suddenly explains all those coupled male fossils they've been finding.
Now, perhaps more illuminating than this new and clearly scientific theory that I would suggest all paleontologists examine closely, is the fact that people out there may actually take the underlying premise of marriage as procreation vs homosexuality seriously. All I can say is let's hope this guy is a great satirist trolling and misspelling his way across news sites heavily laden with dollops of irony.
But a different type of gay dinosaur is still walking the earth with the political lay of the land for gay marriage remaining perfectly preserved in a tar pit of conservatism and tradition. The motion to be voted on today has ALP support but the PM remains firm against the idea of a conscience vote or a change to the Marriage Act, which currently defines marriage as between a man and woman.
This is despite moves from within the ALP, with Labor minister, Mark Arbib, federal backbencher, Stephen Jones and government MP Kirsten Livermore all dissenting from the official party line. Funnily enough for Ms Livermore, a recent survey showed her electorate as one with a large amount of anti-gay sentiment. The seat of Capricornia, currently on a margin of 3.7 per cent, had 44.7 per cent of respondents agreeing with the idea that homosexuality was immoral and only 33 per cent thought gay adoption was a good idea. The survey also spelled out the obvious, that anti-gay sentiment remains entrenched in outer-suburban and regional areas and in strong Coalition seats. Overall 27 per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted over two years, believe homosexuality is immoral.
Independent MP Bob Katter summed it up nicely; asked about the Greens' motion to promote a conversation between MPs and their electorate, he said he didn't need to talk to them: "I think I know their attitudes . . . Their attitude is not in favour." We know that areas like Bob Katter's electorate of Kennedy in North Queensland don't tend to be very receptive to the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, or that it's not the will of the majority.
Still, it is more than likely that Labor is going to take the cautious road on this one. The dinosaurs are not the ''gay ones'' that died out according to our commentator's theory above, but the ones in parliament directed by those voters stuck under a fossil somewhere. The movement on this issue has been glacial with small increments towards a more progressive stance, including the vote this morning which doesn't even approach the strength of a conscience vote but instead is simply a promise to talk. You've got to hope that as we enter a different paleontological age, these gay (marriage) dinosaurs evolve or die out.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for The National Times.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Drunk Facebook photos - can we just get over it?
So if the Queen's on Facebook, then does that mean we're living in the future? Question the second, if the Queen had had a few too many Dubonnet cocktails and started drunk facebooking, or maybe a servant takes a happy, surly snap and uploads it, would we all be shocked or just get over it?
As more and more people become part of the social networking phenomena and we see people not for their public selves but for the more flawed, and often tipsy version, it might eventually be that the bar (ironically enough) will be lowered. And so our political leaders and celebrities will be seen as normal human beings, capable of stuffing up like we all do.
Unfortunately, a drunken Facebook photo of the Queen is unlikely, albeit an amusing thought; the British Monarchy's Facebook page is limited to well-chosen remarks and public events. But the fact remains that with mobile phone cameras everywhere, anyone is a click away from public shaming. As recently occurred with a footballer, a dog and a tweet. I speak, of course, of Joel Monaghan's dog sex act photo, which as soon as it was in the public sphere went viral and cost the footballer his career. The event even warranted a tasteless, 3D animation.
Advertisement: Story continues below But as this next Facebook generation gets into public office, becomes teachers and police officers, let's hope your average silly drunken photo will not suffice to be labelled a scandal and cause them to lose their jobs.
For now we seem to still be in "oh my God" mode. There's always a news story of someone's stupidity gone public. A Canadian politician had to resign because he had some racy photos on Facebook, teachers in Queensland were investigated because there were Facebook photos of them dressed up in schoolgirl uniforms and finally the viral YouTube sensation of the cop rapping to a crowd rhyming "homo" with "watch gay porn in slow-mo". The officer was, in fact, praised for diffusing a tense situation but was talked to about his poor choice of words.
But shock sells, especially when people are easily and without context able to judge others on a photo, tweet or status. Of course, celebrities and political leaders do stupid things but so do you, yes, you reader. Imagine if every mistake (picture of you vomiting, smoking weed or stupid text) was broadcast worldwide, preventing you from continuing on in your offline world.
In the European Union they're even considering legislating for an "online right to be forgotten", particularly making sure that deleted photos on sites such as Facebook stay deleted and do not come back to haunt their owners.
In Australia, however, there is very little in the way of concrete legal underpinnings to a right to privacy and nothing like what the EU laws are trying to do, i.e catch up with modern technology and data protection. Many websites these days now regularly stalk their readers, providing lots of info about click habits for advertisers. Even political websites, those of Barry O'Farrell, Kristina Keneally, Tony Abbott and the Greens all leave a trail of cookie crumbles, so to speak, which allow third parties to follow your online tendencies.
But maybe we should just get rid of this "privacy" business all together; just unbutton, open the fly of the jeans of humanity and let everything hang loose. If technology is just shoving us along in that direction anyway, let's throw human dignity to the wind and say "here I am, drunk on Facebook and who gives a toss".
But we don't and until the day where every little indiscretion can be forgiven as soon as it has occurred then the future will be laden with those politicians, teachers, policeman and celebrities, furiously attempting to rub their online histories clean for public viewing and plenty of gotcha moments for those that don't.
Unless of course we go with Stephen Colbert's suggestion to simply get plastic surgery, change our names and move away from friends and relatives. Even if the Queen is on Facebook, that is a future I don't particularly want to live in.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.
As more and more people become part of the social networking phenomena and we see people not for their public selves but for the more flawed, and often tipsy version, it might eventually be that the bar (ironically enough) will be lowered. And so our political leaders and celebrities will be seen as normal human beings, capable of stuffing up like we all do.
Unfortunately, a drunken Facebook photo of the Queen is unlikely, albeit an amusing thought; the British Monarchy's Facebook page is limited to well-chosen remarks and public events. But the fact remains that with mobile phone cameras everywhere, anyone is a click away from public shaming. As recently occurred with a footballer, a dog and a tweet. I speak, of course, of Joel Monaghan's dog sex act photo, which as soon as it was in the public sphere went viral and cost the footballer his career. The event even warranted a tasteless, 3D animation.
Advertisement: Story continues below But as this next Facebook generation gets into public office, becomes teachers and police officers, let's hope your average silly drunken photo will not suffice to be labelled a scandal and cause them to lose their jobs.
For now we seem to still be in "oh my God" mode. There's always a news story of someone's stupidity gone public. A Canadian politician had to resign because he had some racy photos on Facebook, teachers in Queensland were investigated because there were Facebook photos of them dressed up in schoolgirl uniforms and finally the viral YouTube sensation of the cop rapping to a crowd rhyming "homo" with "watch gay porn in slow-mo". The officer was, in fact, praised for diffusing a tense situation but was talked to about his poor choice of words.
But shock sells, especially when people are easily and without context able to judge others on a photo, tweet or status. Of course, celebrities and political leaders do stupid things but so do you, yes, you reader. Imagine if every mistake (picture of you vomiting, smoking weed or stupid text) was broadcast worldwide, preventing you from continuing on in your offline world.
In the European Union they're even considering legislating for an "online right to be forgotten", particularly making sure that deleted photos on sites such as Facebook stay deleted and do not come back to haunt their owners.
In Australia, however, there is very little in the way of concrete legal underpinnings to a right to privacy and nothing like what the EU laws are trying to do, i.e catch up with modern technology and data protection. Many websites these days now regularly stalk their readers, providing lots of info about click habits for advertisers. Even political websites, those of Barry O'Farrell, Kristina Keneally, Tony Abbott and the Greens all leave a trail of cookie crumbles, so to speak, which allow third parties to follow your online tendencies.
But maybe we should just get rid of this "privacy" business all together; just unbutton, open the fly of the jeans of humanity and let everything hang loose. If technology is just shoving us along in that direction anyway, let's throw human dignity to the wind and say "here I am, drunk on Facebook and who gives a toss".
But we don't and until the day where every little indiscretion can be forgiven as soon as it has occurred then the future will be laden with those politicians, teachers, policeman and celebrities, furiously attempting to rub their online histories clean for public viewing and plenty of gotcha moments for those that don't.
Unless of course we go with Stephen Colbert's suggestion to simply get plastic surgery, change our names and move away from friends and relatives. Even if the Queen is on Facebook, that is a future I don't particularly want to live in.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Zombies trump a political apocalypse
When things are going awry, Julia Gillard may well find out that it is better to have a Zombie army than a political apocalypse.
You don't need to be a political expert or insider to have foreseen serious difficulties with the US mid-term elections for the Obama administration; the Tea Party, Fox News's Glenn Beck and a perfect storm of bad political and economic conditions made things none too easy for Democrats. Losing the House and retaining the Senate is almost good news for Democrats, they could have lost both. Unless a miracle bunny is pulled out of a hat, Obama could become a one-term wonder.
The bad mood surrounding the incumbent party and administration is such that in the lead-up to the West Virginia Senate race, Joe Manchin, a National Rifle Association endorsed candidate, ran an ad where he took out his gun and literally shot a copy of the cap and trade bill. Now before you say "there goes another gun-wielding Republican, sledging the Obama administration" it might be worth noting that he ran as a Democrat senator, notionally on Obama's own team and that he won his Senate race, 53 to 44 per cent.
Advertisement: Story continues below Meanwhile, back in Oz, Doug Cameron recently noted a truism of Australian politics, that Labor politicians here have become zombified. Now we're not talking, wondering through a shopping mall feeding on the living, Dawn of the Dead style. But more following, un-questioningly your own party line without reflection.
Cameron, a left faction leader, said serving the government was a "a bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind”, adding that discussion behind closed doors just didn't cut it. He argued there should be more open debate, leading to a greater focus on longer term policy and less on spin. Now whether he would have said these things while old boss Kevin was around is another matter, but it's the strongest a Labor pollie has been on the matter publicly. Climate change minister Greg Combet also recently spoke along similar themes, although more circumspectly, saying that Labor had “a responsibility to lead, not follow" and not to be entirely beholden to focus groups.
So there's a couple in the government's ranks feebly trying to fight off the zombification of your MPs, but it could be worse for Gillard. At least no one is taking a gun and shooting down the mining tax or running ads rubbishing key parts of your administration's policy program.
Then what about the Australian voters? Do we prefer party discipline and tight-lipped, unthinking zombie MPs or would we prefer gun-toting, own-goal Joe Manchins? It's a matter of striking a better balance between pragmatic and more idealistic.
Doug Cameron suggested that we should employ the three-line whip idea from the UK, where whips, named because they are meant to keep everyone voting in line with party decisions, will have a ranking system for various votes.
One line vote: who cares which way you go.
Two-line vote: you should probably vote with us, but we're cool.
And three lines: if you even sniff the wrong side of us, you're out.
Until recently in South Africa, members of parliament could actually switch parties, or form new parties and take their seats with them. So if Cameron wanted to support gay marriage, as he's hinted at, then all he would have to do is switch to the Greens and we'd have two Adam Bandts.
In the meantime, some tips for surviving a political Zombie apocalypse:
1. Avoid parliaments/cemeteries.
2. Get into and sabotage focus groups.
3. Organise supplies before they come (might be too late as we've already voted them in).
4. The only way to stop them is to remove the head of the party, or destroy the brains of the voters.
5. Remember they're no longer who they were before they entered politics.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for the National Times.
You don't need to be a political expert or insider to have foreseen serious difficulties with the US mid-term elections for the Obama administration; the Tea Party, Fox News's Glenn Beck and a perfect storm of bad political and economic conditions made things none too easy for Democrats. Losing the House and retaining the Senate is almost good news for Democrats, they could have lost both. Unless a miracle bunny is pulled out of a hat, Obama could become a one-term wonder.
The bad mood surrounding the incumbent party and administration is such that in the lead-up to the West Virginia Senate race, Joe Manchin, a National Rifle Association endorsed candidate, ran an ad where he took out his gun and literally shot a copy of the cap and trade bill. Now before you say "there goes another gun-wielding Republican, sledging the Obama administration" it might be worth noting that he ran as a Democrat senator, notionally on Obama's own team and that he won his Senate race, 53 to 44 per cent.
Advertisement: Story continues below Meanwhile, back in Oz, Doug Cameron recently noted a truism of Australian politics, that Labor politicians here have become zombified. Now we're not talking, wondering through a shopping mall feeding on the living, Dawn of the Dead style. But more following, un-questioningly your own party line without reflection.
Cameron, a left faction leader, said serving the government was a "a bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind”, adding that discussion behind closed doors just didn't cut it. He argued there should be more open debate, leading to a greater focus on longer term policy and less on spin. Now whether he would have said these things while old boss Kevin was around is another matter, but it's the strongest a Labor pollie has been on the matter publicly. Climate change minister Greg Combet also recently spoke along similar themes, although more circumspectly, saying that Labor had “a responsibility to lead, not follow" and not to be entirely beholden to focus groups.
So there's a couple in the government's ranks feebly trying to fight off the zombification of your MPs, but it could be worse for Gillard. At least no one is taking a gun and shooting down the mining tax or running ads rubbishing key parts of your administration's policy program.
Then what about the Australian voters? Do we prefer party discipline and tight-lipped, unthinking zombie MPs or would we prefer gun-toting, own-goal Joe Manchins? It's a matter of striking a better balance between pragmatic and more idealistic.
Doug Cameron suggested that we should employ the three-line whip idea from the UK, where whips, named because they are meant to keep everyone voting in line with party decisions, will have a ranking system for various votes.
One line vote: who cares which way you go.
Two-line vote: you should probably vote with us, but we're cool.
And three lines: if you even sniff the wrong side of us, you're out.
Until recently in South Africa, members of parliament could actually switch parties, or form new parties and take their seats with them. So if Cameron wanted to support gay marriage, as he's hinted at, then all he would have to do is switch to the Greens and we'd have two Adam Bandts.
In the meantime, some tips for surviving a political Zombie apocalypse:
1. Avoid parliaments/cemeteries.
2. Get into and sabotage focus groups.
3. Organise supplies before they come (might be too late as we've already voted them in).
4. The only way to stop them is to remove the head of the party, or destroy the brains of the voters.
5. Remember they're no longer who they were before they entered politics.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for the National Times.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Howard, shoes, Costello and balls
I'd bet when John Howard decided to release his memoirs he was expecting to cop a lot of flack but a shoe? Really? Maybe if Peter Costello was sitting in that audience, it would have been a lot more than your average shoe projectile (now old hat). As we wait for the shoe-throwers book deal to be hammered out today, let's look back a moment to a more long lived drama.
John Howard has rewound that tape of Bold and the Beautiful to relive the old Peter Costello leadership saga. Ex-opposition leader John Hewson said out loud what we've all been thinking — Costello just "didn't have the balls" to challenge. But given recent history, does any one see anything a bit funny here? While we may say that Costello lacked some chutzpah in the trouser department, many were shocked and horrified at the successful leadership challenge we've just had. If Costello's case was a lack of balls then did Julia Gillard have too much?
When Gillard became leader and Australians woke up to orange juice, Weetbix and a bloody coup; knife-in-the-back jokes were spreading like wildfire. Many speculated that it would cost Labor the election (which it probably nearly did) and that people simply didn't like leaders jumping the gun like that. It was "a ruthless dispatching", "a savage dismissal", "a political assassination".
Advertisement: Story continues below
And so history was written thus. And yet Costello not savagely dismissing, ruthlessly dispatching or politically assassinating Howard meant we perceived him as weak? It's a hard thing to put your finger on but part of the answer to this riddle is that no two leadership "transitions", as they are now euphemistically called, are alike.
Howard and Costello had some kind of agreement or at least an understanding of a leadership swap. Costello, of course, always said it was a solid pact, where as Howard ever fudged it, right up until and including writing his book. Gillard and Kevin Rudd had the leadership issue lurking in the background, but who knows what was said between the two behind closed doors in the ALP cone of silence? Whether, as Laurie Oakes once inferred, there was a more concrete agreement.
Howard and Costello also had the speculation bubbling away for years and years, where as Gillard's leadership ditherings only lasted the first term, heating up when she kept giving us all that hyperbole about how "she was more likely to go to Mars" or "more likely to be a Dogs' full-forward" than become leader.
Maybe it's the fact that Rudd was a first-termer, not given sufficient chance to shine, or at least time to let the shine wear off and let us, the voters give him the boot. Maybe it's because he was so utterly terminated by it all, crying at podium, career annihilated. We always hope when leaders go that maybe they will rise again — Turnbull we're looking at you.
Is it as simple as a girl versus boy thing? Maybe boys are allowed coups and jumping over others to get to the top, but ladies are not meant to have that same ambition. Nah . . . too simple. Maybe it's more about our perception of how leadership change should be done. There's the traditional managed Kirribilli-style agreed leadership "transition" versus a completely new way of getting to the top; a quick meeting late at night, decision made, no trial.
No one expected what happened to happen, when it happened, how it happened. The simple shock was all we needed to make Gillard into a villainess who had snatched leadership from another, even if at the time we weren't too plum keen on him either and she actually looked all right.
Strange though how history writes itself, who gets the last word, and who gets a shoe thrown at them. The "shouldas" come out — Costello should have challenged then, Gillard should have waited and the Q&A production team probably should have more thoroughly checked the audience for dreads.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for the National Times.
John Howard has rewound that tape of Bold and the Beautiful to relive the old Peter Costello leadership saga. Ex-opposition leader John Hewson said out loud what we've all been thinking — Costello just "didn't have the balls" to challenge. But given recent history, does any one see anything a bit funny here? While we may say that Costello lacked some chutzpah in the trouser department, many were shocked and horrified at the successful leadership challenge we've just had. If Costello's case was a lack of balls then did Julia Gillard have too much?
When Gillard became leader and Australians woke up to orange juice, Weetbix and a bloody coup; knife-in-the-back jokes were spreading like wildfire. Many speculated that it would cost Labor the election (which it probably nearly did) and that people simply didn't like leaders jumping the gun like that. It was "a ruthless dispatching", "a savage dismissal", "a political assassination".
Advertisement: Story continues below
And so history was written thus. And yet Costello not savagely dismissing, ruthlessly dispatching or politically assassinating Howard meant we perceived him as weak? It's a hard thing to put your finger on but part of the answer to this riddle is that no two leadership "transitions", as they are now euphemistically called, are alike.
Howard and Costello had some kind of agreement or at least an understanding of a leadership swap. Costello, of course, always said it was a solid pact, where as Howard ever fudged it, right up until and including writing his book. Gillard and Kevin Rudd had the leadership issue lurking in the background, but who knows what was said between the two behind closed doors in the ALP cone of silence? Whether, as Laurie Oakes once inferred, there was a more concrete agreement.
Howard and Costello also had the speculation bubbling away for years and years, where as Gillard's leadership ditherings only lasted the first term, heating up when she kept giving us all that hyperbole about how "she was more likely to go to Mars" or "more likely to be a Dogs' full-forward" than become leader.
Maybe it's the fact that Rudd was a first-termer, not given sufficient chance to shine, or at least time to let the shine wear off and let us, the voters give him the boot. Maybe it's because he was so utterly terminated by it all, crying at podium, career annihilated. We always hope when leaders go that maybe they will rise again — Turnbull we're looking at you.
Is it as simple as a girl versus boy thing? Maybe boys are allowed coups and jumping over others to get to the top, but ladies are not meant to have that same ambition. Nah . . . too simple. Maybe it's more about our perception of how leadership change should be done. There's the traditional managed Kirribilli-style agreed leadership "transition" versus a completely new way of getting to the top; a quick meeting late at night, decision made, no trial.
No one expected what happened to happen, when it happened, how it happened. The simple shock was all we needed to make Gillard into a villainess who had snatched leadership from another, even if at the time we weren't too plum keen on him either and she actually looked all right.
Strange though how history writes itself, who gets the last word, and who gets a shoe thrown at them. The "shouldas" come out — Costello should have challenged then, Gillard should have waited and the Q&A production team probably should have more thoroughly checked the audience for dreads.
Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for the National Times.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
PM's Twitter glass is half-empty
Our PM Julia Gillard and veteran journalist Laurie Oakes have both recently lamented that something has gone seriously wrong in our national discussion — that new technologies and the "news cyclone" as Oakes puts it, means that if our collective attention spans get any shorter, they'll stop existing altogether. Maybe it's the election we've just had or it's media coverage, but it seems as though everyone's looking at the glass and saying it's half empty. This doom and gloom needs a few rainbows and unicorns.
Recently Gillard, very rightly, pointed out that not everything can be reduced to a tweet. Worryingly for twitterholics, some things actually require people to go a little more in-depth than 140 characters will allow.
Imagine Romeo and Juliet: Wherefore out thou Romeo? I'm just here. Oh, are you? No, sorry I'm dead. All right, I'll kill myself. Oh wait, I'm not dead . . . damn.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Or Pride and Prejudice: I don't like you very much; you're arrogant, pretentious, cold, aloof. Oh wait, you're none of those things. I love you.
Or Kafka's The Trial: I've been arrested. For what? Don't know.
I could go on but the point remains, you know that it just doesn't work on the same level does it?
Oakes says the attention span of the media and media consumers is getting shorter, reiterating Gillard's concerns that this brings discussion about policy down into the doldrums. Many more are lamenting the death of journalism from new technologies more generally, although there still are kernels of hope about the co-existence of online and traditional media. One neuroscientist has even hypothesised that the increasing presence of screen technologies in our lives not only shortens our attention span but may indeed leave us unbalanced; promoting sensory connections in the brain without developing deeper, cognitive pathways. That old wives tale about TV roting your brain maybe have a speck of truth to it after all.
They are all very valid and sound observations about the news cycle, new media and even our brains but it is odd that one moment we are very willing to blame technologies for encouraging lowering standards and short attention spans and then in the next we herald them with virtual street parades, bunting and confetti provided, for solving all the world's ills. Surely there's a middle ground?
For example often we think giving kids computers is all we need to get them to be smarter, launching them onto the IT superhighway, right? But, of course, left to their own devices, children and computers will not make smarter kids. However, when you get the kids, the computers and a good teacher who knows how to use the technology together, it can be a invaluable tool. Worth watching here for experiments doing just that in Third and First World classrooms.
Likewise one could think of the way we now digest our news. Just reading a tweet from a politician or reading a headline doesn't make you informed. But these days there is a wealth of information out there on the interwebs and 24-hour news channels; more primary sources and whole press conferences shown live and uncut. (Do we remember Gillard's first big presser with the umpteen "moving forwards"? Cleverly designed if it was simply going to be sliced, diced and edited for your consumption but instead the whole presser went live on air causing a bit of a disastrous, slogan-robot look.)
But the point is there are ways that these technologies can encourage more cognitive, long-term, inquisitive thinking. You've now got full interviews on the website, the trend of infographics, whole policy documents online, journos writing longer features for online not restricted by space on printing presses, bloggers, Wikileaks and crowd sourcing giving us ever more information.
These, more in-depth pieces of information, if anything, have become more available with new mediums, allowing for greater exploration of a subject and greater cognitive thinking. Professor Google can take us pretty far, but how do we encourage further engagement? Let's just hope that if people are willing to constantly check celebrity tweets or a blog containing only awkward family pet photos, then we can get this internet-hoozamajig and all the wealth of information it offers to drive deeper, long-term discussions.
I suppose it's up to you, Gillard and Oakes. You're the teachers in this classroom, we've got the computers, if you both do your respective jobs in the media and politics side of things, I'm sure we'll get smarter.
Bella Counihan works in the Press Gallery at Parliament House and writes for the National Times website.
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/pms-twitter-glass-is-halfempty-20101020-16tmw.html
Recently Gillard, very rightly, pointed out that not everything can be reduced to a tweet. Worryingly for twitterholics, some things actually require people to go a little more in-depth than 140 characters will allow.
Imagine Romeo and Juliet: Wherefore out thou Romeo? I'm just here. Oh, are you? No, sorry I'm dead. All right, I'll kill myself. Oh wait, I'm not dead . . . damn.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Or Pride and Prejudice: I don't like you very much; you're arrogant, pretentious, cold, aloof. Oh wait, you're none of those things. I love you.
Or Kafka's The Trial: I've been arrested. For what? Don't know.
I could go on but the point remains, you know that it just doesn't work on the same level does it?
Oakes says the attention span of the media and media consumers is getting shorter, reiterating Gillard's concerns that this brings discussion about policy down into the doldrums. Many more are lamenting the death of journalism from new technologies more generally, although there still are kernels of hope about the co-existence of online and traditional media. One neuroscientist has even hypothesised that the increasing presence of screen technologies in our lives not only shortens our attention span but may indeed leave us unbalanced; promoting sensory connections in the brain without developing deeper, cognitive pathways. That old wives tale about TV roting your brain maybe have a speck of truth to it after all.
They are all very valid and sound observations about the news cycle, new media and even our brains but it is odd that one moment we are very willing to blame technologies for encouraging lowering standards and short attention spans and then in the next we herald them with virtual street parades, bunting and confetti provided, for solving all the world's ills. Surely there's a middle ground?
For example often we think giving kids computers is all we need to get them to be smarter, launching them onto the IT superhighway, right? But, of course, left to their own devices, children and computers will not make smarter kids. However, when you get the kids, the computers and a good teacher who knows how to use the technology together, it can be a invaluable tool. Worth watching here for experiments doing just that in Third and First World classrooms.
Likewise one could think of the way we now digest our news. Just reading a tweet from a politician or reading a headline doesn't make you informed. But these days there is a wealth of information out there on the interwebs and 24-hour news channels; more primary sources and whole press conferences shown live and uncut. (Do we remember Gillard's first big presser with the umpteen "moving forwards"? Cleverly designed if it was simply going to be sliced, diced and edited for your consumption but instead the whole presser went live on air causing a bit of a disastrous, slogan-robot look.)
But the point is there are ways that these technologies can encourage more cognitive, long-term, inquisitive thinking. You've now got full interviews on the website, the trend of infographics, whole policy documents online, journos writing longer features for online not restricted by space on printing presses, bloggers, Wikileaks and crowd sourcing giving us ever more information.
These, more in-depth pieces of information, if anything, have become more available with new mediums, allowing for greater exploration of a subject and greater cognitive thinking. Professor Google can take us pretty far, but how do we encourage further engagement? Let's just hope that if people are willing to constantly check celebrity tweets or a blog containing only awkward family pet photos, then we can get this internet-hoozamajig and all the wealth of information it offers to drive deeper, long-term discussions.
I suppose it's up to you, Gillard and Oakes. You're the teachers in this classroom, we've got the computers, if you both do your respective jobs in the media and politics side of things, I'm sure we'll get smarter.
Bella Counihan works in the Press Gallery at Parliament House and writes for the National Times website.
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/pms-twitter-glass-is-halfempty-20101020-16tmw.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)