Investigative Journalism

The television program 'The Hamster Wheel' recently ran a skit about the sad state of investigative journalism. It showed a journalist standing next to a fax machine, waiting for the morning's stories to be sent in, then calling the numbers at the bottom of the pages to ask a couple of questions.

Sadly, judging by most of the articles in the mainstream media, the comedians have it right. Genuine investigative work by journalists has become a rarity. The reality is that journalists are expected to produce ever increasing outputs in a way that meets the requirements of the twenty four hour news cycle. The media have become better than ever at getting a story published quickly, but they have done so at the expense of analysis, fact checking and investigation. This is bad news for the role of the public sphere in democracy.

So is there any good news? Well, perhaps. Hope comes in many forms, but two of them in this case may be blogs and QandA.

The ABC's panel show where the audience, including viewers using twitter and other forms of communication, ask questions of politicians and other persons of perceived importance. The quality of the questions asked is not exactly Kerry O'Brian standard, but the discussions that ensue are often quite interesting and allow various perspectives to be heard, even if there is little chance of anyone actually changing their mind. The show certainly contributes to democracy. The problem is though, the participants are almost exclusively reliant on other mainstream media for information.

Blogs may go some way toward addressing this. At their best, bloggers can go to some lengths to bring important events and ideas to the attention of their readers. Fellow blogger Mark Glaser has been kind enough to list some historically significant examples in this post, at least in the USA. The blogosphere has further expanded since then, so let us hope that investigative blog journalism has done so with it.

Bloggers may not have as much in the way of funding and resources as mainstream media companies do. However, what they do have, is the time and freedom to do research. Some of us do not have as much as we would like, but certainly more time and freedom than a full time journalist. Ideally, there should be investigative journalists with both resources and time, but they are few (perhaps they all work for the ABC) and in the mean time us bloggers will have to do the best we can. This is more a commentary blog than a news blog, but perhaps I may start a news blog too, since there is clearly a need for one. If I do, I will update it weekly, not daily, so as to allow time for proper investigation.

Battle of the Electronics Companies

Recently, the papers have covered a series of legal proceedings between Apple and Samsung over patents.

Samsung have long had a reputation for copying everyone else's products while apple have had one for innovation. However, Samsung have recently been competing successfully with Apple in the market for the mobile telecommunications devices with complex operating systems, commonly known as 'smart phones.'

The legal proceedings by Samsung relate largely to some wireless transmission standards. Technologies such as wireless standards need to be shared with other companies at reasonable prices, because if they are specific to a particular brand they are doomed to failure. Consumers require their wireless devices to interact with other brands.

Samsung are no doubt just trying to make Apple's legal action go away by giving themselves something with which to bargain. Most likely they will be successful. However, let us hope that the proceedings don't lead to an outbreak of malicious litigation in their industry, because if that were to happen, the real victims would be the consumers.

Poverty

If those people who starve to death or die of preventable or treatable diseases every day were our friends, would we let them suffer and die? Of course not. Your friend is suffering, you help. Where are these people's friends then? Why are we not reaching out and making contact and being their friends? Can't we communicate globally with the click of a mouse now? Can't we socially network with them? Well, not really: they have no computers or Iphones now, as well as having no food. Does that make their problem twice as bad? It may. If we do all our communicating online, then how can they participate? Could we solve the problem of world poverty by setting up a Wifi network and handing out free Iphones instead of handing out food then? Could we run tours where people pay to be shown the reality of poverty and human suffering in the hope that once rendered visible it would no longer be tolerated?

Sadly, people have tried that using photography and television and it didn't work. People got used to seeing poverty. Now it's just another annoyance and we want it to go away. Well? Make it go away. Not just away from us, back to it's forgotten corners of the earth, but away properly so that it's victims can live in peace and have something to eat and a chance to study. 

Russian Audience

This Blog seems to be read by a lot of people in Russia. I was wondering:

• What do my Russian readers find interesting about my social and political commentary?
• What would you like to see more of on my blog?
• Are there any particular issues you would particularly like me to research and write about? 

Please feel free to comment anonymously. Non Russians are also welcome to provide input. 

Community Detention; Finally.

In my previous post, 'Immigration Officials Getting it Wrong in Australia,' I pointed out that it would be far more humane, as well as more cost effective, if asylum seekers were to live in the community, rather than being detained, while their claims were processed. Today, finally, the government have announced that at least some of them will now be able to do so. An article in the Australian today read as follows: 


"Under a plan announced by the Prime Minister today, all asylum-seekers will be processed on Australian soil with community detention and bridging visas provided to those unable to be processed within the existing detention centre network." The Australian, 13/10/2011


This will not help the many asylum seekers who do fit in to the current detention facilities, which is a great shame and pity. However, it is certainly a huge step in the right direction and marks a divergence from the government and opposition's 'race to the bottom,' which has consisted to date of each party trying to outdo the other for sheer cruelty and abuse of human humanity's right to flee persecution. Let us hope it is the beginning of a broader rethinking of policy in this area. It is important that we all continue to pursue this issue in the spheres of public debate and to communicate some sense to the politicians. 

Four Corners Mistake

This evening, four corners referred to Taiwan as a province of China. This is obviously wrong and is offensive to the twenty something million people who call it their home and country. The reality is, Taiwan has not been part of China at any time under its currant regime and that before the present period of independent governance it was occupied by the Japanese and before that by several other foreign powers.

Taiwan has its own elections, it's own head of state, it's own system of taxes and welfare, services, decision making processes, legal system and a world class health care system that is an example to other countries such as Australia where we still haven't included dentistry in national health cover.

In order to correct this mistake on the part of what is otherwise a quality currant affairs program, I intend to write to Media Watch. I hope they discuss the issue publicly. I'll be sure to keep you all posted if they do.

中华民国一百年 *English

Today, many Taiwanese and non Taiwanese and somewhere in between people around the world are celebrating the centenary of the founding of 中华民国 (the republic of China), which is now the official title of Taiwan. There are complexities about this which continue to be debated. Arguably Taiwan was separate from China since about 1680. However, what is clear is that the events of 100 years ago were highly significant in the forming of the amazing and unique country that we know as Taiwan today. 

Being from Australia, it's hard to see why there is so much controversy. Australia is just as new and few Australians look to their British ancestors (many of us don't even have British ancestors) in assessing our identity. We find it extremely hard to relate, I think, even to images and voices of the Australia of the 1950s. People change quickly. Language and culture change, perhaps even more quickly. Clinging to past associations, can bring only suffering.

Somehow I have to reconcile two contradictory urges. On the one hand, I hate nationalism and all it stands for. There is no satisfactory distinction between racism and nationalism, because no universally applicable definition of race exists that can stand independently of either culture or nationality and the phrases 'we are better' and 'they are inferior' ultimately convey exactly the same meaning. 

  On the other hand, I do love Taiwan. When I'm there I feel nothing by joy most of the time and when I meet Taiwanese people, wherever I am in the world, I feel drawn to them as if to my own family. 

  I wish nations didn't exist, I really do. They can't last forever and of course there will be a new world order in the future and probably sooner than we think. Will it be any better? It would be hard to do much worse and the programs of regional cooperation such as the EU are a good start, despite the complexities they involve. However, right now, in the context of how the world is, Taiwan is a bastion of inspiration, creativity, culture, friendship and education in a world where all these things are lacking. 

If new nations like Australia and East Timor can be internationally recognized, then surely Taiwan must also. Most nations are cowardly and two faced, treating Taiwan as a nation state, placing embassies and recognizing its passports while calling it part of China whenever the all powerful PRC happen to be watching. Citizens of the world need to make it clear to their governments that this kind of dishonesty and cowardice is unacceptable. Therefore, I hope that people will make a point by displaying Taiwan's national flag (you can copy and paste the one below) and making this an issue for public debate. 

Sk8er Boy Steals Stapler from Library, then Returns It

A young man with a skateboard surreptitiously pocketed a large stapler which was available for public use at a Victoria University library in Melbourne today. The incident was witnessed by another library patron and reported. However, when the man was apprehended leaving the premises, he claimed that he had left the stapler on a desk on his circuitous way to the door. His claim was verified, when he showed library employees where he had left it and he was allowed to walk free. It has been speculated that perhaps his girlfriend may have told him to stop being stupid and return it.

Asylum Seeker Detention Unlawful and Extreme - Conversation.

Earlier I shared a link to this article on Facebook. I commented that though I have very little respect for Sky News I was glad to see someone making this point.

A response from another friend prompted me to clarify a few points. The conversation went as follows:

Me: "Hate sky news, but yes, it is certainly an extremist act to lock people up indefinitely when they have committed no crime and haven't even been given a trial."

Friend: "Do we really want those people on our roads though? If yes, you know they will keep coming."

Me: "Roads? That seems like a very strange thing to say. There have never been enough asylum seekers to make any noticeable difference to traffic congestion and wouldn't be even if their numbers doubled or tripled. Anyway, since government policy is to try to increase the population with things like the baby bonus, any extra people, especially ones who have already grown up and gained skills and life experience, should be welcomed. I'm not all that pro population, but surely giving homes to asylum seekers should be a higher priority than having more babies born here."


Friend: "I disagree with you. Bear in mind that tax payers money will go to them, and they won't have the education needed to adapt in Australian culture. before they are released, and are allowed to live within us, the government must create some sort of education system, and ensure they find a job when they are released. we simply cannot release people in a new country. It's like releasing an animal in the wild, whre they'll have to find their own prey to survive, they'll grab the first one and think that's only there is. we have to educate them on what is prey and what is not. I have got my permanent residency in Australia the hard way, and so should they. if the requirements to come to Australia is an academic transcript, it must be followed."

Me:  "There are some things you need to consider here: 1. They have a legal right to seek asylum and to have it granted if they have genuinely fled from danger. This is international law and Australia must either adhere to it or give up it's international reputation, if it has not done so already. Australia, as a country, is committing a crime by imprisoning people illegally. It's an infringement of the universal bill of human rights and of Australia's constitution. 2. There are many ways and reasons to come to Australia and academic transcripts are just one of many criteria. 3. Migrants with or without transcripts have been shown historically to be of net benefit to the economy. Many unskilled immigrants set up small businesses and others perform jobs for which labor otherwise has to be imported in the form of temporary workers from Asia because locals won't do it. Such work includes fruit picking and work in food preparation for factories that supply supermarkets. 4. The cost of detaining these people while their claims are assessed is about four times as much as it would cost to allow them to live in society and pay them social security money.

I agree that there need to be proper educational resources made available. Our primary and secondary schools can be pretty hopeless and because refugees are often allocated to a school level based on age rather than ability, it is often difficult or impossible for those who arrive as teenagers to progress through the most direct channels to university. There are other ways, but of course that needs improving. Also, two terms of specialized ESL schooling, which is what is offered with a refugee visa now is obviously insufficient. Australia has a duty of care to these people and it is in the national interest to provide better education and integration services, both because it will help the economy by enhancing skills while reducing dependance on welfare and because it demonstrates a requisite level of respect for people's livelihoods upon which the country's reputation depends.

Anyway, there is not necessarily any need to increase refugee intake in order to make the system more humane. Simply providing social security and a place to live in the community would be far less costly than detention. Once claims are processed, people who are found to be genuine refugees are currently allocated to any of the refugee intake countries, not necessarily Australia, based on their intake quotas. The only differences would be a. a reduced cost to the tax payer and b. freedom for the asylum seekers during the processing of their claims."

Other friend: "The solution's remarkably simple, really - massively increase the resources devoted to processing the claims, and pay for it by not having to pay for such lengthy detention. The only arguments I'm aware of against this plan are purely political.

The main rhetoric I hear from the other side is along the lines of "we shouldn't make ourselves a soft target", and it's only just occurred to me to think that through properly. If we actually care about our legal obligations (or, y'know, human rights and welfare), we should want to be a very soft target indeed for genuine refugees. We don't necessarily want to be a "soft target" for those we don't judge to be genuine refugees, but it's utterly barbaric to achieve this deterrence by punishing all asylum seekers (or even any asylum seekers). As a modern democracy, what we should do with false claimants for refugee status is to process their claims quickly and thoroughly, and then promptly kick them out.

*****, Australia is fundamentally an immigrant nation - we've had wave after wave of immigrants more than twice as long as we've actually had a nation, and technically we're all immigrants anyway. I've heard quite a bit of rhetoric about the newest batches of immigrants, but I've not yet heard a substantial argument for why this particular episode is in any meaningful way worse or more dangerous than any other. The numbers are trivial in context of our existing population - we've dealt with much more significant waves in the past - and in stating your argument you're making some fairly serious claims without actually providing any evidence.

As ***** notes, overall population is a separate question. I also have grave reservations about overpopulation here, but the "boat people" we're talking about here are utterly insignificant to that debate. The vast majority of refugees come by plane anyway, and the vast majority of illegal residents are people (especially students) overstaying their visas. The public panic about "boat people" overrunning the country has no basis in fact."

Me: "I'm afraid that solution just makes too much sense to ever happen." 

Hope this clears up a few popular misconceptions.  

Dog show

Was at the Melbourne Show the other day and among various forms of entertainment, saw a dog show. As a collie dog owner, I couldn't help but feel thrilled by the beauty of the rough collie dogs on display. Their long coats flowed in the breeze and they bounded about their exhibitors heals with apparent enthusiasm.

Though these dogs looked happy and many of their owners appeared to love them, I was still reminded of some of the problems with dog showing. Though many breeders are now no doubt aware of and trying to avoid inbreeding, it remains a major problem world wide. Over the past few years there have been reports on the ABC and BBC, like this one and this one respectively.

Alarmingly, the response by some was to suggest that journalists should somehow remain neutral with regard to the practice. According to this US article, for example, Caroline Kisko, who represents the Kennel Club, complained that the BBC's coverage was "Highly biased against us." This seems to be a standard argument used by anyone who has been criticised by journalists but has nothing valid to say in their defense. Of course, 'USA Today' simply go ahead and repeat that kind of drivel without very much context. 

Last year, the controversy led to this inquiry which was funded by UK based dog breeding organisations but was, perhaps ironically, highly critical of current practices. This month, a vet spoke publicly on the issue, raising similar concerns in the Australian context.

Despite the problems that continue to arise and the pain and suffering brought upon dogs born with genetic defects, some dog breeding organisations still apparently consider intentional inbreeding to be a valid practice. This advice website for breeders, for example, appears to advocate a certain amount of inbreeding, or at least fails to denounce it. Though it does point out some of the risks, the conclusion still appears to sit on the fence: "On the other hand, excessive inbreeding can limit the gene pool so that the breed loses vigor..." it reads at one point. 


My own collie, a beloved pet who does not appear to have any interest in winning ribbons for his beauty, inherited collie eye anomaly. His eyes appear very small. He can still see, though not very well. The eye specialist we consulted says he has a significant chance of retinal detachment occurring at some stage during his life, which could lead to blindness. Because we will look after him and, being a dog, his other senses are highly developed, his quality of life will still be good. However, there is no reason why a breed like collies should continue to have problems like that when vets and scientists are aware and can predict and prevent them. I love collies as a breed. They are intelligent, loyal and very gentle with other pets. For that to remain the case, their genetic diversity needs always to be given priority over the 'fixing' of any of their traits. 

Babies in prison

http://www.theage.com.au/national/uncertain-future-awaits-babies-born-in-detention-20100602-wzrb.html

Can't believe parents and their babies are being locked up like criminals. Of course they should have the right to live in normal accommodation and be cared for by the community.

Glad to see a reasonable article like this in The Age. The other papers have been publishing absolute rubbish on this issue, playing to fears based on some kind of mass ignorance with which they form some kind of festering symbiosis. Reading the Australian or the Herald Sun you'd get the impression that asylum seekers are not human beings and are not acting within their rights, which of course isn't the case. Everyone has the right to flee from war and persecution. Everyone has the right to a life 'befitting of human dignity' (to borrow a phrase from Ikeda).

Fire in the library

This Monday a small fire was started at a Victoria University library when someone thought it would be fun to ignite the paper hand towel in toilet. Fortunately another library patron was able to smother the blaze, minimising damage.

Storm in Melbourne

Nice drive to work. Glad I left the motorbike at home. Hope everyone is remembering to look out for people who are on bikes though. Racing through puddles and dousing them with muddy water is bad manners.