The Rant-O-Matic

I’m more than a little disappointed that we still have over three weeks of campaigning to go before polling day rocks around for our upcoming federal election. There are a number of aspects to this campaign and this election that I’m finding to be quite concerning. Some of these come from the politicians, some from the media and some from the electorate itself. All up it’s a combining to show just how much trouble this country is in. I don’t know if I want to see just how worse things are going to get before August 21. If current trends continue, it’s going to be completely horrifying.

For a start, there’s our two candidates for the prime ministership (sorry, no matter how you try to cut it, Bob Brown just isn’t one) – Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard. On one hand, we’ve got a right-wing christian, living in the 1950s and xenophobic nut-ball and on the other we’ve got a person that’s doing their best to emulate them. The highlight of this came on Sunday night when instead of a “leaders debate”, what we had were two people who’s only area of difference is their sex. In practical terms, Liberal and Labor have a distinction without a difference, so regardless of the outcome this country is going to see a virtually identical set of policies put into legislation by the new government. Hardly something to look forward to – especially if you happen to strongly disagree with everything that both these people are saying.

It’s not just the fact that they’re the appealing to the same audience that’s disappointing. There’s also the fact that they’re doing in a way that seems to fly in the face of their respective messages about improving this country. Central to this is their apparent misunderstanding of what a “refugee” is. At the moment, the policies put forward by both Labor and the Liberals to “help” people who come to this country seeking asylum from their war-torn home counties is seen to be nothing short of a xenophobic crusade against people that are not anglo-saxon. It’s more or less racist. It’s shit.

But even the media doesn’t seem to be all too interested in raising the intellectual bar of the election conversation. Sadly, the media only really takes interest in opinion polls. Now, the AEC tells us that there’s something in the order of 14 million registered voters in the country. Yet surveys taken from a sample of less than 1% of those people are given a massive amount of priority in the media. The problem with these polls is two-fold. Firstly, the sample sizes taken, compared to the number of eligible voters is amazingly small. It’s impossible to call such a pitiful percentage a representative sample of the australian people. Secondly, the amounts of the swing in sentiment reported are often well within the survey’s reported margin of error. That in itself makes the whole exercise futile. You can’t make definitive statements about a survey who’s delta-results fall inside a tolerance for mistakes. Any number like that is completely devoid of value. Thirdly, even with such a small sample, the only way to get consistent data is to ask the same people the same questions every week. Now, I’m not overly familiar with the inner workings of these research companies, but I’m pretty sure that is not the case. So not only are these polls taking a majorly small sample. Reporting shifts that are within the margin of error they’re also not consistent in collecting the data they do get. And do not get me started on the fucking “worm” used during the debate. The amount of attention given to something that is no more than a graphic on the screen was beyond pathetic. So, why do we have to pay so much attention to them? Please, media, give us proper journalism and analysis of this election.

Finally, we reach the problems with the electorate itself. These problems stem from a combination of what has been previously mentioned. As far as the media is concerned, the endless bleating and insinuation about how Julia Gillard came to be prime minister seems to have made people completely unaware of just how our westminster system of government works. The whole idea that we don’t directly elect our prime minister seems to have been lost in the mess. It’s sad. In order to properly exercise one’ democratic right effectively one must understand how the system works. To only think that this election is a contest between two personalities is not demonstrating an understanding of the system. We don’t elect the prime minister, they’re picked by their respective party to lead them, being prime minister is nothing more than a perk of happening to be the leader of the party that’s currently forming the government. The focus on two personalities that are both equally held to the ethos of their party, rather than their own ideas, detracts from the actual way our system works – which is voting in your local member who is going to deliver the best results for you and everyone else in your seat.

So, what does this mean? Well, chances are that things are really only going to get worse. As the politicians dumb down their policies to cater for a dumber audience, and the media continues it’s slide away from reporting the facts to tabloid sensationalism then this we’re going to continue our slide away from the “clever country” and more towards the “bogan bizarre”. Joy.

As I’m sure most of you are aware (being the intelligent group of people that you are) the National Broadband Network is promising to deliver 100mbps fibre optic internet connection to over 90% of the residents of this country. It’s an ambitious project and probably one of the largest single infrastructure projects in Australian history. There have, however, been questions raised as to the necessity of such a scheme. There are those that don’t see the need for such high-speed access (or superfast!!!111 as the federal government would put it…because they don’t understand what they’re talking about. What the fuck does superfast mean, anyway?) deployed on such a large scale. They, naturally, being incredibly short-sighted. It’s not hard to compile a list of possibilities that could be unlocked following the completion of the NBNs construction.

As far as the average home user will be concerned, the NBN represents the first step in the move away from the 100-odd year history of traditional broadcast media. This is a real chance for them to be in a position to see all the benefits that the internet can bring into their homes in terms of entertainment. Streaming high definition video from around the world, on-demand access to a plethora of their favourite television shows, same for movies. The national broadband network has the potential to finally bring around that digital revolution that’s been harped on about since the internet first really came into the main social conscious in the mid to late 90s. That is something that I cannot wait for.

It will have been a long time coming, but finally there could be a point where viewers will no longer be forced to watch what they’re told to by the program directors of TV networks. You won’t have to put with having the cricket interrupted for another re-run of ‘The Best of the Footy Show’, or some other nonsense. You won’t miss the start of that that live event because Masterchef is running late due to an abundance of crying, chilli, cravats or a combination of all three. Things will work the way that should in where the consumer gets to decide what they want and when they want it.

For content producers, especially local ones, the NBN also opens a great number of new doors as well for getting their content out into the public where it can make them some money. Low-budget, off tangent shows can sell themselves directly to the consumer, instead of having to hope to get picked up by a TV network or do a costly DVD run. Further to this, they would also get access, instantly, to a global audience, rather than having to wait for their program to filter out via the usual channels.

For news, consumers no longer have to rely on what they’re told by the large media outlets during the 6pm news bulletin or on the pages of the newspaper. Instead they’ll be able to access masses of information directly from the places where the news is being made. While this is already happening within the existing internet infrastructure, the possibilities that could be unlocked via the National Broadband Network have the potential to extend this reach massively.

In short, the point that I’m trying to get across is that the NBN could unlock a giant leap forward in the way content is distributed and consumed across Australia.  This change is going to be for the best.  This is a change that is starting to happen in other parts of the world and this change it needs to happen here. I want my NBN now, dammit.

I have a great deal of respect for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The quality if their news reporting is often without question. The 7.30 Report has lead the way in current affairs analysis for years. Their investigative programs tell powerful stories, both the good and the bad. They have given this country some of the best quality entertainment (Roy and HG, for example, got their start on the ABC). They are the only media company that, under one brand, can appeal on some level to every single person in the country. They’ve pioneered how a media company can embrace, develop and benefit from the proliferation of the internet into our lives. The ABC is, quite simply, one of the most amazing organisations that I’ve ever seen.

However, I have one question. Something that’s been sitting in the back of my mind for a while now before being thrown into concious thought on Saturday morning.

My question is this: Does the ABC put serious risk to the quality of news production with the introduction of ABC News 24 later this week?

Given how the ABC has developed the best online presence for a media company in the world (second only to their larger, richer cousin the BBC) it seems, to me at least, that developing a 24 hour continuous news channel is something of a step backwards.

For a start – why a TV channel?

For a company that’s been very busy pushing themselves into the 21^st century, the launch of a TV station seems like something of a step-backwards. For a start, the ABC are following in Network 10s footsteps of discontinuing the use of their high-definition channel for dramatic programming – a decision that N10 copped quite a deal of flack for 12 months ago when they launched OneHD, a dedicated sports channel on their HD channel. The end of ABCHD is something that may come back to bite the ABC further down the line. The BBC, the source of a large amount of Aunty’s popular programming, has just about completed their plan to move all their self-produced programming to be shot natively in 1080p. It’s not going to be long before the world moves completely away from standard-definition entirely, leaving only HD (where 3D sits in this mix is another question entirely). So, the thought of Australia’s public broadcaster scuttling their HD channel to pursue a 24-hour news channel seems a little odd, to say the least.

I would have hoped that instead of this that the ABC may have used this desire to up the ante on their already impressive move onto the internet by making News 24 more of an internet based effort, rather than what one would consider the more traditional 24-hour news stream.

The second problem I see in association with News 24, is the further spreading thin of the ABC’s already stretched journalists and production staff. The ABC received a fairly small sum of money from the federal government to spend each year and what they manage to do with it in terms of quality is simply outstanding. My fear is that trying to run an additional channel that comprises a large amount of original programming is going to lead to losses in other parts of their operation. As much as I love the idea of the ABC taking on 24-hour news, I don’t think it should come at the cost of other areas within Aunty.

Thirdly, is the quality of journalism. Attempting to keep content fresh is going to require a massive effort from the ABC news department. There’s a distinctive level of depth and analysis to ABC news that gives it a unique style and quality which has made it what it is over the years. Asking this to be broadcast, mostly live, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week runs the risk that this quality will degrade in order to get stories out there and on the air.

The inherent problem with 24-hour news (as evidenced by Sky News in Australia and the UK and Fox News, CNN in the US) is that you sacrifice quality in order to be the first to break the story and get the ratings. My hope, is that the ABC will attempt to stay off this pass, being a public broadcaster will be able to stave this off as ratings are never really what they’re shooting for. However, if the events of Saturday, July 16 are anything to go by then I fear that this may not be the case as the ABC joined in the commercial networks in spending hours discussing absolutely nothing in the lead up to the announcement of the federal election. If that’s what we’re going to expect from News 24, then the ABC is going to have to take a long, hard look at itself and figure out if they really want to ruin their reputation like that. Because joining the tabloid, unintelligent dribble of the existing news outlets isn’t going to do anything to help improve their brand or audience.

The ABC has a long, proud and illustrious history in reporting the news behind it. I’m sure that their goal is to be able to deliver this standard of news to the Australian people. I sincerely hope this is the case, but the launch of News 24 certainly raises some questions of the ABC that really need to be addressed.

Am I the only person in the country who is absolutely dreading having to go and visit the polling booths for a federal election some time soon? For the first time since I’ve been eligible to vote, I’m absolutely dreading the regular exercise of my democratic right. This is the first time that I’ve actually put serious thought into lodging an informal vote. The reason for this is pretty simple. It is, my opinion, that neither the incumbent Labor government nor the Liberal/National opposition are the sort of people that I want running the country.

Whoever wins, we lose.

The problem I have with both choices is that they’re both pandering to the same audience. Now, this audience is not one that I identify with and I’m starting to find it quite disturbing that not only to do they have both “sides” (and we’ll come to this later) of politics appealing to their hearts and minds, we also have most of the commercial media spewing out article after article feeding this particular set of views and opinions.

The way democracy works is by having a selection of different views and opinions available to choose from when it comes time to vote, obviously with the one that most people identifying with coming out on top. When it falls apart, however, is when that variety evaporates in order to chase votes from some arbitrary group who somehow seems to have become massively important in the eyes of politicians.

It’s bitterly disappointing to see such a group gain so much power essentially by default. More to the point, it’s disappointing that it’s a group who’s ideas about where we should go as a country are so old, incorrect, regressive and, on certain issues, downright racist and xenophobic. For a country with such a multicultural history it’s downright embarrassing that this is what we’ve become.

From climate change, to the internet, to refugees both the government and the opposition have done nothing but demonstrate that they’re not interested in addressing these issues on their merits. Instead they’re competing in a race to the bottom to see who can can appeal best to the most moronic and loathsome sections of the population. A population that’s only increasing in numbers thanks to the fear campaigns that are working overtime in both the major newspaper publishers (Fairfax and News Corp are pretty much equally bad) and gutter-trash “current affairs” programs (Today Tonight, A Current Affair – that’s you).

Side note; not much point wasting money on “building the education revolution” if they’re all going to grow up being informed by this garbage. May as well save the money and use it to do something they’d actually derive benefit from…like buy them 3D TVs so they can get right into middle of the action on the football field.

So what do we do? Surely any rational person can see just how wrong this is? Surely there’s more of us then there are these bottom-of-the-barrel xenophobes that are getting all the attention and air time?

Do we have a hope? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? For the moment, I doubt it.

This is the problem we’ve had since the demise of the Australian Democrats a couple of years back. There’s a massive hole in the Australian political landscape that’s yet to be filled. After Labor and Liberal, the next biggest party is The Greens, and they’re clearly not ready to govern – being a party that really still has only a single policy platform…given away by their name.

It’s a shame really, because over the last couple of years, we’ve found ourselves in a position to lead the world on a number of fronts politically, environmentally. But we’ve only seen this potential squandered. Time will tell if that’s going to come back to bite us.

It’s a shame we don’t have any decent choices when it comes to the next election. We need one. It’s not hard to see this country taking a very severe turn for the worse if things continue the way that they are…and I don’t think anyone wants that.

Sometimes I just wonder; who the hell do we think we are? Just what gives us the right to dismiss people that don’t agree with our own points of view? What makes us so bloody important? So righteous? So freaking perfect?

I’ll tell you – nothing.

Which then begs the question of why was it so important that one of the first things that Julia Gillard did when assuming the prime ministership was to get herself a Twitter account? What right did we have to essentially demand it happen before we recognised her as the leader of government in this country?

We had no right. If Julia Gillard, or any person for that matter, has no interest in joining a particular online service then that’s their choice. We shouldn’t expect it and we certainly shouldn’t demand it. But that’s what’s happening and I, for one, strongly oppose this ideal that just because we’re on the internet than we’re the most important people around and everyone should pay attention to us.

Like it or not, the vast majority of voters in Australia are not on Twitter. They may have a Facebook profile, but they don’t use it to participate in political discussion. So to think that a political leader has to bend to our will, and communicate on a medium that we find acceptable is utterly absurd. It’s elitist and repulsive. There is nothing about it that makes us better than those other extremist lunatics whom are often at the receiving end of our ridicule.

The online community is in dire need of a long, hard look at itself. Just because we think we’re special, just because the mainstream media has decided that Twitter is a perfectly acceptable base on which to write stories, just because the internet is becoming as ubiquitous as tap water doesn’t mean that we should essentially be forcing people to participate in our discussions.

It’s even more arrogant when you consider just how small the percentage is of people who participate in, say, politics outside if their cosy, digital lounge chairs. How many people from Twitter have submitted a well-written opinion to their local HoR member to express their thoughts on government policy? How many wrote submissions to government enquiries that were asking for such things? I small, small number I’d bet. The irony is almost delicious.

Wake up to yourself internet. You’re not the most important people in this country. You have no special right of access to people. In most cases, you’re nothing more than that rambling old man in the street that spouts endless nonsense day after day. Get over yourself.

It doesn’t matter that we’re of the firm belief that technology is the way forward. It doesn’t matter that we consider Twitter, Facebook and all that other stuff “the shit” when it comes to communicating. It doesn’t matter that mainstream media is having a massive wank over this new fangled thing that makes it so simple to gather opinions on an event without having to do actual journalism. It just doesn’t matter. Under no circumstances should we be demanding that someone who has no interest in this stuff partake in it – especially when the vast majority of us refuse to participate in the mediums that others do. It’s obnoxious. It’s disgusting. It needs to stop.